The Benefits of an Employee-Friendly Company on Job Attitudes and Health of Employees: Findings from Matched Employer-Employee Data

Overview

Journal Int J Environ Res Public Health

Publisher MDPI

Specialties Environmental Health
Public Health

Date 2022 Jul 28

PMID 35897413

Authors

Raphael M Herr

Luisa Leonie Brokmeier

Joachim E Fischer

Daniel Mauss

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: This study explored the association of an employee-friendly work environment with employees' job attitudes (engagement, commitment, turnover intentions, and job satisfaction), and health (mental and general health), applying matched employer-employee data.

Methods: The German Linked Personnel Panel (LPP; = 14,182) survey simultaneously captures the data of employees and the human resources (HR) management of companies. A two-step cluster analysis of 16 items of the HR valuation identified relatively more- and less-employee-friendly companies (EFCs). Logistic regressions tested differences between these companies in the assessment of job attitudes and health of their employees.

Results: Compared to less-EFCS, more-EFCS had a reduced risk of poorer job attitudes and substandard health of their employees. For example, the risk for higher turnover intentions was reduced by 33% in more-EFCS (OR = 0.683, 95% C.I. = 0.626-0.723), and more-EFCS had an 18% reduced chance of poor mental health reporting of their employees (OR = 0.822, 95% C.I. = 0.758-0.892).

Conclusions: More-EFCS have more motivated and healthier employees. The most distinct factors for more-EFCS were: the existence of development plans for employees, opportunities for advancement and development, and personnel development measures.

Citing Articles

Wood in office spaces: The impact of different wooden furniture on aesthetic evaluation.

Zhu Y, Wang Q, Zhao F Front Psychol. 2023; 13:986627.

PMID: 36687973 PMC: 9849947. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.986627.

References

Topp C, Ostergaard S, Sondergaard S, Bech P . The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015; 84(3):167-76. DOI: 10.1159/000376585. View

Fischer J, Genser B, Nauroth P, Litaker D, Mauss D . Estimating the potential reduction in future sickness absence from optimizing group-level psychosocial work characteristics: a prospective, multicenter cohort study in German industrial settings. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2020; 15(1):33. PMC: 7664018. DOI: 10.1186/s12995-020-00284-x. View

Lang J, Ochsmann E, Kraus T, Lang J . Psychosocial work stressors as antecedents of musculoskeletal problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis of stability-adjusted longitudinal studies. Soc Sci Med. 2012; 75(7):1163-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.015. View

Daniels K, Watson D, Gedikli C . Well-Being and the Social Environment of Work: A Systematic Review of Intervention Studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017; 14(8). PMC: 5580621. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14080918. View

Schmidt B, Schneider M, Seeger P, van Vianen A, Loerbroks A, Herr R . A Comparison of Job Stress Models: Associations With Employee Well-Being, Absenteeism, Presenteeism, and Resulting Costs. J Occup Environ Med. 2019; 61(7):535-544. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001582. View

Podsakoff P, Mackenzie S, Lee J, Podsakoff N . Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88(5):879-903. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. View

Hamar B, Coberley C, Pope J, Rula E . Well-being improvement in a midsize employer: changes in well-being, productivity, health risk, and perceived employer support after implementation of a well-being improvement strategy. J Occup Environ Med. 2015; 57(4):367-73. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000433. View

Kivimaki M, Nyberg S, Batty G, Fransson E, Heikkila K, Alfredsson L . Job strain as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet. 2012; 380(9852):1491-7. PMC: 3486012. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60994-5. View

Theorell T, Jood K, Jarvholm L, Vingard E, Perk J, Ostergren P . A systematic review of studies in the contributions of the work environment to ischaemic heart disease development. Eur J Public Health. 2016; 26(3):470-7. PMC: 4884330. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckw025. View

10.

van der Put A, van der Lippe T . Work Environment and Worksite Health Promotion in Nine European Countries. J Occup Environ Med. 2019; 62(4):272-278. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001803. View

11.

Bosle C, Fischer J, Herr R . Creating a measure to operationalize engaged well-being at work. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2021; 16(1):9. PMC: 7962289. DOI: 10.1186/s12995-021-00297-0. View

12.

Arnold A, Coffeng J, Boot C, van der Beek A, Van Tulder M, Nieboer D . The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Productivity-Related Costs: A Longitudinal Analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2016; 58(9):874-9. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000831. View

13.

Haylock M, Kampkotter P . Dataset: The Linked Personnel Panel (LPP). Data Brief. 2019; 27:104824. PMC: 6889774. DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2019.104824. View

14.

Daniels K, Gedikli C, Watson D, Semkina A, Vaughn O . Job design, employment practices and well-being: a systematic review of intervention studies. Ergonomics. 2017; 60(9):1177-1196. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2017.1303085. View

15.

Theorell T, Hammarstrom A, Aronsson G, Traskman Bendz L, Grape T, Hogstedt C . A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15:738. PMC: 4522058. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1954-4. View

16.

Ogbonnaya C, Daniels K, Connolly S, Van Veldhoven M . Integrated and isolated impact of high-performance work practices on employee health and well-being: A comparative study. J Occup Health Psychol. 2016; 22(1):98-114. DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000027. View