mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Univ Sheffield, England..
Natl Inst Occupat Hlth, Oslo, Norway..
Univ East Anglia, England..
Finnish Inst Occupat Hlth, Helsinki, Finland..
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Work & Stress, ISSN 0267-8373, E-ISSN 1464-5335, Vol. 31, no 2, 101-120 p.Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Organisations are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of employees in gaining and maintaining competitive advantage. The happy worker-productive worker thesis suggests that workers who experience high levels of well-being also perform well and vice versa; however, organisations need to know how to ensure such happy and productive workers. The present review and meta-analysis identifies workplace resources at the individual, the group, the leader, and the organisational levels that are related to both employee well-being and organisational performance. We examine which types of resources are most important in predicting both employee well-being and performance. We identified 84 quantitative studies published in print and online from 2003 to November 2015. Resources at either of the four levels were related to both employee well-being and performance. We found no significant differences in employee well-being and organisational performance between the four levels of workplace resources, suggesting that interventions may focus on any of these levels. Cross-sectional studies showed stronger relationships with well-being and performance than longitudinal studies. Studies using objective performance ratings provided weaker relationships between resources and performance than self-rated and leader/third-party-rated studies.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 31, no 2, 101-120 p.
National Category
Work Sciences Other Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-35359DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463ISI: 000400243400001OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-35359DiVA: diva2:1097339
Available from: 2017-05-22 Created: 2017-05-22 Last updated: 2017-05-22Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Isaksson, Kerstin
By organisation
Health and Welfare
In the same journal
Work & Stress
Work SciencesOther Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 1 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf