The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Well-being and organizational performance: An organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis
Abstract
It is often assumed that happy workers are also productive workers. Although this reasoning has frequently been supported at the individual level, it is still unclear what these findings imply for organizational performance. Controlling for relevant work characteristics, this study presents a large-scale organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis, assuming that high individual well-being leads to high individual-level performance, which should translate into high organizational performance (such as high efficiency and productivity). Job-specific employee well-being was measured as job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Using data from 66 Dutch home care organizations, the relationships among aggregated levels of demands, control, support, emotional exhaustion and satisfaction on the one hand, and organizational performance on the other, were examined using regression analysis. The hypotheses were partly confirmed, especially high aggregated levels of emotional exhaustion were related to low organizational performance. Although these findings support the reasoning that happy organizations are indeed productive organizations, more theorizing and more longitudinal research on the associations between individual-level well-being and organizational performance is imperative to improve understanding of these relationships. The findings underline the importance of improving worker well-being: this is not only important for individual workers, but may also have positive consequences for organizations and their clients.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 · Cited by 12,910
Towards an understanding of inequity
Adams, J. S. (1963) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0040968 · Cited by 5,146
The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376 · Cited by 4,760
The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout
Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005) · Work & Stress · doi:10.1080/02678370500297720 · Cited by 3,136 · cited 1×
“Kristensen, Borritz, Villadsen, & Christensen, 2005 ) has both an energetic and a motivational component; high levels of emotional fatigue result in being unable as well as being unwilling to perform well (cf.”
Background
Cited by
Human resource management and employee well-being: towards a new analytic framework
Guest, D. E. (2017) · Human Resource Management Journal · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12139 · Cited by 1,362
Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J. S. (2013) · Work & Stress · doi:10.1080/02678373.2013.812358 · Cited by 316
Intraindividual models of employee well-being: What have we learned and where do we go from here?
Ilies, R., Aw, S. S. Y., & Pluut, H. (2015) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2015.1071422 · Cited by 167
Kim, Y.-H., Choe, E. K., Lee, B., & Seo, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300845 · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- Taris, T. W., & Schreurs, P. J. G.
- Venue
- Work & Stress
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 120-136
- ISSN
- 0267-8373 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5335
- OpenAlex
- W2121239033
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 17.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Well-being and organizational performance: An organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02678370903072555
- The paper
- Taris, T. W., & Schreurs, P. J. G. (2009). Well-being and organizational performance: An organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis. Work & Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370903072555
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.