Employee Well-being, Productivity, and Firm Performance: Evidence and Case Studies

Christian  Krekel; George  Ward; Jan-Emmanuel  De Neve; and Council Members:  J. Harter, A. Blankson, A. Clark, C. Cooper, J. Lim, P. Litchfield, J. Moss; M. I. Norton; A.V.  Whillans; D. Cooperrider,  and D. Mendelwicz

Chapter | Global Happiness and Wellbeing Policy Report | 2019

Employee Well-being, Productivity, and Firm Performance: Evidence and Case Studies

by Christian Krekel, George Ward, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, and Council Members: J. Harter, A. Blankson, A. Clark, C. Cooper, J. Lim, P. Litchfield, J. Moss, M. I. Norton, A.V. Whillans and D. Cooperrider, and D. Mendelwicz

Abstract

The well-being of employees is a good in itself. But an important question frequently arises as to whether there are any objective benefits to making the subjective well-being of workers a priority. Clearly, implementing policies that promote worker well-being can be resource-intensive. And in times of limited budgets and competing priorities, the issue often boils down to the question: is it worth it? Ultimately, businesses and policy-makers alike want to know: are there any objective returns to – or, more generally, is there a compelling business case for – spending scarce resources to ensure and enhance well-being in the workplace?

Keywords: wellbeing; Employees; Welfare or Wellbeing; Happiness; Policy; Performance Productivity;

Format: Print

Read Now

Citation:

Krekel, Christian, George Ward, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, and Council Members: J. Harter, A. Blankson, A. Clark, C. Cooper, J. Lim, P. Litchfield, J. Moss, M. I. Norton, A.V. Whillans, and D. Cooperrider, and D. Mendelwicz. "Employee Well-being, Productivity, and Firm Performance: Evidence and Case Studies." Chap. 5 in Global Happiness and Wellbeing Policy Report, by Global Council for Happiness and Wellbeing, 72–94. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2019.

Who benefits most from helping others? Previous research suggests that common polymorphisms of the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) predict whether people behave generously and experience increases in positive mood in response to socially-focused experiences in daily life. Building on these findings, we conducted an experiment with a large, ethnically homogenous sample (N=437) to examine whether individual differences in three frequently studied single nucleotide polymorphisms of OXTR (rs53576, rs2268498, rs2254298) also predict differences in the positive mood benefits of financial generosity. Consistent with past research, participants who were randomly assigned to purchase items for others (vs. themselves) reported greater positive affect. Contrary to predictions, using Bayesian statistics, we found conclusive evidence that the benefits of generosity were not moderated by individual differences in OXTR SNPs. The current work highlights the importance of publishing null results to build cumulative knowledge linking neurobiological factors to positive emotional experiences.

This article reveals a behavioral tendency that may contribute to the spread of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Across seven studies—including two representative samples of Americans and Canadians (N = 3,408)—we show that people consistently underestimate the risk of contracting the coronavirus from close others (i.e., friends) compared to other groups (e.g., colleagues or strangers). We reveal that informing people of their (unconscious) preference to believe that friends are less risky than strangers can effectively attenuate this behavioral tendency. Together, these results shed light on a critical area of intervention for promoting social distancing: people’s beliefs about the risk of contracting the coronavirus from their friends.

Across five studies (N=3,071), we explore the interpersonal consequences of COVID risk communication when rejecting social invitations. In Study 1, people underestimate the benefits and overestimate the costs of rejecting social invitations for risk-related reasons. In Studies 2a&b, people are more likely to communicate risk when they are focused on welfare (vs. social) concerns. In Studies 3a&b, we replicate and extend these results in the context of actual social invitations. Together, these studies suggest that people should feel less concerned about rejecting social concerns for COVID-related reasons: risk communication could be more effective, and more positively perceived than people predict. These studies also suggest that policy makers should emphasize the welfare (vs. social costs) of COVID in ongoing communications.

Faculty & Research

Employee Well-being, Productivity, and Firm Performance: Evidence and Case Studies

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors