Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
Stress at the Workplace and Its Impacts on Productivity: A Systematic Review from Industrial Engineering, Management, and Medical Perspective
2022, Industrial Engineering & Management Systems
In every fast-paced surrounding, stress is present in every life aspect, including at the workplace. It is a deeply personal experience, with various stressors affecting every individual differently. This study assessed the past and present workplace stress-related information and analyzed its impact on productivity. It primarily concentrates on the field's philosophical principles, while providing a collection of directions for future study as well. This study was formed in the statement of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis). The impact of stress at the workplace on the employee's productivity was observed in the cohort and cross-sectional studies from the perspective of industrial engineering, management, and medicine. Four eligible studies were qualitatively assessed from 2,642 identified literature through four databases (Cochrane, Science Direct, Scielo, and PubMed) using keywords stress, impact, productivity, industrial engineering, management, and medicine. The study was convinced that stress at the workplace contributes to worsening relationships at home, worsening relationships between superiors and subordinates as well as contracting diseases. It has a potential negative impact on productivity. Furthermore, the work environment plays a significant contribution in inducing workplace stress because of human physiologic response. Noxious stress is detrimental to the human body, especially if maintained in the long run. Therefore, stress management is imperative before it is too late.
Related Papers
Ebenezer Ofosuhene
This review of the literature gives information about work stress, factors in the working environment that cause stressful situations and negative health consequences of the workplace stress. Stressors are pointed out in details that lead to stress at the workplace. Approaches to the stress are explained and most famous models of the stress are assessed critically in this review. This article highlights the work stress and its adverse effects on the physical and mental health of an employee. Finally, recommendations for future research are given and areas are highlighted where there is need of more empirical research.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health
Umesh Maiya
Stress is much in the news at present but it isn't a new problem. Pressure is part and parcel of all work and helps to keep us motivated. But excessive pressure can lead to stress which undermines performance, is costly to employers and can make people ill. Research reveals that many working days are lost to stress, depression and anxiety. Work-related stress costs a huge burden to the society. Stress takes many forms as well as leading to anxiety and depression it can have a significant impact on an employee's physical health. Research links stress to heart disease, back pain, headaches, gastrointestinal disturbances and alcohol and drug dependency. Individuals are more willing to admit that they are suffering from stress if they can expect to be dealt with sympathetically. In some cases good counseling may be all that is needed. This paper aims at studying the stressors that affects an individual at work, to examine the effects of stress and suitable measures which employe...
AAOHN Journal
Bonita Long
Michael Murray
Rex Journal
In today's age of automation, advanced technology & high competition, man has great dreams of a luxurious living & enjoys at the thought of experiencing it. It is a well-accepted fact that every human being is an individual with his own unique characteristics & ways of responding & behaving. These various ways of responding & behaving can be either positive or negative & these can make one's life a happy or a miserable one. These facts are true for every individual in every sphere of life. In today's fast moving world every individual strives hard to achieve their dreams & the best of luxurious living but faces stress in the process of doing so. The present study will bring to light the stress level, sources of stress & stress management strategies.
Littera Scripta
Andrea Bencsik
Erick Onsongo
Over the past few decades the stress had become a growing dilemma in organization and cause unfavorable effects on job performance. Stress is a universal element that affects employees worldwide. There are many barriers that affecting the employees in the workplace. Work stress often affects the employees in the workplace, where each employee will feel it at least once in their workplace. Work stress is a real life problem that not only affects the organization, but the employees mainly become victims of stress. stress become a familiar element in organization and nowadays the workplace become more complicated, which bring more negative impacts to the employees compared to positive impacts. Stress among workers is greater than before which also effect on the whole performance of the employees. Stress which occurred in workplace declared as harmful to physical and emotional responses that happen within a human being when the requirement of the job do not match the employees‟ capacity...
Norliyana Zakaria
The systematic review in this study is looking at the causes of stress in the workplace. The authors will identify the most leading causes of work-related stress, as well as their impacts on employees’ physical well-being, mental health and work performance. In addition, the stress factors arising from work environment or atmosphere, workplace relationships, organizational culture, career growth, role conflict, and work-life balance are highlighted. Finally, the authors discuss on several stress coping approaches, namely getting social support, attending stress coping or stress management programmes, upgrading work environment, and reforming organizational culture.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
RELATED PAPERS
Desmond Chuks
sameer kumar
Russell Williams
Human Resource Management International Digest
jolynn carr
Moira Cachia
Abdul Aidoo
IAR Journal of Business Management
Work (Reading, Mass.)
Samson Adaramola
Malaysian Business Management Journal
rizal nopriyanto
Rohit Lekhi
Journal ijmr.net.in(UGC Approved)
Economic Insights – Trends and Challenges
Babatunde Akanji
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Cary Cooper
Jurnal Optimasi Sistem Industri
Auditya Sutarto
Raluca Bucsa
Sanusi Jeremiah
Miguel Cancela
International Journal of …
Sheena Johnson
Scholars bulletin
Nitish Shrivastava
IAEME Publication
isara solutions
International Res Jour Managt Socio Human
Bradley CeasarJnr
International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education
Adiveppa Kadakol
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
Ann Williamson
Noreen Shahbaz
RELATED TOPICS
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
- Find new research papers in:
- Health Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Mathematics
- Computer Science
- Academia ©2024
The Impact of Leadership Styles on Employees Productivity in Organizations: A Comparative Study Among Leadership Styles
Productivity Management, volume 26, issue 1, p. 382 - 404
17 Pages Posted: 8 Jul 2021
Roy Setiawan
Universitas Kristen Petra
Luigi Pio Leonardo Cavaliere
Department of Economics, University of Foggia
Enaidy Reynosa Navarro
Institute of Research in Science and Technology, Universidad César Vallejo
Worakamol Wisetsri
Department of Manufacturing and Service Industry Management, Faculty of Business and Industrial Management, King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok
Puttithorn Jirayus
Graduate School, Southeast Asia University
Sapna Chauhan
Parul University
Almighty Cortezo Tabuena
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela; University of Perpetual Help System DALTA; Philippine Normal University; International Journal of Academic and Practical Research; National Research Council of the Philippines
Regin Rajan
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Adhiyamaan College of Engineering
Date Written: January 2021
Successful leaders are facilitators who specifically target skilled and committed workers. Studies in organizational psychology and the research on an organization's actions suggest that management styles and staff motivation are key factors of business performance or failure. This study aimed to study the influence of leadership on the performance of employers in the education ministry and higher education of Somaliland and to define four types, namely, autocratic, transformational, democratic and transactional leadership. This study analyzed the effects of leadership styles on employee efficiency. The final findings have shown that the autocratic leadership model has a detrimental effect on the department's efficiency, which is reflected in high absenteeism, poor morale, decline of job satisfaction, and rotation. The application of egalitarian, transformative and transactional leaders have a positive and important effect on the success of workers assessed by the high morale, efficiency, engagement, and dedication of the employees. The analysis aimed to explore the impact of leadership styles on employee achievement in the Somaliland Ministry of Education and Superior Studies and to define four major styles: autocratic, transformative, democratic and transactional management styles. Consequently, it is possible to assume that democratic, transactional and disruptive leadership has a positive connection to employee performance. In contrast, autocratic models often have a negative relation to employee results. It should also follow and further enhance its powerful aspects of practicing those features of democratic leadership that contribute positively to the company's success.
Keywords: autocratic, democratic, leadership, performance, transactional, transformational
JEL Classification: L23, M10, M11, M19
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Universitas Kristen Petra ( email )
Department of economics, university of foggia ( email ).
Largo Papa Giovanni Paolo Foggia, 71100 Italy
Institute of Research in Science and Technology, Universidad César Vallejo ( email )
Department of manufacturing and service industry management, faculty of business and industrial management, king mongkut's university of technology north bangkok ( email ).
1518 Pracharat 1 Road Wongsawang, Bangsue, Bangkok 10800 Thailand
Graduate School, Southeast Asia University ( email )
Thailand Thailand
Parul University ( email )
Vadodara India
Almighty Tabuena (Contact Author)
Pamantasan ng lungsod ng valenzuela ( email ).
Tongco Street Brgy. Maysan Valenzuela City Philippines
University of Perpetual Help System DALTA ( email )
Alabang- Zapote Road Pamplona 3 Las Piñas City Philippines
Philippine Normal University ( email )
Taft Avenue Manila Philippines
International Journal of Academic and Practical Research ( email )
Manila Philippines
National Research Council of the Philippines ( email )
Taguig Philippines
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Adhiyamaan College of Engineering ( email )
Hosur Tamil Nadu India
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Paper statistics, related ejournals, operations strategy ejournal.
Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic
Leadership & Organizational Behavior eJournal
The impact of healthy workplaces on employee satisfaction, productivity and costs
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
ISSN : 1463-001X
Article publication date: 25 November 2021
Issue publication date: 20 February 2023
This paper aims to explore the added value of healthy workplaces for employees and organizations, in particular regarding employee satisfaction, labour productivity and facility cost.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper is based on a narrative review of journal papers and other sources covering the fields of building research, corporate real estate management, facilities management, environmental psychology and ergonomics.
The review supports the assumption of positive impacts of appropriate building characteristics on health, satisfaction and productivity. Correlations between these impacts are still underexposed. Data on cost and economic benefits of healthy workplace characteristics is limited, and mainly regard reduced sickness absence. The discussed papers indicate that investing in healthy work environments is cost-effective.
Originality/value
The findings contribute to a better understanding of the complex relationships between physical characteristics of the environment and health, satisfaction, productivity and costs. These insights can be used to assess work environments on these topics, and to identify appropriate interventions in value-adding management of buildings and facilities.
- Productivity
- Satisfaction
- Added value
Voordt, T.v.d. and Jensen, P.A. (2023), "The impact of healthy workplaces on employee satisfaction, productivity and costs", Journal of Corporate Real Estate , Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 29-49. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-03-2021-0012
Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2021, Theo van der Voordt and Per Anker Jensen.
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
The WHO defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. As such, a healthy workplace can be defined as a workplace that contributes to the physical, mental and social well-being of its users. Health is the result of a complex interaction between the physiological, psychological, personal and organizational resources available to individuals and the stress placed upon them by their physical and social environment at work and home ( Clements-Croome, 2018 ). Well-being reflects one’s feelings about oneself in relation to the world, personal feelings about motivation, competence, aspirations and degree of personal control.
1.1 Impact of the physical environment on health and well-being
The past decades show a growing awareness of the impact of the physical environment on peoples’ health and well-being, both in academic research and in professional publications. This may be because of the shift from a one-sided focus on cost reduction to a more holistic and integrated value-based approach and an optimal balance between costs and benefits of interventions in buildings, facilities and services ( Jensen and Van der Voordt, 2017 ). Besides, people have become more aware of the impact of health and well-being on our quality of life and the risk of health complaints, illness or – in worst cases – burnout ( Appel-Meulenbroek et al. , 2020 ). The relationship between physical workplace characteristics and health and well-being has been explored by a variety of studies, using reviews of the literature ( Forooraghi et al. , 2020 ; Van der Voordt, 2021 ), surveys ( Cordero et al. , 2020 ), case studies ( Bauer, 2020 ) and conducting short-term experiments using mobile devices ( Nelson and Holzer, 2017 ).
It appears that in particular a poor indoor climate, noise and distraction have a negative impact on employees’ health and well-being, whereas appropriate opportunities to communicate and to concentrate and contact with nature contribute to a healthy workplace. In a survey of 2,000 office workers, occupants reported preferences for lots of natural light, access to outdoor spaces, contemplation spaces, support from colleagues and private as well as collaborative spaces, whereas the main irritants were noise in open-plan areas, lack of natural light, lack of colour, lack of greenery, lack of artwork, lack of fresh air, no personal control of temperature, lack of privacy, clutter and inflexible space ( British Council for Offices, 2018 ).
Another frequently assessed factor is office type. A literature review by Colenberg et al. (2020) on the relationship between interior office space (layout, furniture, light, greenery, controls and noise) and employees’ physical, psychological and social well-being showed that open-plan offices, shared rooms and higher background noise are negatively related to health. Positive relationships were found between physical well-being and aspects that encourage physical activity; between physical/psychological well-being and (day)light, individual control and real/artificial greenery; and between social well-being and small shared rooms.
Other influencing factors on health and well-being are important as well, such as the context (cultural, social, economic, political), personal characteristics (age, gender, lifestyle), organizational issues (leadership, personal support) and job characteristics (work load, (mis)fit between demands and resources). The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2014) warns for a disbalance between high job demands and available job resources. Too little time, too much work and tight deadlines are the most widely recognized risk factors, resulting in sleep disturbance, changes in mood, fatigue, headaches and stomach irritability.
1.2 Relationship between healthy workplaces and other values
Healthy workplaces that support employees’ health and well-being can be a goal in itself, but may also have intended or unintended effects on other values, such as employee satisfaction, productivity, costs, corporate image and risk. Vice versa, values such as sustainability may contribute to health and well-being. For instance, green buildings are supposed to be healthier than non-green buildings, because of its focus on the triple P of people, planet and profit. Interrelationships between healthy workplaces and other values are much less studied. This paper aims to reduce this gap in our knowledge, and to answer two research questions: What is the relationship between healthy workplaces and employee satisfaction, productivity and costs? And which evidence is available for these relationships?
These three values turned out to be most frequently prioritized in interviews with corporate real estate and facility managers ( Van der Voordt and Jensen, 2014 ). It is hypothesized that health, satisfaction and productivity go hand in hand. Furthermore, because of the high staff costs compared to facility costs, it is hypothesized that health-supportive interventions are cost-effective. Figure 1 visualizes the key topics of this paper in blue.
Because of a limited number of available publications, it was decided to select a number of leading journals in the field and to conduct a narrative review ( Green et al. , 2006 ; Ferrari, 2015 ). In our earlier review of environmental impact factors on healthy workplaces ( Jensen and Van der Voordt, 2020 ), we checked four facilities management and corporate real estate management oriented journals in a 10-year period, covering 2008–2017: Journal of Corporate Real Estate , Corporate Real Estate Journal , Facilities and the Journal of Facilities Management . For the current paper, we extended our search to the period 2018–2021 and to other journals, based on paper citations and journal titles. We also screened the last six volumes of Applied Ergonomics , Building and Environment , Building Research and Information , Environment and Behavior , Ergonomics , Intelligent Buildings International and Journal of Environmental Psychology on the keywords workplace, health, well-being, satisfaction, productivity and cost.
All papers from the screened journals that discuss health in connection to workplace characteristics and satisfaction, productivity and/or cost were included in this review. This has resulted in a selection of 45 papers on health and satisfaction and/or productivity. Because very few scientific papers related to facility cost were found, we have included relevant industry reports and other publications. Papers that discuss the relationship between the physical environment and either health, satisfaction, productivity or cost, without discussing any interrelationships between these variables, have been excluded.
3. Findings on the added value of healthy workplaces
3.1 employee satisfaction.
Table 1 summarizes the research topics, methods and findings of eight papers that discuss relationships between physical characteristics of the built environment, health and satisfaction, ranked by year and per year in alphabetical order of the first author. Five out of eight studies investigate the impact of office type and workspaces. The other studies focus on environmental conditions, sense of coherence or green buildings. The findings show positive but also contradictory connections between office type; health and well-being; and employee satisfaction. Open-plan seems to have a negative impact, which can be partly compensated by improved environmental conditions. High density and poor acoustics affect health and satisfaction in a negative way. The green building study showed mixed results. Personal characteristics make a difference as well. Employees with high need for concentration report more distraction in all office types, except in cell, and more cognitive stress in all office types except cell and flex-offices. People suffering from claustrophobia perceive stronger effects.
3.2 Labour productivity
The findings on relationships between health and well-being and labour productivity are summarized in Table 2 . Four studies focus on office type and workplace concept (open-plan, work pattern–office type fit, high-performance hub, variety of workplaces). Five studies investigated the impact of indoor air quality (IAQ) and related issues such as thermal comfort and look-and-feel. Four studies focus on sit-stand/adjustable workstations. The other studies show a variety of research topics, i.e. the influence of a healing office design concept, wind-inducing motion of tall buildings, green buildings, workplace safety, biophilia, plants and time spent in the office. The findings show significant positive but also mixed impacts of IAQ, “green” buildings and sit–stand work on both health and productivity. Health and productivity are usually discussed separately; correlations between health and productivity were only explored in two studies. Interrelationships are affected by job demands and job stress
3.3 Satisfaction and productivity
Table 3 summarizes the findings from 17 studies on health and well-being and both satisfaction and productivity. Independent variables include office types, non-territorial workspaces, proximity, impact of break out areas, storage space, adopting the WELL criteria, indoor environmental quality (IEQ), shading conditions, sit–stand workstations and plants. Here, too, health, satisfaction and productivity are mainly discussed separately and less regarding possible correlations. In general, activity-based workplaces are perceived to have a positive impact on satisfaction, partly because of better technical qualities regarding IEQ. Searching for a workplace needs time and reduces productivity. Personal control, easiness of interaction and communication, availability of break out areas, windows, sit–stand workstations, comfort of furnishing, attractive IEQ, modern shading systems and applying to the WELL standard show to have a positive impact on both health and satisfaction, whereas distraction and lack of privacy are important predictors of productivity loss.
All presented studies on health in connection to satisfaction and/or productivity originate from Europe, USA, Australia and New Zealand.
3.4 Applied research methods to study health and satisfaction and/or productivity
The discussed papers on health and satisfaction and/or productivity show a variety of research designs and research methods ( Table 4 ). Ten studies conducted a before–after study; four studies used an experiment in a lab setting. About 80% of the presented studies used a questionnaire survey, some of them as part of a mixed-methods approach with interviews and observations, identifying healthy or unhealthy office design qualities, scores on the WELL standard and data about toxic substances in the air. Measuring physical conditions such as the heart rate or skin temperature is rather rare.
3.5 Financial costs and benefits
Clements-Croome (2018) mentions a return on investment of €5.7 for every euro invested in well-being. However, not much quantitative data was found about the financial impact of changing the spatial layout, supporting new ways of working, providing more contact with nature or the introduction of sit–stand desks. This may be because of the difficulties to quantify the results of healthy workplaces. Various papers discuss the monetary costs and benefits of health-promoting programs such as stop-smoking programs or providing sports facilities and healthier nutrition. However, these topics are not related to physical characteristics of workplaces and are beyond the scope of this paper. Table 5 summarizes the findings from 11 publications. Different research methods are used, such as literature reviews, surveys and analysis of sickness absence data (8 out of 11 studies) and costs. Some studies focus on the impact of stress, without clear links to physical characteristics. Not all project data on financial costs and benefits has been tested scientifically on reliability and validity.
4. Discussion and conclusions
The discussed studies show a huge variety in environmental characteristics that influence health and well-being, employee satisfaction and labour productivity, such as office type, proximity, density, IEQ of IAQ, furniture (ergonomics, sit–stand desks), plants and personal control. Some studies focus on specific building types such as certified green buildings, WELL-certified buildings and tall wind-excited building, specific building components such as shading systems or specific interior elements such as sit–stand desks and furniture comfort. Research methods range from questionnaire surveys to before–after studies and laboratory experiments. Measuring physical conditions such as heart rates and skin temperature is still underexposed. Remarkably, most discussed papers present findings on health and satisfaction and/or productivity without discussing correlations between health, satisfaction and productivity.
The reviewed studies indicate positive but also mixed and contradictory effects of healthy workplaces on satisfaction and productivity. Overall, a healthy IAQ, opportunities for communication, concentration and privacy, availability of break-out rooms, an attractive look-and-feel, ergonomic furniture, contact with nature and plants go hand-in-hand with higher employee satisfaction and perceived productivity. Large open-plan offices and centrally controlled air condition show a negative effect on health, satisfaction and productivity. There is some evidence that workplaces in green buildings are healthier than workplaces in conventional buildings. Adjustable workstations with sit–stand desks show to have beneficial effects for comfort and labour productivity. Practitioners should take these findings into account in their design and management activities.
What constitutes a healthy workplace is much dependent on the workstyles and the preferences of the users. The degree to which the workplace has impact on satisfaction is in particular dependent on user preferences in relation to privacy versus social contact. The impact on productivity is in particular dependent on the specific workstyle and how well the workplace supports the work activities. Involving the users in the planning process and change management during implementation is crucial.
Scientific research on monetary cost and benefits of healthy workplaces is limited. Overall, the data indicate a positive impact of healthy workplaces on the reduction of sickness absence.
Because of the impact of many interrelated variables, it is difficult to trace cause–effect relationships between characteristics of healthy work environments and support of other value dimensions. Usually, various interventions are conducted simultaneously. Furthermore, employees’ health not only depends on what the workplace does to employees, but also on what workers bring with them to the workplace.
The mixed findings make it hard to provide a sound business case for physical interventions to improve health and well-being. On the one hand, taking care of healthy work environments is a matter of moral responsibility and has in general a positive effect on employee satisfaction and labour productivity and on society as a whole. These advantages have to be balanced with the costs of interventions to provide more healthy environments. An obstacle for a more integrated, holistic business case may be that the cost of interventions and its resulting output and outcomes are not always easy to measure in a quantitative way. Another difficulty is that some outcomes might be experienced in the short term and perhaps only temporarily, while others might be sustained, reduced or only experienced in the long term. One solution is to base business cases not only on quantitative data but to take into account well-argued qualitative considerations as well. As such, we plea for a so-called value based business case or “value case”.
4.1 Suggestions for further research
Additional research is needed to get a deeper, holistic and evidence-based knowledge of the added value of healthy workplaces and interrelationships between health, satisfaction and productivity and financial impacts that integrate different research topics and research methods. A next step can be to use the research findings as input to follow-up transdisciplinary research by academics from different fields, including corporate real estate management, facilities management, human resource management, environmental psychology and work and organizational psychology. Reflections on data by an interdisciplinary team and experimenting with particular interventions may be helpful as well.
Other topics for future research are extension of this literature review with papers from other journals and databases such as Scopus and PubMed, and to conduct additional empirical research with before–after studies of particular interventions and data-collecting techniques such as workshops, group interviews, pilot projects and self-measurement of health and health-supportive behaviour, e.g. by using wearables and apps. Cost studies should not only focus on data analysis of sickness absence, but extend their scope to self-reported health risks and health conditions, to get a better understanding of what drives health costs and lost productivity ( Jinnett et al. , 2017 ). Besides, more studies are needed into the costs of particular interventions and return on investment.
