employee satisfaction research articles

• Open access
• Published: 03 May 2023

The management of healthcare employees’ job satisfaction: optimization analyses from a series of large-scale surveys

• Paola Cantarelli 1 ,
• Milena Vainieri 1 &
• Chiara Seghieri 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  23 , Article number:  428 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

4372 Accesses

3 Citations

Metrics details

Measuring employees’ satisfaction with their jobs and working environment have become increasingly common worldwide. Healthcare organizations are not extraneous to the irreversible trend of measuring employee perceptions to boost performance and improve service provision. Considering the multiplicity of aspects associated with job satisfaction, it is important to provide managers with a method for assessing which elements may carry key relevance. Our study identifies the mix of factors that are associated with an improvement of public healthcare professionals’ job satisfaction related to unit, organization, and regional government. Investigating employees’ satisfaction and perception about organizational climate with different governance level seems essential in light of extant evidence showing the interconnection as well as the uniqueness of each governance layer in enhancing or threatening motivation and satisfaction.

This study investigates the correlates of job satisfaction among 73,441 employees in healthcare regional governments in Italy. Across four cross sectional surveys in different healthcare systems, we use an optimization model to identify the most efficient combination of factors that is associated with an increase in employees’ satisfaction at three levels, namely one’s unit, organization, and regional healthcare system.

Findings show that environmental characteristics, organizational management practices, and team coordination mechanisms correlates with professionals’ satisfaction. Optimization analyses reveal that improving the planning of activities and tasks in the unit, a sense of being part of a team, and supervisor’s managerial competences correlate with a higher satisfaction to work for one’s unit. Improving how managers do their job tend to be associated with more satisfaction to work for the organization.

Conclusions

The study unveils commonalities and differences of personnel administration and management across public healthcare systems and provides insights on the role that several layers of governance have in depicting human resource management strategies.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Measuring employees’ satisfaction with their jobs and working environment have become increasingly common worldwide among government and public organizations across fields, including healthcare [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Designing personnel policies that fit workers’ perceptions turned out to be uncontroversially relevant. Even more so during challenging times such as those generated by budget cuts and increased demands for public service provision [ 1 ] or caused by health and economic emergencies such as the COVID-19 outbreak [ 5 ]. The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the United States Office of Personnel Management to federal civil servants is just the most famous example of how organizations can monitor workers’ attitudes and perceptions to manage human capital effectively [ 6 , 7 ]. Among the OECD governments administering surveys to their employees, the most common focus is on job satisfaction. Indeed, the number of countries that center the items of questionnaires on employees’ satisfaction is larger than those centering on work-life balance, employee motivation, or management effectiveness [ 1 ].

Public healthcare organizations are not extraneous to the irreversible trend of measuring employee perceptions to boost performance and improve service provision [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Indeed, asking employees to express their opinion on the work environment in which they operate daily to provide social and health services to citizens make them involved in the management and planning of activities. At the same time, employees’ feedback become a valuable resource for organizational management and an important tool to initiate targeted, efficient and effective improvement processes based on staff needs and expectations. Considering the multiplicity of aspects associated with job satisfaction, it is important to provide management with a method for assessing which elements it may be useful to focus on.

Our study is dedicated to identifying the mix of factors that are associated with an improvement of health professionals’ job satisfaction related to unit, organization, and regional government in the context of a series of large-scale surveys. Investigating employees’ satisfaction and perception about organizational climate with different governance levels seems essential in light of extant evidence showing the interconnection as well as the uniqueness of each governance layer in enhancing or threatening motivation and satisfaction across public administration fields, including government [ 12 , 13 ] and healthcare [ 14 , 15 , 16 ].

Our work provides several contributions to existing knowledge on the correlates of job satisfaction among civil servants in health organizations. Our findings may prove useful to scholars and practitioners alike. Firstly, to the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the first that employs optimization models for this purpose. In doing so, we espouse recent invitations to develop research projects that are context-sensitive and practical so to be able to develop middle range theories because optimization analyses is primarily meant to speak to managers and healthcare professionals [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Indeed, the main objective of the calculation of the optimization function is to provide some indications with a managerial value on the most efficient group of predictors – organizational variables – that can drive a preset level of improvement in job satisfaction so to close the science-practice gap in healthcare management work. In other words, the calculation provides a numerical information that shows how much organizational aspects weigh on the level of satisfaction. It was introduced for the first time in the field of health performance analysis by a group of researchers from the Ontario Ministry of Health in Canada [ 20 , 21 ] and subsequently used in the Italian context to analyze patient satisfaction emergency departments and nursing homes [ 22 , 23 ]. The use of optimization techniques in public administration is largely unexplored at the moment. Secondly, although unable to collect data across healthcare systems in the world, we account for common critiques about the external validity of findings in public administration research by combining large samples and survey replications in our research design [ 24 , 25 ]. Even in the country where the study is set, the number of respondents in our work is rather unique.

Job satisfaction in mission-driven organizations: a literature overview

Job satisfaction is one of the most investigated constructs by practitioners and scholars alike across disciplines such as health services [ 2 , 26 ], public administration [ 27 ] and applied psychology [ 28 , 29 ]. In the words of Hal Rainey [ 30 ], “thousands of studies and dozens of different questionnaire measures have made job satisfaction one of the most intensively studied variables in organizational research, if not the most studied” (p. 298).

Scholars across fields such as public administration, mainstream management, and psychology agree that work satisfaction construct includes facets related to the fulfillment of various and evolving individual needs and to the fit with numerous and changing organizational level variables [ 28 ]. Recent definitions by public administration and management scholars portray job satisfaction as an “affective or emotional response toward various components of one’s job” [ 31 ] (p. 246) or as “how an individual feels about his or her job and various aspects of it usually in the sense of how favorable – how positive or negative – those feelings are” [ 30 ] (p. 298). Previous definitions in mainstream management and applied psychology describe job satisfaction as “the feelings a worker has about his job” [ 32 ] (p. 100) or as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state, resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” [ 33 ] (p. 1304).

The breadth and depth of scholarship onto job satisfactions has nurtured efforts to synthesize and systematize available knowledge through meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews in recent years. For instance, Cantarelli and colleagues [ 27 ], collected quantitative information from primary studies published in 42 public administration and management journals since 1969 and performed a meta-analysis of the relationships between job satisfaction and 43 correlates, which span from mission valence, job design features, work motivation, person job-fit, and demographic characteristics. Furthermore, Vigan and Giauque [ 34 ] present results from a systematic review of the association between work environment attributes, personal characteristics, and work features on the job satisfaction of public employees in African countries. Then, meta-analytic findings show a positive correlation between job satisfaction and public service motivation [ 35 ] and pay satisfaction [ 36 ].

At the same time, novel studies on work satisfaction among employees across typologies of organizations do not seem to have come to an end. To the contrary, for example, observational work still investigate the individual and organizational correlates of employees’ satisfaction in public healthcare organizations [ 3 , 16 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ] and government institutions more in general [ 7 , 43 , 44 ]. A similar interest pertains to employees’ preferences in experimental scholarship in public hospital [ 45 ] and public organizations [ 46 ].

Based on the evidence summarized above, we investigate the association between public employees’ job satisfaction to work for their unit, organization, and government system and variables that pertains to the following broad domains: workplace safety, human resource management practices at the team level, supervisors’ managerial capabilities, management practices at the organizational level, and training opportunities.

Building on such experiences as the Federal Employees Viewpoint Survey [ 47 ] and the NHS staff survey, several healthcare systems in Italian Regions administer organizational climate questionnaires to all employees on a routine basis thanks to their collaboration with the Management and Healthcare Laboratory (Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy). Italy currently features a national health service with three main hierarchical levels. The first layer is that of the national health departments that define general strategies, laws, and regulations and set general targets. Regional governments, then, are the second hierarchical level. They are in charge of implementing such strategies and meeting such targets. The 21 Italian Regions are autonomous in this implementation phase. As a result, the variation in the governance structures and healthcare services is large among regional health systems. The third layer includes all organizations (i.e., local health authorities, hospitals, and teaching hospitals) that are at the front-line of health services provision to the population.

The decision to administer an organizational climate survey pertains to the regional government. Members of the Management and Healthcare Laboratory (authors included) design organizational climate surveys together with regional healthcare systems, which, at its core, are interested in using results for sustaining managerial change across the healthcare system. The rationale behind the analysis of region-wide data is multifaceted. First of all, the measurement instrument used in our study has been validated [ 48 , 49 ] and used in previous work [ 9 ] for data analysis at the regional and subsequently organizational level. Secondly, our presentation of results tends to score high on ecological validity because of the mechanisms that govern the provision of healthcare services in Italy where decisions taken at the regional level are binding for organizations within the region. Thirdly, the presentation of results by region resonates with well-established practices on the international stage. Just as an example, NHS staff results are presented at the national level also. As a consequence, our survey includes management variables—such as communication, information sharing, training, budget procedures – that tend to cross the borders of professions. The participation of healthcare employees to the questionnaire is voluntary and anonymous. The survey is composed of statements to which respondents indicate their level of agreement on a 1 to 5 Likert-type sale (1 means full disagreement and 5 full agreement). The questionnaire measures employees’ perceptions about their job, organization, management practices, communication and information sharing processes, training opportunities, budget system, and working conditions [ 9 , 50 ].

The outcome variables in this study relate to employees’ job satisfaction for three hierarchical levels, namely satisfaction with one’ unit, organization, and regional health service. These layers are key in the Italian healthcare system. In fact, all three levels hold levers that can be pulled to affect job satisfaction. In particular, we used the following statements:

I am satisfied to work in my unit.

I am proud to tell others that I work in this organization.

I am proud to work for the health service of my Region.

We regress each of these three outcome variables on the following list of correlates, which are survey items that tap into different theoretical domains and represent dimensions that can be modified through organizational change initiatives:

The equipment in my unit is adequate.

My workplace is safe (electrical systems, fire and emergency measures, etc.).

My workload is manageable.

Meetings are organized regularly in my unit.

Work is well planned in my unit and this allows us to achieve goals.

Periodically I am given feedback from my supervisor on the quality of my work and the results achieved.

My suggestions for improvement are considered by my supervisor.

I feel like I'm part of a team that works together to achieve common goals.

My supervisor knows how to handle conflict.

I agree with the criteria adopted by my supervisor to evaluate my work.

My supervisor is fair in managing subordinates.

I believe that my supervisor carries out his job well.

My organization encourages change and innovation.

The organization encourages information sharing.

My supervisor encourages information sharing.

I know annual organizational goals.

I know annual organizational accomplishments.

The training activities offered by my organizations are useful in enhancing my competences.

The training activities offered by my organizations are useful in improving my communication skills with colleagues.

I appreciate how managers manage the organization.

My organization stimulates me to give my best in my work.

I am motivated to achieve organizational goals.

In my organization, merit is a fundamental value.

In my organization, the professional contribution of everyone is adequately recognized.

Following the methodology of Brown and colleagues [ 20 ], the first phase for the calculation of the optimization function consists of an ordinal logistic regression in which satisfaction is predicted by the organizational variables of interest listed above. The second phase, then, combines the regression coefficients with the average values ​​of the items of interest to identify, under certain pre-established mathematical constraints, the set of organizational variables that, with a certain improvement (always less than 15% for constraints required by the type of analysis) allows to reach a fixed level of overall satisfaction. Thus, optimization techniques allow the identification of the most efficient mix of predictors of employees’ satisfaction to help guide improvement efforts. An important information to consider when reading the results of these types of surveys is that improving the score of a variable that is very close to its benchmark is more difficult than that of a variable that is far from it. It is important to underline that the model is built on the average of the answers, so it does not refer to the strategies to be adopted in cases of falling perceptions related to the organizational climate. In other words, the model does not focus on ways to recover the satisfaction of particularly unsatisfied staff. As for the second phase of the statistical analysis, we used a 5 percent improvement of the job satisfaction outcome variables.

The two phases of analysis listed above have been repeated for each of the four Regions that are included in this study. Region A administered the organizational survey in April and May 2018, Region B in December 2018 and January 2019, Region C in March and April 2019, and Region D between mid-October and mid-December 2019. Respondents are 73,441 healthcare employees, of which 24,869 work in Region A; 5,078 in Region B; 21,272 in Region C; and 22,222 in Region D. The response rates are as follows: 28 percent for Region A, 27 percent for Region B, 39 percent for Region C, and 45 percent for Region D.

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of respondents for each of the four healthcare systems included in our study. In all four cases separately, the average age of participants is not significantly different from the corresponding regional average of all healthcare professionals. Female professionals are slightly overrepresented in all regions compared to the national average of female healthcare professionals. The distribution of respondents across job families in each of the four samples is comparable to the national distribution of healthcare employees [ 51 ].

Table 2 displays the average job satisfaction, by regional healthcare system and by governance level – namely unit, organization, and Region – along with average standard deviation in parenthesis. Overall, the satisfaction to serve one’s organization is lower than the satisfaction to work for the unit and the regional healthcare system.

Table 3 presents the results of the logistic regression on the satisfaction to work for one’s unit across regional healthcare systems. In all regions, keeping everything else constant, professionals’ satisfaction to serve their unit is strongly and positively associated with the following constructs: adequate equipment, work safety, manageable workload, well-planned work, consideration of one’s improvement proposals, sense of being part of a team, agreement with the criteria for individual performance assessment, appreciation for the competences of one’s supervisor, organizational stimulation to give one’s best, and motivation to achieve organizational goals. All relationships are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. In Region A, coeteris paribus, training activities to enhance one’s competences and appreciation for how managers manage the organization are also positively related to job satisfaction at the unit level ( p  <  0.001 and p  =  0.001 , respectively). As for Region B, keeping everything else the same, supervisor’s fairness in managing subordinates and training opportunities are additional positive correlates ( p  =  0.003 and p  =  0.004 , respectively). In Region C, everything else equal, the following items also correlates positively with the outcome: supervisor’s fairness in managing subordinates ( p  <  0.001 ), supervisors’ encouragement of information sharing ( p  =  0.018 ), training opportunities to improve one’s skills ( p  <  0.001 ), and appreciation for how managers manage the organization ( p  =  0.033 ). Lastly, in Region D, everything else equal, the additional positive correlates of job satisfaction are the following: supervisor’s ability to fairly treat subordinates ( p  <  0.001 ), training opportunity to improve professional competences ( p  <  0.001 ), and appreciations for managers ( p  <  0.001 ).

Table 4 sows the results of the optimization function, set for a 5 percent improvement in average value of the item “I am satisfied to work in my unit.” Predictions tend to be consistent across regional healthcare systems. In all regions, in fact, keeping everything else the same, the job satisfaction improvement at the unit level is associated with an improvement in the mean value of the following constructs: well-planned work in the team, perception of being part of a team that work towards shared goals, and perception that the supervisor can carry out the job well. More precisely, the percentages of improvement for these three correlates are as follows, respectively: 1, 15, and 12 for Region A, 1, 15, and 14 for Region B; 7, 15, and 13 for Region C; and 2, 15, and 13 for Region D.

Table 5 displays the logistic regression results for professionals’ satisfaction to work for their organization. In all regions, everything else equal, the positive correlates at the 0.05 or smaller significance level are the following: adequate equipment, workplace safety, sense of being part of a team, supervisor’ abilities to do a good job, training opportunities to enhance competences, appreciation for how managers manage the organization, organizational stimuli to give one’s best on the job, and motivation to achieve organizational goals. The relationship between the satisfaction to work for one’s organization and the degree to which one’s work is manageable is positive at the 0.05 significance level for all regions except Region A, everything else constant. Having a well-planned work is a significant correlate in Region D only ( p  =  0.020 ), ceteris paribus. Participants’ perceptions that their suggestions for improvement are taken into consideration are significantly related to satisfaction in Regions A and B only, keeping everything else constant ( p  =  0.001 and p  =  0.043 respectively). Region C is the only that displays an association between the outcome of interest and respondents’ agreement with the criteria adopted to evaluate individual performance, ceteris paribus ( p  =  0.025 ). Further, everything else equal, job satisfaction to work for one’s organization is positively associated with the degree to which the organization encourages change and innovation in Region A ( p  <  0.001 ), in Region C ( p  =  0.003 ), and Region D ( p  <  0.001 ). Lastly, respondents in Region A and D show a significant association between the outcome and what supervisors do to encourage information sharing, everything else kept constant ( p  =  0.041 , p  =  0.038 , and p  =  0.038 , respectively).

Table 6 presents the results of the optimization analysis for a 5 percent increase in the average value of the item “I am proud to tell others that I work in this organization.” Maintaining everything else constant, improving the mean of employees’ appreciation for how managers manage the organization is correlated to an enhanced job satisfaction at the organization level in all regions. In particular, the percentage improvement for the former statement are 12 percent for Region A, 9 percent for Region B, and 13 percent for all of the remaining regions. Furthermore, in Region B, ceteris paribus, a 9 percent percent improvement in the level of agreement with the statement that the organization stimulates employees to give their best on the job is related to the betterment of the outcome.

Table 7 displays estimates from a logistic regression model for public employees’ satisfaction to work for the health service of their regional government. Keeping everything else equal, across regions, the positive correlates at the 0.05 significance level are the following: workplace safety, supervisor’ adequate competences to carry out the job, effective training in improving one’s skills, appreciation for how managers run the organization, organizational stimuli to give one’s best on the job, and motivation to achieve organizational mission. Having an adequate equipment is positively associated with the satisfaction to work for the health care system at the standard statistical levels in all regions but C and D. The relationship between the satisfaction to work for one’s organization and the degree to which one’s work is manageable is positive at the 0.05 significance level for all regions except Region B, where the relationship is marginally significant ( p  =  0.054 ). Employees’ perceptions that their suggestions for improvement are taken into consideration by their supervisors are significantly related to satisfaction in regions B, C, and D ( p  =  0.009 , p  =  0.008 , and p  =  0.024 respectively). Region C is the only that displays a positive correlation between the satisfaction to serve the health systems and an agreement with the criteria adopted to evaluate individual performance, ceteris paribus ( p  =  0.001 ). Regions C shows a positive correlation between information sharing at the organizational level and work satisfaction ( p  =  0.003 ), whereas team-level information sharing is relevant in Region D ( p  =  0.006 ). Then, awareness of the organizational goals is a relevant predictor of the satisfaction to work for the health service on one’s regional government in Region D ( p  =  0.006 ).

Similarly, to Tables 3 and 6 , Table 8 displays the findings from an optimization algorithm aimed at improving the mean value of the satisfaction to work for the health service of one’s regional government by 5 percent. Improving positive perceptions about how managers run the organization and the motivation to achieve the organizational mission are correlated to an enhanced job satisfaction. In particular, the percentage improvement for the former statement are 11 percent for Region A, 7 percent for Region B, 13 percent for Region C, and 7 percent for Region D. As to the latter, the percentages are, respectively; 12, 15, 12, and 15. In Regions A and D, improving by 1 percent and 2 percent the mean value associated with the usefulness of training for competence enhancement are linked to a higher satisfaction. In Region B, instead, an improvement of the 6 percent of the organizational stimuli to give the best in one’s work correlated with an increased satisfaction. Lastly, improving personnel’s perceptions about workplace settings by 1 percent is associated with a higher satisfaction in Region B.

Overall, our analyses present three main key findings. First, within dependent variables, the correlates of job satisfaction tend to be the same across the health services of four regional governments. Second, the correlates of job satisfaction seem to differ among outcomes, namely hierarchical level at which employees’ satisfaction is measured. Third, context-specific associations emerge from our models.

Our work aimed at (i) investigating the correlates of health professionals’ job satisfaction at three hierarchical levels, namely satisfaction to work for one’s unit, organization, and health system of the regional government, and (ii) predicting how the improvement of the average value of correlates may relate with the improvement in the outcome variables. We employed large-scales observational surveys across healthcare systems in Italy. A series of logistic regressions reveal that environmental characteristics, management practices at the organizational level, and management practices at the team level correlates with work satisfaction. The pattern of results seems to replicate across outcome variables and healthcare systems. A series of optimization algorithms show that improving how the work is organized at the unit level, the degree to which employees perceive a sense of being part of a team with shared goals, and the supervisor’s abilities in carrying out the job may correlate with a better satisfaction to work for one’s unit. To the contrary, improving how managers perform their job tend to be associated with more satisfaction to work for one’s organization. As to the satisfaction to serve one’s regional health system, then, an improved work satisfaction correlates with an improved appreciation for the top management and the motivation to achieve the organizational mission.

The correlates that may relate to a higher job satisfaction are, therefore, in part different among hierarchical levels [ 2 , 18 , 52 ]. Within outcome variables, the largest variation in the correlates of job satisfaction is to the regional government level. Taken together, these findings align with two well established literature streams. On the one hand, attitudes and needs are so deeply seated in the human nature that they tend to be invariant for work satisfaction at the micro-level [ 8 , 43 ]. On the other hand, then, characteristics contingent to the macro-level may be relevant in prioritizing some attitudes and needs over others [ 6 , 9 , 16 ].

Further on the previous point, our work seems to suggest that all governance levels can play a role in employees’ job satisfaction, which continues to be a topic of interest for research syntheses attempts at the international level [ 53 , 54 , 55 ]. Some of the levers may overlap whereas other are different. As to the former, for instance, the quality and competence of managers at the unit and organizational level both correlated with work satisfaction. Thus, the mix of levers and the extent to which they are used may vary across regional healthcare system, which ultimately represent the highest governance level. Research on this consideration seems to have become even more prominent in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 56 ].

Our study may provide a few contributions to extant scholarship and practice on job satisfaction in public service. Firstly, we investigate the correlates of satisfaction at three hierarchical levels. To the best of our knowledge, while most research analyzed satisfaction using hierarchical models [ 9 ], they tend to focus on one level only. Secondly, our analyses tap into many correlates of job satisfaction. This has the potential to uncover unexpected associations. Routine and large-scale survey on public employees’ perceptions provide a natural opportunity to engage in broad and deep understanding of organizational phenomena in the management of human resources. Thirdly, we introduce optimization models as a way to provide practitioners-friendly predictions on combinations of job satisfaction constructs that may be worth considering together to improve well-being. We are not aware of any such approach as far as managing public personnel is concerned. Fourthly, unlike most scholarship, our work is based on large-sample surveys and replication efforts aimed at the testing the generalizability of the findings.

Limitations

From a practitioner standpoint, the main limitation of our study is that it provides valuable insights targeted to decision makers at the regional level. In other words, it is beyond the scope of this investigation providing analyses at the organizational level. The degree to which findings aggregated by region generalize to results aggregated by organization within regions remains to be tested. Similarly, providing analysis across typologies of health professionals – also through customized survey instruments – is outside the scope of our work, though an avenue of future work that might be worth pursuing.

Then, we must acknowledge that our work suffers from the same limitations that affect observational studies and combine logistic regression analyses with optimization techniques. Most notably, we are unable to establish cause-effect relationships between job satisfaction and its determinants or consequences. As to the representativeness of the sample, the inability to compare demographic statistics between the sample and the exact population of reference is due to the general data protection regulation—defined at the European Union level and detailed in national states—that is fully binding when doing research with real organizations. The regulation prohibits analyzing variables before the data collection is closed and storing any information of non-respondents. Although, a response rate of 80% or more is desired to establish scientific validity in epidemiology, researchers demonstrated that reaching that response rate is not always possible and can lead to other problems [ 57 ]. In addition, the response rates in our samples appear to be in line with those of established surveys, such as the NHS survey – where the lates response rate reached 46% or the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey – which registered a 34% participation in the latest edition. Of course, readers are encouraged to always keep in mind this feature when considering our work. Furthermore, concerns about the generalizability of results across operations (importantly of the job satisfaction variables), settings, and samples are legitimate. Similarly, the generalizability of our findings from the optimization analyses to other healthcare systems around the world is unknown because, to the best of our knowledge, this has no prior in the literature. Unfortunately, we are unable, at the moment, to expand our work by adding data collected in other countries around the globe. We very much encourage replication studies, which would serve as rigorous and challenging external validity tests of the current work. In fact, replication efforts are common practice for other topics in the healthcare management domains. As to regression analyses, omitted variable biases may impinge on the validity of the findings. Moreover, our analyses are nested within regions and comparisons across regions must be done with caution. In fact, our logistic regressions do not account for variables such as socio-demographic items that may be distributed differently in different regional healthcare systems.

As to the optimization techniques, we acknowledge that its sensitivity to changes in the magnitude of regression coefficients and the lack of cost structure impose a warning in deriving implications for practice. Indeed, the optimization model selects the best combination of correlates that might associate with an improved outcome based on their mean value and relative strength. This influences the stability of the optimization results. Also, the algorithm identifies a set of factors that together generate a preset level of increase in the overall satisfaction measures. Although these results are optimal within the context in which they were presented, they may not be the best possible from a cost perspective. Lacking cost information, the algorithm assumes that the cost to improve each of the predictors is equivalent. Form a practical perspective, however, implementing changes suggested by our findings may not translate into the most cost-effective reforms. To the contrary, there might be other interventions that improve job satisfaction and are less costly.