A particular topic for further research is the use and experience of offices in the post Covid-19 period. Increased “infection risk mitigation” will affect the presence in the office, number of people per m 2 , need for fresh air access, etc. The Covid-19 crisis has resulted in a drastic increase in home working and this experience is likely to have profound implications for office work in the future.
Key topics of this paper
Health and well-being and satisfaction (eight studies)
| Study | Methodology | Research topics | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Questionnaire survey; 469 employees in seven offices from 26 companies in Sweden | Impact of office types on health, well-being and job satisfaction | Highest health status among employees in cell- and flex-offices; lowest health status in medium-sized and small open-plan offices. Highest job satisfaction in cell, flex and shared offices; lowest job satisfaction in combi-offices, followed by medium-sized open-plan | |
| (2014) | Questionnaire survey; 1,241 respondents from five organizations in Sweden in six office types | Interaction between the need for concentration, distraction, cognitive stress, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, personal efficiency and general health | No significant differences in the outcome variables between different types of open-plan. Employees with high need for concentration reported more distraction in all office types, except in cell, and more cognitive stress in all office types except cell and flex-offices |
| (2016) | Questionnaire survey in two buildings; 207 office employees in a company in Germany. The older building had small-sized offices with 1–4 employees, and the new building had open-plan | Impact of office space occupation psychosocial work characteristics, and environmental satisfaction on physical and mental health | Effect of office space occupation on employee health was mediated by stressors and environmental satisfaction. More persons per enclosed office space was associated with adverse health effects. Increasing acoustic disturbances and feelings of loss of autonomy and discretion had a negative impact on health |
| (2019) | Questionnaire surveys before and after a relocation of a municipality in the Netherlands from enclosed office spaces to a new building with open-plan, a strong focus on sustainability and natural ventilation | Impact of environmental conditions in the workplace on health and job satisfaction | Significant improvement in the perceived environmental conditions and health of the relocated workers and a drop in sick building syndrome (SBS) The largest environmental improvements concerned the perceived air quality |
| (2020) | Questionnaire survey; 195 respondents, including 121 working underground and 74 working above-ground in Singapore | Relationship between mental health, fatigue and satisfaction with workspaces and transitional spaces such as corridors | Lower perceived confinement in transitional spaces was associated with better mental health and lower workload fatigue. Underground workers reported lower levels of physical and emotional fatigue. Among the participants working in above-ground offices, effects were stronger for those with higher levels of claustrophobia |
| (2020) | Questionnaire surveys and focus group interviews before relocation from traditional office and after the implementation of activity-based workplaces (ABW) in Sweden | Relationship between indicators of sense of coherence (SOC) – meaningfulness, manageability and comprehensibility – and health, well-being and work satisfaction | Reduced work satisfaction, unchanged health and well-being. The reduction in satisfaction was smaller among employees with high meaningfulness in the relocation process. All SOC indicators were positively associated with overall health, well-being and satisfaction |
| (2021) | Repeated surveys in an organization with 120 employees before and after moving to a new certified green building (GB) | Effects on occupant perception of indoor environmental quality (IEQ, i.e. ventilation, thermal comfort, lighting and daylighting, noise, acoustics) on thermal comfort and prevalence of SBS | Significant differences in thermal conditions enhanced occupant thermal comfort in the GB. Odour, mental concentration and glare were perceived to be poor in the GB and associated with an increase in the prevalence of SBS symptoms |
| (2021) | Surveys of up to 247 employees before and 2 and 12 months after a relocation to a new headquarters of a large company in Austria | Distractions after moving to an activity-based flexible office | Moving to the flex office had negative effects on distraction, work engagement, job satisfaction and fatigue. The negative effects of distraction were more pronounced in situations of increased time pressure and unpredictability |
Health and well-being and labour productivity (20 studies)
| Study | Methodology | Research topics | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Literature review | Impact of sit–stand workstations (SSW) on worker discomfort and productivity | SSW are likely effective in reducing perceived discomfort. Eight of the identified 14 studies reported a productivity outcome; three reported an increase in productivity during sit–stand work, four reported no impact on productivity, one reported mixed results | |
| (2016) | Literature review | Impact of IEQ, biophilia, views, look and feel (including colour), location and amenities on occupant productivity | Thermal comfort, IAQ, office layout, noise and acoustics were found to be highly significant in affecting occupant productivity. Occupant comfort directly relates to the physical factors of the indoor environment |
| Longitudinal study with questionnaire surveys; 114 participants from 66 different buildings completing 2,261 surveys across a period of eight months | Effects of inadequate IEQ on work performance and well-being in wind-excited tall buildings in New Zealand | Environmental stress not only reduces the cognitive capacity for work, but also the rate of work. Improving IEQ is likely to produce small but pervasive increases in productivity | |
| (2017) | Questionnaire surveys; 16,926 employees from 314 companies in the USA | Impact of workplace safety, employee health and job demands on productivity, measured by absenteeism and presenteeism in the past four weeks, in a worksite wellness program | Poor workplace safety and employees’ chronic health conditions contributed to absenteeism and job performance The impact was influenced by the physical and cognitive difficulty of the job |
| Literature review, including own research, simulation studies and surveys | Impact of wind-induced motion of tall buildings (“sopite syndrome”) on productivity loss and well-being | Sickness and productivity loss because of wind-induced building motion are highly variable, depending on the local weather climate, but are likely to be significant in the long term and can go up to 30% reduction in work performance | |
| (2017) | Cognitive tests of higher order decision-making performance; 109 participants working in 10 office buildings in the USA. Six building had been renovated and obtained LEED certification; four buildings had no green certification | Impact of working in a green-certified building on cognitive function and health. IEQ parameters were monitored during the tests | Participants in green-certified buildings scored 26% higher on cognitive function tests and had 30% fewer sick building symptoms than those in non-certified buildings. This could partially be explained by IEQ parameters, but the findings indicate that the benefits of green certification go beyond measurable IEQ factors |
| (2018) | Self-administered questionnaires, and response to repeated micro-polling over one year, in an office building in the USA, with workers having adjustable workstations (AWS) and a control group without AWS | Health impact of adjustable workstations (AWS) | 47% of participants with AWS reported decline in upper back, shoulder and neck discomfort; 88% of AWS participants reported convenience to use, 65% reported increased productivity: 65% reported positive impact outside the workplace |
| (2019) | Literature review | Effect of sit–stand desks (SSDs) on office workers’ behavioural, physical, psychological and health outcomes, work performance, discomfort and posture | SSDs effectively change behaviours, but these changes only mildly affect health outcomes. SSDs seem most effective for discomfort and least for productivity |
| (2019) | Literature review | Well-being and productivity | Well-being showed to be linked to higher levels of labour productivity. Productivity growth may also have detrimental effects on well-being |
| Literature review | Impact of IAQ on health and productivity | Doubling the outdoor air supply rate can reduce illness and sick leave prevalence by roughly 10% and increase the productivity of office work by roughly 1.5% | |
| Before/after study of the adoption of the Healing Offices design concept (ten qualities), based on observations, ten interviews and a survey (N = 92, N = 120) | Impact of a Healing Office on perceived health, engagement, comfort and productivity | Increased objective quality of the work environment regarding sustainability, diversity, nature and the possibilities to move and relax. Increased subjective experience regarding feelings of inspiration, comfort and energy, more physical activity and personal contact, increased teamwork and productivity | |
| (2020) | Survey; 40 occupants in a modern office building with two potted plants per person introduced into individual offices, and eight in break-out spaces | Perceived health, well-being and performance | Plants in offices had significantly positive effects on occupants’ perceived attention, creativity, satisfaction and productivity; plants’ removal elicited significantly negative effects in perceived attention, productivity, stress and efficiency. Planting had no significant effect on perceived health, tiredness, motivation or well-being |
| (2020) | Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) over 12 months in an office with 40 occupants in Quatar using sensors to measure environmental quality as well as online survey every fortnight | Effects of IEQ on thermal comfort and occupant productivity and establishing mathematical relationships | Nine IEQ parameters were ranked according to the degree of effect on occupant thermal comfort and productivity. Temperature had the highest and relative humidity the second highest effect |
| (2020) | Experimental study with 18 office workers in a closed chamber simulating an ordinary office and different combination of illumination levels and colour temperatures | Effects of illuminance and colour temperature on light comfort and work efficiency | Improving the illumination of the work environment helps to improve the light comfort. Reading efficiency is generally improved using a neutral colour temperature. The physiological evaluation indicated that illumination significantly affects the response of the visual centre |
| Test of 50 employees in a Workplace Performance Hub (WPH) and 20 employees in a control group, across a six-month period | Impact of greater variety in workplaces, circadian lighting and biophilia on employee health, well-being and performance | WPH participants experienced an increase in cognitive performance and a reduction in stress. They were more active and had a lower resting heart rate and saw a rise of 17% in innovation cycles during their stay | |
| Longitudinal study with surveys covering 101 respondents and 24 interviews in an Australian law firm six month after moving to an open-plan office with follow-up 14 months later | Impact of open-plan office on performance, well-being and collegial relationships | Positive outcomes relating to aesthetics, collegiality and communication were achieved through good technical design and thoughtful ergonomic assessment of the needs of employees and the requirements of their tasks | |
| (2020) | Questionnaire and diary study; 83 office workers ( = 603 time points) regarding work patterns, identified by using cluster analysis with Neufert’s office-type classification | Well-being and performance | Work pattern–office type (mis)fit moderates the relationship between well-being and performance. The “fit” group shows four out of six positive associations; the “misfit” group shows only one out of six positive associations |
| Literature review | Dry eye symptoms and work performance in offices | Dry eyes are among the most reported acute health symptoms in modern offices Perceived dry air in the work environment negatively affects work performance | |
| Experimental study in the USA, where 36 participants performed a 60-min computer typing task in two sit–stand workstation configurations | Comparison of musculoskeletal discomfort, productivity, postural risks and perceived fatigue for a sit–stand–walk intervention between two workstation configurations | Musculoskeletal discomfort and perceived fatigue did not vary significantly between configurations. Postural risks for seated and standing work were significantly lower for a customized configuration, while productivity was significantly higher for a self-adjusted configuration | |
| (2021) | Statistical analysis of a dataset with responses from 5,149 workers in 68 commercial and institutional buildings across the globe, collected over 15 years | Impact of time spent in the office building and at workstations on the relationship between IEQ and workers’ productivity, comfort and health | Those who spent less time at work were less influenced by IEQ factors. Noise and air quality were predominant in predicting how those who spent more time at work felt about their productivity, comfort and health. The time spent in the office had a greater influence on the relationship between IEQ and workers’ comfort than on their productivity and health |
Health and well-being, satisfaction and labour productivity (17 studies)
| Study | Methodology | Research topics | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2016) | Surveys covering 5,171 respondents in 30 buildings in Australia | Impact of workspace layout on satisfaction, perceived comfort, health and productivity | Respondents in ABW had the highest degree of satisfaction in terms of overall work area comfort and building satisfaction. Respondents in cell-offices had the highest degree of satisfaction in relation to privacy |
| (2016) | Reduced dataset of (2016); 3,974 respondents in 20 buildings | Effect of non-territorial working versus working in open-plan offices with assigned workplaces and ABW with desk-sharing on health, satisfaction and productivity | Office layout allowing easiness of interaction with colleagues, the ability to adjust/personalize workspace, and the amount of storage space showed to be more important than desk ownership. The comfort of furnishing was identified as the strongest predictor of self-assessed health for shared-desk users |
| (2018a) | Questionnaire surveys in two offices in Sweden before and after relocations from private to open-plan | Impact of quiet spaces in open-plan offices on stress symptoms | Perceived distractions increased in both organizations after the relocation. Negative effects on environmental satisfaction, perceived collaboration and stress only emerged in the open-plan, where the number of quiet rooms was low |