Our work on the job satisfaction correlates of about 73,000 public health employees paves the way for a more extensive use of work satisfaction and organizational climate survey among typologies of mission-driven organizations. Whereas questionnaires measuring the attitudes and the perceptions of government personnel such as the Federal Employee Viewpoint in the United States or of health professionals such as the survey of National Health System in the United Kingdom are now spread around the globe, similar inquiry are not yet common practice in other public institutions. Our study may be a systematic attempt to fill this gap. Furthermore, we emphasize the need to use any such survey for managerial efforts aimed at improving the quality of the organization and the well-being of their employees. In this regard, the optimization model seems helpful in deriving implications for practice.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available to maintain employers' and employees' confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Engaging Public Employees for a High-Performing Civil Service. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2016.

Ommen O, Driller E, Köhler T, Kowalski C, Ernstmann N, Neumann M, ..., Pfaff H. The relationship between social capital in hospitals and physician job satisfaction. BMC Health Serv Res 2009;9(1):1–9.

Tyssen R, Palmer KS, Solberg IB, Voltmer E, Frank E. Physicians’ perceptions of quality of care, professional autonomy, and job satisfaction in Canada, Norway, and the United States. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):1–10.

Article   Google Scholar  

Tsai Y. Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):1–9.

Schuster C, Weitzman L, Sass Mikkelsen K, Meyer‐Sahling J, Bersch K, et al. Responding to COVID‐19 Through Surveys of Public Servants. Public Adm Rev. 2020;80(5):792-6.

Batura N, Skordis-Worrall J, Thapa R, Basnyat R, Morrison J. Is the Job Satisfaction Survey a good tool to measure job satisfaction amongst health workers in Nepal? Results of a validation analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):1–13.

Fernandez S, Resh WG, Moldogaziev T, Oberfield ZW. Assessing the past and promise of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for public management research: a research synthesis. Public Adm Rev. 2015;75(3):382–94.

Battaglio RP, Belle N, Cantarelli P. Self-determination theory goes public: experimental evidence on the causal relationship between psychological needs and job satisfaction. Public Manag Rev 2021:1–18.

Vainieri M, Ferre F, Giacomelli G, Nuti S. Explaining performance in health care: How and when top management competencies make the difference. Health Care Manage Rev. 2019;44(4):306.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vainieri M, Seghieri C, Barchielli C. Influences over Italian nurses’ job satisfaction and willingness to recommend their workplace. Health Serv Manage Res. 2021;34(2):62–9.

Angelis J, Glenngård AH, Jordahl H. Management practices and the quality of primary care. Public Money Manag. 2021;41(3):264–71.

Moynihan DP, Fernandez S, Kim S, LeRoux KM, Piotrowski SJ, Wright BE, Yang K. Performance regimes amidst governance complexity. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2011;21(suppl_1):i141–55.

Thomann E, Trein P, Maggetti M. What’s the problem? Multilevel governance and problem-solving. Eur Policy Anal. 2019;5(1):37–57.

Bevan G, Evans A, Nuti S. Reputations count: why benchmarking performance is improving health care across the world. Health Econ Policy Law. 2019;14(2):141–61.

Giacomelli G, Vainieri M, Garzi R, Zamaro N. Organizational commitment across different institutional settings: how perceived procedural constraints frustrate self-sacrifice. Int Rev Adm Sci. 2020:0020852320949629.

Glenngård AH, Anell A. The impact of audit and feedback to support change behaviour in healthcare organisations-a cross-sectional qualitative study of primary care centre managers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–12.

Abner GB, Kim SY, Perry JL. Building evidence for public human resource management: Using middle range theory to link theory and data. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 2017;37(2):139–59.

Krueger P, Brazil K, Lohfeld L, Edward HG, Lewis D, Tjam E. Organization specific predictors of job satisfaction: findings from a Canadian multi-site quality of work life cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2002;2(1):1–8.

Raimondo E, Newcomer K. Mixed-methods inquiry in public administration: The interaction of theory, methodology, and praxis. Rev Public Pers Adm. 2017;37(2):183–201.

Brown AD, Sandoval GA, Levinton C, Blackstien-Hirsch P. Developing an efficient model to select emergency department patient satisfaction improvement strategies. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46(1):3–10.

Sandoval GA, Levinton C, Blackstien-Hirsch P, Brown AD. Selecting predictors of cancer patients’ overall perceptions of the quality of care received. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(1):151–6.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Seghieri C, Sandoval GA, Brown AD, Nuti S. Where to focus efforts to improve overall ratings of care and willingness to return: the case of Tuscan emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(2):136–44.

Barsanti S, Walker K, Seghieri C, Rosa A, Wodchis WP. Consistency of priorities for quality improvement for nursing homes in Italy and Canada: A comparison of optimization models of resident satisfaction. Health Policy. 2017;121(8):862–9.

Walker RM, Brewer GA, Lee MJ, Petrovsky N, Van Witteloostuijn A. Best practice recommendations for replicating experiments in public administration. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2019;29(4):609–26.

Zhu L, Witko C, Meier KJ. The public administration manifesto II: Matching methods to theory and substance. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2019;29(2):287–98.

Chamberlain SA, Hoben M, Squires JE, Estabrooks CA. Individual and organizational predictors of health care aide job satisfaction in long term care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):1–9.

Cantarelli P, Belardinelli P, Belle N. A meta-analysis of job satisfaction correlates in the public administration literature. Rev Public Pers Adm. 2016;36(2):115–44.

Judge TA, Heller D, Mount MK. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(3):530.

Judge TA, Thoresen CJ, Bono JE, Patton GK. The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychol Bull. 2001;127(3):376.

Rainey HG. Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley; 2009.

Google Scholar  

Kim S. Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organizations. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2005;15:245–61.

Smith PC, Kendall LM, Hulin CL. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally; 1969.

Locke EA. The nature and cause of job satisfaction. In: Dunnette MD, editor. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally; 1976. p. 1297–343.

Vigan FA, Giauque D. Job satisfaction in African public administrations: a systematic review. Int Rev Adm Sci. 2018;84(3):596–610.

Homberg F, McCarthy D, Tabvuma V. A meta-analysis of the relationship between public service motivation and job satisfaction. Public Adm Rev. 2015;75(5):711–22.

Judge TA, Piccolo RF, Podsakoff NP, Shaw JC, Rich BL. The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. J Vocat Behav. 2010;77(2):157–67.

Djukic M, Jun J, Kovner C, Brewer C, Fletcher J. Determinants of job satisfaction for novice nurse managers employed in hospitals. Health Care Manage Rev. 2017;42(2):172–83.

Kalisch B, Lee KH. Staffing and job satisfaction: nurses and nursing assistants. J Nurs Manag. 2014;22:465Y471.

Noblet AJ, Allisey AF, Nielsen IL, Cotton S, LaMontagne AD, Page KM. The work-based predictors of job engagement and job satisfaction experienced by community health professionals. Health Care Manage Rev. 2017;42(3):237–46.

Poikkeus T, Suhonen R, Katajisto J, Leino-Kilpi H. Relationships between organizational and individual support, nurses’ ethical competence, ethical safety, and work satisfaction. Health Care Manage Rev. 2020;45(1):83–93.

Vainieri M, Smaldone P, Rosa A, Carroll K. The role of collective labor contracts and individual characteristics on job satisfaction in Tuscan nursing homes. Health Care Manage Rev. 2019;44(3):224.

Zhang M, Yang R, Wang W, Gillespie J, Clarke S, Yan F. Job satisfaction of urban community health workers after the 2009 healthcare reform in China: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016;28(1):14–21.

Chordiya R, Sabharwal M, Battaglio RP. Dispositional and organizational sources of job satisfaction: a cross-national study. Public Manag Rev. 2019;21(8):1101–24.

Esteve M, Schuster C, Albareda A, Losada C. The effects of doing more with less in the public sector: evidence from a large-scale survey. Public Adm Rev. 2017;77(4):544–53.

Cantarelli P, Belle N, Longo F. Exploring the motivational bases of public mission-driven professions using a sequential-explanatory design. Public Manag Rev. 2019;22(10):1535-59.

Belle N, Cantarelli P. The role of motivation and leadership in public employees’ job preferences: evidence from two discrete choice experiments. Int Public Manag J. 2018;21(2):191–212.

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. https://www.opm.gov/fevs/ [Last accessed March 2023].

Nuti S. La valutazione della performance in Sanità, Edizione Il Mulino. 2008.

Pizzini S, Furlan M. L’esercizio delle competenze manageriali e il clima interno. Il caso del Servizio Sanitario della Toscana. Psicologia Sociale. 2012;3(1):429–46.

Giacomelli G, Ferré F, Furlan M, Nuti S. Involving hybrid professionals in top management decision-making: How managerial training can make the difference. Health Serv Manage Res. 2019;32(4):168–79.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Vardè AM, Mennini FS. Analysis evolution of personnel in the Italian National Healthcare Service with a view to health planning. MECOSAN. 2019;110:9–43. https://doi.org/10.3280/MESA2019-110002 .

Aloisio LD, Gifford WA, McGilton KS, Lalonde M, Estabrooks CA, Squires JE. Individual and organizational predictors of allied healthcare providers’ job satisfaction in residential long-term care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–18.

van Diepen C, Fors A, Ekman I, Hensing G. Association between person-centred care and healthcare providers’ job satisfaction and work-related health: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10(12):e042658.

Cunningham R, Westover J, Harvey J. Drivers of job satisfaction among healthcare professionals: a quantitative review. Int J Healthcare Manag. 2022:1–9.

Rowan BL, Anjara S, De Brún A, MacDonald S, Kearns EC, Marnane M, McAuliffe E. The impact of huddles on a multidisciplinary healthcare teams’ work engagement, teamwork and job satisfaction: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2022;28(3):382–93.

Sharma A, Borah SB, Moses AC. Responses to COVID-19: the role of governance, healthcare infrastructure, and learning from past pandemics. J Bus Res. 2021;122:597–607.

Hendra R, Hill A. Rethinking response rates: new evidence of little relationship between survey response rates and nonresponse bias. Eval Rev. 2019;43(5):307–30.

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors are grateful to the Management and Healthcare Laboratory (Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna) and its Network delle Regioni .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Management and Healthcare Laboratory, Institute of Management and L’EMbeDS, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Piazza Martiri Della Libertà 33, Pisa, 56127, Italy

Paola Cantarelli, Milena Vainieri & Chiara Seghieri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All Authors contributed equally. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paola Cantarelli .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval is unnecessary according to national legislation D. Lgs. 150/2009, art. 14.

The Italian Legislative Decree 196/2003 Code of Privacy requires public institutions to conduct employee viewpoint surveys and authorizes the use of employees’ data to evaluate the quality of service and identify organizational improvement actions. This legislative act does not ask for permission from an Ethical Committee when interviewing workers with regard to job satisfaction and related perceptions. This survey is considered as a service quality measurement activity and does not require an Ethics committee involvement. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects, in written form. In other words, as human data are used, we confirm that all methods were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cantarelli, P., Vainieri, M. & Seghieri, C. The management of healthcare employees’ job satisfaction: optimization analyses from a series of large-scale surveys. BMC Health Serv Res 23 , 428 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09426-3

Download citation

Received : 18 January 2023

Accepted : 19 April 2023

Published : 03 May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09426-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Job satisfaction
• Healthcare employees
• Healthcare governance
• Large-scale viewpoint surveys
• Optimization analysis

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Work engagement and employee satisfaction in the practice of sustainable human resource management – based on the study of Polish employees

• Open access
• Published: 28 March 2023
• Volume 19 , pages 1069–1100, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Barbara Sypniewska   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8846-1183 1 ,
• Małgorzata Baran   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8081-9512 2 &
• Monika Kłos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0663-0671 3  

29k Accesses

15 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Sustainable human resource management (SHRM) views employees as a very important resource for the organisation, while paying close attention to their preferences, needs, and perspectives. The individual is an essential element of SHRM. The article focuses on analyzing selected SHRM issues related to the individual employee's level of job engagement and employee satisfaction. The main objective of our study was to identify individual-level correlations between factors affecting employee satisfaction, such as: workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention, job engagement, and employee satisfaction. Based on the results of a systematic literature review, we posed the following research question: is there any relation between factors affecting employee satisfaction (employee workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention, work engagement) and employee satisfaction in the SHRM context? To answer the research question, we have conducted a quantitative study on the sample of 1051 employees in companies in Poland and posed five hypotheses (H1-H5). The research findings illustrate that higher level of employee workplace well-being (H1), employee development, (H2), employee retention (H3) was related to higher level of employee engagement (H4), which in turn led to higher level of employee satisfaction. The results show the mediating role of employee engagement in the relationship between workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention, and employee satisfaction (H5). The presented results contribute to the development of research on work engagement and job satisfaction in the practice of SHRM. By examining the impact of individual-level factors on job satisfaction, we explain which workplace factors should be addressed to increase an employee satisfaction and work engagement. The set of practical implications for managers implementing SHRM in the organization is discussed at the end of the paper.

Similar content being viewed by others

Work–Life Balance: Definitions, Causes, and Consequences

Employee Engagement: Keys to Organizational Success

Effect of green human resource management practices on organizational sustainability: the mediating role of environmental and employee performance

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Sustainable human resource management (SHRM) is of great importance for implementing sustainable development principles in an efficient and effective way. SHRM strategies lay the foundations to achieve it by raising employee awareness and forming desirable pro-social and environmental attitudes (Bombiak, 2020 ; Sharma et al., 2009 ).

The inclusion of the concept of sustainability in the management of organisations is a consequence of institutional pressures that have forced significant changes in this area as part of the drive for social acceptance (Lopez-Cabrales & Valle-Cabrera, 2020 , p.1; Meyer & Rowan, 1977 ).

The term sustainability has different meanings depending on the perspective from which it is examined. The Resource Based View (RBV) inscribes the term in the strategic analysis of business, in relation to competitiveness in economic terms, and from an ecological perspective, in the environmental impact of the activities of various institutions (Lopez-Cabrales & Valle-Cabrera, 2020 ). However, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) gives a definition of sustainability that refers to an organisation's activities and development in such a way that, while meeting the needs of the present, they do not endanger the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Lopez-Cabrales & Valle-Cabrera, 2020 , p.1; Ehnert, 2009 ; Barney, 1991 ).

From a strategic point of view, the human aspect is essential to build an effective and healthy organization (Siddiqui & Ijaz, 2022 ; Järlström et al., 2018 ; Cleveland & Cavanagh, 2015 ). Sustainable HRM views employees as a very important resource for the organisation, while paying close attention to their preferences, needs, and perspectives. SHRM activities are carried out with the aim of improving organisational performance by enabling the development of long-term relationships with employees. It follows that sustainable HRM demonstrates in companies a path of organisational development that is based on human development (Lestari et al., 2021 ; Indiparambil et al., 2019 , p. 67; Cleveland & Cavanagh, 2015 ;).

Companies that are committed to their employees receive their work engagement in return. Organisations where HRM takes care of employees and their health retain more engaged, satisfied, and productive employees, with good overall health and well-being (Siddiqui & Ijaz, 2022 ; Sheraz et al., 2021 ; Indiparambil et al., 2019 , p. 67;Cleveland & Cavanagh, 2015 ).

Many authors argue that HR sustainability requires a focus on positive human/social outcomes identified at the individual, organizational, and societal level (Browning & Delahaye, 2011 ; Donnelly & Proctor-Thomson, 2011 ; Ehnert, 2009 ; Wells, 2011 ). The sustainable HRM seeks to achieve positive human outcomes by implementing sustainable work systems. Thus, it facilitates employees’ work-life balance without compromising performance (Indiparambil, 2019 ; Järlström et al., 2018 ). The sustainable HRM organisational practice manifests itself in employee’s commitment, employee’s satisfaction, and engagement (Chen & Chen, 2022 ; Parakandi & Behery, 2015 ). It is emphasized that by attracting and retaining talent, developing employee skills, and maintaining a healthy and productive workforce, SHRM practices in an organisation also affect employee satisfaction (Macke & Genari, 2019 ; Ehnert, 2006 ).

The article focuses on analyzing selected SHRM issues related to the individual employee's level of job engagement and employee satisfaction.

The main objective of our study was to identify individual-level correlations between factors affecting employee satisfaction, such as workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention, job engagement, and employee satisfaction.

The existing state of knowledge in the field of SHRM in the context of the individual employee, examined through a systematic literature review, has shown that there are current cognitive research gaps:

The organizational perspective dominates the research of SHRM, while a research gap has emerged in terms of research at the individual level in the literature.

The employee satisfaction in the context of SHRM has not been sufficiently studied in the literature.