| (2018b) | Questionnaire survey with 239 respondents a year after implementation of ABW in four offices in Sweden | Relationships between environmental perceptions and workspace use and self-rated productivity and well-being at work | Satisfaction with the physical environment, privacy and communication had the strongest positive associations with productivity and well-being at work. Increased workspace switching was associated with higher productivity. An increase in time spent searching for a workspace was associated with lower productivity and well-being |
| (2019) | Questionnaire surveys, spot measurements of IEQ and step-count monitoring in 10 offices before and after relocations from contemporary open-plan to ABW | Satisfaction, productivity and health | ABW had significantly higher satisfaction results on key IEQ dimensions, perceived productivity and health |
| (2019) | Survey data from 25,947 respondents and 191 organizations in the Netherlands Comparison with findings from a similar study 10 years ago | Relationship between satisfaction with buildings, facilities and services and perceived productivity support. Absence of health complaints was one aspect of productivity support | 38% of the variation of office employees’ satisfaction with support of productivity could be explained by employee satisfaction with facilities, the organization, current work processes and personal- and job-related characteristics Opportunities to concentrate and to communicate, privacy, level of openness and functionality, comfort and diversity of the workplaces are very important |
| (2019) | Literature review | Impact of ABW on health, work performance and perceptions | ABW has positive merits in the areas of interaction, communication, control of time and space and satisfaction with the workspace, but it is unfavourable for concentration and privacy |
| Pilot with 15 employees in an open-plan office in the UK to test the effectiveness of an experience sampling approach for measuring employee satisfaction | Impact of environmental comfort on momentary well-being and productivity | The study partially supported a hypothesis that higher levels of environmental comfort are associated with higher levels of well-being and productivity. Distractions had the strongest negative impact on the outcomes | |
| (2019) | Living lab study in the USA, where ten participants worked 14 weeks under three different shading conditions: blackout shade (baseline); manually controlled motorized mesh shades; and windows with automatic, dynamic tinting | Effect of different shading systems on cognitive performance, satisfaction and eyestrain | Eyestrain symptoms were reduced and satisfaction and performance were improved with modern shading systems. There were no statistical differences between the two modern conditions |
| (2020) | Survey among 406 employees, working in differing office configurations | Impact of physical proximity and breakout areas on ease of communication, job satisfaction and well-being | Limited influence of proximity. Access to breakout areas was strongly related to ease of communication, higher job satisfaction and well-being |
| Laboratory test with = 180 | Impact of IEQ factors (tangible vs intangible) on workplace satisfaction, health and productivity | Workplace satisfaction, health and productivity are more strongly affected by intangible factors than by tangible ones. Impaired privacy leads to SBS symptoms and less creativity. Personality traits correlate differently with ergonomics and privacy | |
| (2020) | Laboratory experiment in the USA with 86 participants, in spaces with and without windows in office-like test rooms, including subjective evaluations, skin temperature measurements and cognitive performance tests | Assessment of the influence of having a window with a view on thermal and emotional responses as well as on cognitive performance | Participants felt more comfortable with windows in the situation with a slightly warm condition. Positive emotions increased while negative emotions decreased with windows. Working-memory and concentration improved in a space with windows |
| (2020) | Questionnaire surveys before and after relocation of a company in France with various office types, mostly open-plan and flex | Relationship between stress and workspace attachment, user satisfaction and productivity | After the relocation, the employees experienced greater job stress and less workspace satisfaction and felt less attached to their workspaces. The perceptions of workspace support to labour productivity did not change |
| (2020) | Experimental study in a laboratory with student participants, followed by longitudinal studies with surveys in two call-centres in South Africa | Impact of indoor plants on performance and well-being | In the laboratory study, the condition with indoor plants performed statistically better on three measures of work performance. These positive outcomes could not be replicated in two field studies using various proxy measures of performance and well-being |
| (2021) | Questionnaire surveys with 1,121 respondents from nine offices in Australia, divided into four with open-plan and five with ABW. All buildings held a Green Building certification; two of them also held a WELL certification | Satisfaction, productivity and health Comparison with benchmarks from a research database ( , 2016) | The buildings with WELL certification achieved the highest scores for overall satisfaction, workability, perceived productivity and health Offices with ABW had the highest scores on spatial comfort, thermal comfort, noise and privacy, personal control, comfort of furnishing, adjustability of the work area and space to collaborate |
| Online survey among employees in three companies in Switzerland before and after relocation to new office buildings | Occupant satisfaction, productivity and health during a transition to WELL-certified buildings | Significant increase in satisfaction in two out of three WELL buildings. The positive effect was evident for building cleanliness and furniture. WELL buildings usually did not attain the 80% standard satisfaction threshold. SBS symptoms and productivity scores revealed no significant differences, except that symptom of tiredness was lower in WELL buildings | |
| (2021) | Mix-method study, including an online survey with 216 respondents from 150 organizations across 18 sectors as well as 17 interviews in Australia | Current use and practices to support the implementation of sit–stand workstations (SSWs) | 40% of organizations provided SSWs on request, whereas 41% reported not using them appropriately. SSWs were perceived effective in reducing discomforts and increasing employees’ satisfaction and productivity |
Applied research methods in the presented studies
| Satisfaction (8) | Productivity (20) | Satisfaction + productivity (17) | Total (45) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Literature review | 7 | 1 | 8 | |
| Questionnaire survey | 8 | 12 | 15 | 35 |
| Interviews | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Diary | 1 | 1 | ||
| Before–after study | 4 | 2 | 4 | 10 |
| Longitudinal study | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Living lab study | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Cognitive tests | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Experience sampling | 1 | 1 | ||
| Polling | 1 | 1 | ||
| Spot measurements (IEQ) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Step-count monitoring | 1 | 1 | ||
| Heart rate | 1 | 1 | ||
| Skin temperature | 1 | 1 |
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
keywords employee productivity, workforce productivity, the productivity of employee ' s and productivity. This study excluded doctoral thesis, dissertations, reports, conference
1. Employee productivity and organizational performance: A theoretical perspective. Victoria Kenny S. I Introduction. Employee's performance depends on various factors but the most important ...