Little research has been devoted to humanity in a sustainable work environment.

In particular, there is a lack of research focused on the relationship between employee workplace well-being, employee development and retention, and all those related to employee satisfaction and engagement in a sustainable work environment.

There is no such research (examining SHRM from the perspective of employees) conducted in Poland.

Based on the results of a systematic literature review, we posed the following research question: is there any relation between factors affecting employee satisfaction (employee workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention, work engagement) and employee satisfaction in the SHRM context? To answer the research question, we have conducted a quantitative study on the sample of 1051 employees from companies in Poland. We formulated the following hypotheses:

H1: Employee workplace well-being positively correlates with employee satisfaction.

H2: Employee development positively correlates with employee satisfaction.

H3: Employee retention positively correlates with employee satisfaction.

H4: Employee engagement positively correlates with employee satisfaction.

H5: Employee engagement mediates the relationship between workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention, and employee satisfaction.

The article presents the theoretical framework of the SHRM concept along with the research model (theoretical chapters). Section 3 is devoted to the methodological approach description. Section 4 contains the research sample characteristic, procedures for data analysis description, and study results presentation. The end of the paper is focused on conclusions with a discussion of the implications that follow from the results and paper limitations with directions of further scientific research.

The presented research results contribute to the development of research on work engagement and job satisfaction in the practice of SHRM. Firstly, by examining the impact of individual-level factors on job satisfaction, we explain how to motivate employees and which factors at work to focus on in order to increase employee satisfaction and work engagement.

Another of our contributions is a deeper understanding of the mediating role that employee engagement plays in job satisfaction. Our results showed that engagement and its dimensions mediate the relationship between individual factors (employee development well-being, retention, overall commitment) and job satisfaction.

Finally, our contribution is the set of practical implications for managers implementing SHRM in the organization, discussed at the end of the paper.

Theoretical framework

The very term sustainable HRM has been used for more than a decade. The literature is fragmented, diverse, and fraught with difficulties (Ehnert, 2009 ). No precise definition of the term exists and it has been used in a variety of ways. A number of notions have been used to link sustainability and HRM activities (Kramar, 2014 ). These include sustainable work systems (Abid et al., 2020 ; Docherty et al., 2002 ; Docherty et al.,; 2009 ), HR sustainability (Gollan, 2000 ; Wirtenberg et al., 2007 ), sustainable HR management (Kramar, 2014 ; Ehnert, 2011 , 2006 ), sustainable leadership (Avery, 2005 ; Avery & Bergsteiner, 2010 ;) and sustainable HRM (Mariappanadar, 2012 , 2003 ), HR aspects of sustainable organization (Dunphy et al., 2007 ), sustainable HRM policies (Mariappanadar, 2012 , 2003 ; Avery & Bergsteiner, 2010 ; Stanton et al., 2010 ; Ehnert, 2009 ; Dunphy et al., 2007 ; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007 ; Teo & Rodwell, 2007 ), sustainable HRM practices (Jackson et al., 2011 ), sustainable work environment (Dunphy et al., 2007 ). Table 1 summarises the different contexts of the definition of sustainable HRM.

Linking sustainability and HRM is related to constantly increasing challenges inside and outside the organization. The challenges directly or indirectly affect the quality and the quantity of human resources. Sustainability is chosen for HRM due to its potential to overcome troubles and develop, to regenerate and preserve human resources in the organization.

In conjunction with economic performance, SHRM intervenes to address issues of engagement with environmental and social impacts. Strategic HRM emphasises the monitoring of human capital through accessible HR practices, taking the economic performance of employees as a basis. Sustainable HRM focuses on the development of an innovative workplace that provides a basis for internal and external social engagement and allows for greater environmental awareness and responsibility. These activities translate into promoting organisational success in a competitive environment. The development of new human resource management strategies and practices leads to economic, social, and environmental progress (Giang & Dung, 2022 ; Podgorodnichenko et al., 2020 ; Chamsa & García-Blandónb, 2019 , p. 111; Indiparambil et al., 2019 , p. 68)

Based on the literature review, we identified three approaches of sustainable HRM (Poon & Law, 2022 ; Chamsa & García-Blandónb, 2019 ; Indiparambil et al., 2019 , p. 69)

A responsibility-oriented approach, namely, the well-being of employees, communities,and work-life balance,

Corporate objectives oriented towards efficiency and innovation, namely,the link between economic performance and sustainability expressed through environmental changes, quality of services and products, technological progress,

Resource-oriented approach, namely, responsible consumption.

In turn, Järlström et al. ( 2018 ) identify four dimensions of sustainable HRM, that is, fairness and equity, transparent HR practices, profitability, and employee well-being. The dimension of employee well-being promotes caring for and supporting employees with due respect. This shows that employees are not just a resource to be used, but an asset to be developed. Employee well-being here means well-being, health, protecting work relationships with others, and work-life balance. Moreover, in the individual sphere of employees, HRM promotes practices that foster mental and physical health, giving importance to the well-being of employees (Indiparambil et al., 2019 , p. 68; Järlström et al., 2018 ). Sustainable HRM increases employee productivity while improving organisational capabilities by offering innovative HR practices. The individual employee is an essential element of SHRM, as it maximises the integration of employee goals with those of the organisation. An enterprise is considered sustainable when the legitimate needs of the enterprise, that is, productive employees, as well as employees, i.e., fair treatment, remuneration, mentoring (Indiparambil et al., 2019 , p. 68; Cleveland & Cavanagh, 2015 ;) are met.

The use of sustainable HRM practices becomes particularly important to ensure the proper development and well-being of employees. Moreover, many authors indicate a link between specific HRM practices, high levels of employee well-being, and employment (Jaskeviciute et al., 2021 ; Strenitzerová & Achimský, 2019 , p. 3; Cooper et al., 2019 ; Stankeviciute & Savaneviciene, 2018 , p. 8; Guest, 2017 ). In this aspect, the following groups of well-being-oriented practices become the most relevant, namely: training and development; mentoring, career support; creating challenging and autonomous work; providing information and receiving feedback; positive social and physical environment; employee voice; and organisational support (Cooper et al., 2019 ; Guest, 2017 ; Jaskeviciute et al., 2021 ;).

Sustainable HRM contributes to attracting and retaining human resource over time (Lopez-Cabrales & Valle-Cabrera, 2020 ; Ehnert, 2009 , p. 180). Employee development, remaining in a competitive work environment, increasing efficiency, and employee work well-being can only be ensured by meeting the needs of employees and providing them with sustainable working environment (Ali et al., 2021 ; Cantele & Zardini, 2018 ; Chatzopoulou et al., 2015 ; Ehnert, 2009 , 2014 ; Guerci et al., 2014 ; Lorincova et al., 2018 ; Mariappanadar, 2014 ; Monusova, 2008 ; Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015 ).

At the same time, employee satisfaction itself becomes one of the fundamental aspects of overall well-being and employee sustainable development. Human resources bring talent and expertise to an organization, and these are developed over the course of a career. In the long run, employee development and organisational contributions can translate into higher employee satisfaction and hence organisational commitment (Jaskeviciute et al., 2021 , p. 120; Abid et al., 2020 ; Davidescu et al., 2020 ; Cannas et al., 2019 ; Indiparambil et al., 2019 , p. 69;).

Job satisfaction is a complex and controversial construct, on which there is no single definition. Consensually, it is considered one of the most positive attitudes towards work itself. Currently, there is a predominance of a multidimensional approach that understands satisfaction as a tripartite psychological response composed of feelings, ideas, and intentions to act, by which people evaluate their work experiences in an emotional and/or cognitive way (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012 ). Specialists agree on the positive impact and beneficial consequences of satisfaction in the workplace. (Böckerman & Ilmakunnas, 2012 ).

Job satisfaction is defined as a positive or pleasant emotional state resulting from job evaluation (Locke, 1976 ) and acquired experiences on the job (Makin et al., 2000 , pp. 82–83). It is an expression of emotional attitude towards the job and the tasks performed, and an emotional response to the job (Spector, 1985 ). It is also an emotional response to the performance of tasks and roles, and in crisis situations, employees with higher job satisfaction will have more strength and energy (Rhéaume, 2021 ; Bańka, 1996 , p.69;).

A review of the literature shows that job satisfaction is also related to engagement (Chordiya et al., 2017 ), intentions to remain in the company (Zhang et al., 2016 ), and trust in the supervisor (Gockel et al., 2013 ).

There are two main approaches to measuring job satisfaction: an overall measure of satisfaction and one that relates to specific aspects of satisfaction. The literature recommends measuring not only overall job satisfaction, but also how its individual components are experienced by employees and affect overall satisfaction. Such multidimensional measures contribute more to a better and deeper understanding of the issue and highlight the importance of job satisfaction especially in the context of sustainable HRM.

It is recognized that job satisfaction is the degree to which employees feel that their needs and expectations are being met. Satisfaction develops through cognitive and emotional responses.

The person-environment fit theory can be a useful framework for understanding why some practices of SHRM have the ability to generate employee satisfaction. This theory holds that the degree of fit between employee needs and organizational supplies impacts employees’ attitudes. Hence, it is likely that positive job satisfaction arises when the degree of perceived fit between the person and the work environment is high, while negative attitudes would develop when the person-environment adjustment is perceived to be low (Salanova et al., 2012 ).

Ensuring that these practices are implemented results in positive outcomes for the individual and the organisation. As part of the successful application of sustainable HRM practices, great importance is placed on aspects related to employee individual development and employee well-being. These strongly influence employee satisfaction and engagement (Zaugg et al., 2001 , p. 3; Cleveland & Cavanagh, 2015 ).

In this article, we focus on job satisfaction, as it is seen as particularly important for the sustainability of workplaces and entire organizations.

Research model

In order to build research conceptual model, we used a systematic literature review methodology (Czakon, 2011 ). According to the adopted methodology, we carried out the procedure in three stages. The first stage included: (a) definition of the database and the set of publications; (b) selection of publications; (c) elaboration of the final publication database; (d) bibliometric and content analysis of selected materials. Publications for analysis were collected from the EBSCO database. Scientific publications (articles, book chapters) that contained the phrases [sustainable* or sustainable HRM* humanity* job satisfaction* engagement*] were searched. Eligibility criteria were fixed so that studies published in peer-reviewed full-length articles, written in English, were selected for the review process. The search at this stage resulted in over 496 publications in total. In the second step, the we applied the following selection criteria: publications in the field of personnel management, HRM, job satisfaction. This allowed the number of publications to be narrowed down for in-depth substantive analysis, which was carried out in the third stage of the systematic literature review. An accumulated collection of 158 publications was used for this purpose.

The different approaches are not mutually exclusive. Despite their differences, they have one thing in common: understanding that sustainability refers to a long-term and sustainable outcome (Kramar, 2014 , p. 1076).

Based on the results of the literature review, we identified two levels of sustainable HRM contributions – organizational level and individual employee level. The summary is presented in the Table 2 .

The presented issues based on the systematic literature review, have become the basis for hypotheses The authors have focused on the individual employee level of analyses.

It should be noted that despite the extensive discussion in the literature on both the individual and organizational level of SHRM, the research is dominated by the organizational perspective. SHRM is a phenomenon dependent not only on internal organizational conditions, but also on certain characteristics of individual employees. The literature does not provide an answer to the question about the relationship between SHRM on the individual level in the context of employee satisfaction. Moreover, the literature does not explain why higher well-being at work, workforce training, or efforts to retain employees on the part of the company can lead to greater workforce satisfaction.

This results in the main research objective of the article, which is recognition of correlations between factors affecting employee satisfaction (employee workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention, work engagement) and employee satisfaction, from the perspective of employee in the sustainable HRM context. Considering the results of systematic literature review, the research model was built to determine the relationships between identified variables (Fig.  1 ).

Source: own elaboration

Research model.

The existing state of knowledge in the field of SHRM in the individual employee context, examined through a systematic literature review has shown that there are current cognitive research gaps. For example, few studies have been devoted to humanity in a sustainable work environment. In particular, there is a lack of research focused on the relationship between employee workplace well-being, employee development and retention, and all these (relationships) related to the employee satisfaction and employee engagement in a sustainable work environment. Therefore, as far as the authors are concerned, there is no such research (from the perspective of employees) conducted in Poland.

The following research hypotheses were formulated:

H1: Employee workplace well-being (EWW) positively correlates with employee satisfaction.

H2: Employee development (ED) positively correlates with employee satisfaction.

H3: Employee retention (ER) positively correlates with employee satisfaction.

H4: Employee engagement (EG) positively correlates with employee satisfaction.

H5: Employee engagement (EG) mediates relationships between employee workplace well-being (EWW), employee development (ED), employee retention (ER) and employee satisfaction.

Based on a review of the well-being literature, Page and Vella-Brodrick ( 2009 ) have argued that employee well-being (EWB) should be measured in terms of social well-being (SWB), psychological well-being (PWB), and work-related affect, that is, workplace well-being (WWB). The last is related to work satisfaction and work-related affect. Employees reporting positive well-being tend to demonstrate higher job satisfaction and job performance as compared to those reporting low levels of well-being (Wright et al., 2007 ).

Raising perceptions of organizational support involves developing leaders and policies that convey consideration for employees' needs, well-being, challenges, and concerns (Eisenberger et al., 1997 ). Workplace well-being is a pleasant or positive emotional state resulting from job evaluation or work experiences (Locke, 1970 ). Bakker and Leiter ( 2010 ) argue that an employee's sense of well-being occurs when they find their job satisfying and when emotions such as joy and happiness prevail. This is supported by studies of the relationship between well-being and job satisfaction, which show that increased well-being accompanies higher job satisfaction (Browne, 2021 ; Machin-Rincon et al., 2020 ; Rhéaume, 2021 ; Wu et al., 2021 ).

A popular analysis of employee well-being includes a concept known as the Vitamin Model of Employee Well-Being by Warr ( 1994 ). The author singles out characteristics of work in the organizational environment that in varying degrees of intensity affect employee well-being (Warr & Clapperton, 2010 ). The model uses comparing work characteristics to vitamins in the human body, which depending on the intensity can positively or negatively affect it. In this case, there is a relationship between their intensity, and job satisfaction. This model focuses on the relationship between job characteristics and mental health of individuals. Employee satisfaction which comes through many ways and one of them is workplace well-being. Employee satisfaction appears in many ways, in various studies. One of them is well-being in the workplace (Siddiqui & Ijaz, 2022 ). Employees in companies implementing wellness programs reported higher work satisfaction rates than those in companies without wellness programs, thereby suggesting that these wellness programs may positively affect job satisfaction for employees (Pawar & Kunte, 2022 ).

Accordingly, we hypothesized that employee workplace well-being positively correlates with employee satisfaction (H1).

Employee-oriented HRM denote the organization’s investment in its human resources, especially in what concerns its growth and professional development.

In organizations characterized by employee centered HRM, given the importance of welfare and development (Clarke & Hill, 2012 ), it would be expected to find higher levels of job satisfaction among its members. Evidence (Hantula, 2015 ) indicates that the most satisfied employees are those who work in positions that offer them freedom, independence, and discretion to schedule work and decide on procedures; autonomy for decision making, as well as opportunities to apply and develop personal skills and competences.

Current changes in the workplace are causing some researchers to take a holistic view of HR culture in an organization to study its impact on employee job satisfaction, and have revealed that there is a correlation between career development and other variables, namely, employee motivation and job satisfaction (Akdere & Egan, 2020 ; Lestari et al., 2021 ; Sheraz et al., 2021 ).

The employees and the management work on the same page and achieve the desired goals. According to Järlström et al. ( 2018 ), sustainable HRM builds a positive path and valuable strategies to maintain progress and employee development. It means a company must be conscious regarding developing their entrepreneurial HR development-based policies and strategies within a workplace.

Development opportunities are a form of recognition for employees' work, which in turn translates into career advancement. Understanding the competencies that will be needed in the future contributes to the design of development plans. Future promotion, which is associated with higher pay, depends on the skills possessed, so allowing employees to develop them can increase employee satisfaction. Increased knowledge and skills can translate into increased satisfaction, due to the achievement of professional goals (satisfaction with one's career) and personal goals (feeling of professional success).

Based on a study conducted by Nguyen and Duong ( 2020 ), it shows that there was a strong positive relationship between training and development element on employee satisfaction.

Opportunity for personal growth is one important factor that has a significant impact on job satisfaction. With the passage of time in employment, if an employee does not have the opportunity for development, the level of satisfaction decreases and discouragement and passivity towards responsibilities increases.

Accordingly, we hypothesized that employee development positively correlates with employee satisfaction (H2).