motivation, such as salary incre ases, awards, and promotions, is a way to fulfill indirect desires o r something else. offers as r ecognition of a job well done. According to Lin (2007), external ...
Adiele and Abraham (2013) found that low levels of engagement. and job satisfaction in the five hierarchies of needs impacts productivity and profitability. Leaders should enrich the atmosphere at work to improve production levels. In general, leaders must be engaged in all aspects of operations to enhance the.
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore strategies technology consulting small business leaders use to increase productivity among their employees. The conceptual framework for this employee productivity study was the behavioral engineering model (BEM) founded by Thomas Gilbert in 1978.
technologies, a growing number of employees are becoming able to work anytime, anywhere. This maximises the role of personal choice of space and time of work on productivity and wellbeing and may require re-examination of the role played by the physical workspace environment. The research aims to understand both environmental and social
relationship between employee engagement and productivity, to highlight areas of focus to UVS for a sustainable future. A quantitative study was done with a random sampling design used to explore the impact of employee engagement on productivity. The sample group (N= 73) was made up of female and male UVS staff. The employee engagement ...
rity are the most powerful factors that influence productivity. Moreover, work environment like air, temperature, light, space, sound, and color have im. act on productivity but many other factors play a role in that.Keywords: Work Environment, Leade. Organizational Culture, Employees' Productivity.INTRODUCTIONThis research paper aims at ...
The impact of stress at the workplace on the employee's productivity was observed in the cohort and cross-sectional studies from the perspective of industrial engineering, management, and medicine. Four eligible studies were qualitatively assessed from 2,642 identified literature through four databases (Cochrane, Science Direct, Scielo, and ...
Setiawan, Roy and Cavaliere, Luigi Pio Leonardo and Navarro, Enaidy Reynosa and Wisetsri, Worakamol and Jirayus, Puttithorn and Chauhan, Sapna and Tabuena, Almighty and Rajan, Regin, The Impact of Leadership Styles on Employees Productivity in Organizations: A Comparative Study Among Leadership Styles (January 2021).
Without productive employees, no organization can meet its objectives or obtain its desired outcomes. Many organizational influencers can impact employee productivity either negatively or positively. The relationship an employee has with his or her employer is one factor that can help improve employee productivity or impede it.
Name of thesis. FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE. paino OyjInstructorKatarina BromanPages56 + 2SupervisorKatarina BromanThe purpose of the study was to determine the factor that influence employee motivation and its. impact on employee performance; case study of Keski-Pohjanmaan Kirjapaino.
An understanding of the effect of work environment on the productivity of employees cannot be over-emphasized or seen as overstatement in every organization. Experience has shown that workers are directly influenced by the environment they find themselves or where their competence will achieve nothing in terms of productivity if the environment ...
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.
Employee productivity is an assessment of the efficiency of a worker or group of workers. Productivity may be evaluated in terms of the output of an employee in a specific period of time. Typically, the productivity of a given worker will be assessed relative to an average for employees doing similar work. ...
productivity, employee job satisfaction and satisfacti on with work schedules; in addition, flexi-time has a strong positive impact on abse nteeism as well. In fact, better work-life balance ...
Operating in teams increases employee productivity and corporate efficacy. That ... employee prefer to work in a workforce which comprises of organizational inspiration, teamwork, decision-making, communication and collaboration. Murad et al. (2013) found working condition and payment as the most satisfying factors for the bankers in Bangladesh
lead to lower levels of employee productivity. Rojas & Aramvareekel (2003) identified. four major category of factors that affects the levels of employees productivity, they. include management systems and plans such as scheduling, manpower capacities, such as.
Master's thesis November 2022 School of Business ... improve on productivity, speed, and quality in order to compete successfully (Caliskan, 2010). ... and effective selection and recruitment improve employee productivity and overall performance. 5 In regards to compensation and rewards, Hamid et al. (2017) observed that competitive and ...
the employee productivity is very low. This has challenged the researcher to examine the factors that influences the employee performance in Laikipia County. Understanding such factors could enable the county raise the employees performance so as to provide satisfactory services and in a better way. 1.2 Problem Statement
The architecture for the thesis is essentially a research design. There are many types of study ... 34.4% of the variables affect employee productivity. The R-Square tends to study the strength of .
employee relations on productivity of selected publishing firms in the Accra metropolis in order to make recommendations to improve the existing situation. The concept of employee relationship management (ERM) has been developed on the patterns of customer relationship management (CRM). ...
The specific objectives are; to investigate the impact of job safety and security and security on employee's productivity and to determine the extent to which promotion affect employee's ...
Google advisor and author Laura Mae Martin introduced a 'no-tech Tuesday' night challenge at Google — and says many employees reported benefits.