An important way in which HRM practitioners can increase the satisfaction of employees is through the retention of employees, especially during times of economic challenge. Research demonstrates the powerful negative psychological effects of termination and unemployment on the unemployed (Paul & Moser, 2009 ), and the negative impact on work attitudes by so-called survivors (i.e., employees who remain after downsizing; Datta et al., 2010 ).

There are several motivational theories (Rousseau, 1989 ; Vroom, 1964 ; Adams, 1963 ) that suggest that organizational commitment to employees during difficult times should result in employee commitment to the organization when labor market conditions change in the employees' favor.

Today, in an economy of technological advances, organizations are constantly competing to retain their key employees and avoid high turnover rates by caring about employee satisfaction (Khan et al., 2021 ; Kim et al., 2020 ).

It is difficult for employees to be successful and productive at work if they are distracted and anxious about personal and financial problems (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2007 ; Kahn, 1990 ). Thus, a critical advocacy role for HRM practitioners is to ensure that employees receive a livable pay, benefits, and a secure retirement, which ultimately contributes to their ability to develop and stay at work. These types of incentives are associated with higher employee organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Hulin & Hanisch, 1991 ), and can be powerful in the recruitment process, ensuring that firms are competitive in obtaining the best talent (Siddiqui & Ijaz, 2020 ; Chapman et al., 2005 ).

This leads us to our final hypothesis that employee retention positively correlates with employee satisfaction (H3).

An engaged workforce feels competent, finds meaning in work, and finds growth psychologically through work. Organizations benefit from striving to create an engaged workforce (Byrne et al., 2011 ). By creating opportunities, organizations foster engaged employees who are mentally and physically healthy (Attridge, 2009 ; Schaufeli et al., 2008 ).

Engaged employees tend to be more productive than disengaged employees, resulting in higher employee satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002 ). There is a positive impact of employee engagement to effect of job satisfaction and a current understanding of the dynamics between living wage, job satisfaction, and employee engagement (Hendriks et al., 2022 ; Maleka et al., 2021 ; Sahrish et al., 2021 ; Ngwenya & Pelser, 2020 ).

Organizational psychologists have long seen the potential for work to satisfy belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization needs (Alderfer, 1969 ; Maslow, 1943 ), as well as suggested designing jobs that offer the opportunity to use diverse skills and provide meaning and autonomy to employees (Hackman & Oldham, 1976 ; Herzberg et al., 1959 ). Designing jobs to be meaningful and developmental increases job satisfaction, which in turn has positive effects on organizational outcomes, such as increased productivity and decreased turnover (Champoux, 1991 ; Fried & Ferris, 1987 ). Accordingly, we hypothesized that e mployee engagement (EG) positively correlates with employee satisfaction (H4).

However, in light of the available evidence, it can be hypothesized that employee engagement will mediate the relationship between individual workplace factors (employee workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention) and employee satisfaction.

Although, there is strong empirical evidence of the mediation role played by engagement (Schaufeli & Taris, 2013 ), most research is cross-sectional in nature, and furthermore, the consequences of engagement have been less empirically studied (Halbesleben, 2010 ). Concerning the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction, empirical research has found a moderate correlation among constructs (Zhang et al., 2022 ; Simbula & Guglielmi, 2013 ; Schaufeli et al., 2008 ).

Work engagement is the linking between the employees’ selves to their work roles where they express themselves as physical, cognitive, and emotional (Kahn, 1990 ). This psychological state (May et al., 2004 ) may be defined as a “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002 , p. 74). Vigor represents high levels of energy, the willingness to put effort in the job, and to persist when confronted with difficulties; dedication means the senses of significance, pride, and enthusiasm; and absorption refers to being fully concentrated and focused on the job. Absorption refers to the feeling of full concentration and immersion in work, accompanied by the experience of unnatural lapse of time, difficulty in detaching from work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ).

In essence, work engagement refers to a persistent and pervasive state that connotes involvement, commitment, enthusiasm, focused effort, and energy (Macey & Schneider, 2008 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ).

The literature highlights that organizations benefit from striving to create an engaged workforce (Byrne et al., 2011 ). By creating opportunities, organizations support engaged employees who are mentally and physically healthy (Attridge, 2009 ; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007 ; Schaufeli et al., 2008 ). Engaged employees tend to perform better than unengaged employees, resulting in higher employee satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002 ). When workers perceive that their organization believes in engagement-oriented policies then it leads toward workplace well-being (Oliveira et al., 2020 ).

Given these relationships, in our analysis we want to give answers to the research hypothesis (H5): employee engagement (EG) mediates relationships between employee workplace well-being (EWW), employee development (ED), employee retention (ER), and employee satisfaction ().

Research has identified four reasons why engaged workers perform better than nonengaged workers and are more satisfied: (a) they often experience positive emotions such as joy, enthusiasm, and happiness; (b) they experience better health conditions; (c) they develop their own job and personal resources; and (d) their engagement is contagious to others (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008 ).

Methodology

A quantitative questionnaire survey was conducted on a sample of 1051 people in 2019. The respondents were selected through non-random sampling. The criterion for selection of respondents was determined by the size of firms according to the criterion of number of employees (micro, small, medium, and large enterprises. As a criterion the authors adopted the structure of companies in the population of enterprises in Poland, that operate according to sustainable development policies (procedures). Employees of companies that took part in the study constitute a group of 1051 people.

Work engagement was measured accordingly with the theoretical concept of Schaufeli and Bakker ( 2003 ), who define work engagement as a positive, fulfilling feeling towards work, which relates to the state of mind comprised of three dimensions: the sense of vigour experienced by an employee, dedication to work, and absorption. The authors of the above concept define these dimensions as:

Vigour – experiencing a high level of energy and mental endurance at work, willingness to go the extra mile, resilience, especially in the face of adversities;

Dedication – working with enthusiasm, with the sense that one’s work is important, taking pride in being able to do one’s job, being enthusiastic, and welcoming challenges;

Absorption – the sense of full concentration on and involvement in work accompanied by experiencing unnatural passing of the time and with difficulty to stop working. Work Engagement was operationalized with the Polish version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) containing nine statements.

The dimensions of employee workplace well-being, employee development, and employee retention were examined using a proprietary questionnaire consisting of 26 questions. The selection of dimensions was based on the literature review related to sustainable HRM.

Job satisfaction was measured using the Job Satisfaction Scale (Zalewska, 2003 ), consisting of 5 statements regarding the evaluation of the work sphere. A 7-point scale was used in the questionnaire: 1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-totally disagree, 4-hard to say, 5-rather agree, 6-agree, 7-strongly agree. All statements are elements of one dimension and show high internal consistency in the heterogeneous sample and in individual occupational groups, which confirms that the scale is a reliable, valuable, and accurate tool for measuring overall job satisfaction.

A total of 1,051 people participated in the survey, of which 68.2% were female and 31.8% were male. Most respondents were aged 20–29 years (64.4%), those aged 30–39 years were 18.6%, and those aged 40–49 years were 14.5%. However, those over 50 years of age comprised 2.6% of the sample. Most (43.3%) of the respondents were employed in large enterprises (over 250 employees). Medium enterprises (50–249 employees) accounted for 21.2%, and small enterprises (10–49 employees) accounted for 22.3% of the respondents. The smallest group (12,7%) were respondents representing micro enterprises (up to 9 employees). Missing data represented 0.6%. Most of the respondents were from companies with Polish capital (68.3%), and the least from companies with mixed capital (15%). However, 16.1% of respondents were from foreign capital companies. Lack of data was 0.6%.

Research results

In the preliminary analysis descriptive statistics were calculated. The verification of hypotheses H1 to H4 was based on correlation analysis. Hypothesis H5 regarding mediation was verified with the use of mediation analysis based on macro–Hayes Process ( 2018 ).

The study decided to use correlation analysis to examine the linear relationship between the variables. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the strength of the relationship between the variables. As a result of this analysis, it can be determined whether a particular factor, a particular variable, has an impact on job satisfaction.

Another analysis was a mediation analysis based on the macro-Hayes process. Mediation analysis has been used for many years by researchers (Baron & Kenny, 1986 ; MacKinnon, 2008 ;).

The purpose of the analysis in our study was to test the mediating role of commitment with its dimensions (vigor, dedication, absorption) in the relationship between well-being, employee development, retention, and job satisfaction.

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for analysed variables, namely, mean values, standard deviations, minimum and maximum values, measures of skewness and kurtosis, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients.

The values of skewness and kurtosis did not exceed the range from -1.0 to 1.0. Therefore, parametric statistical tests were used in the subsequent analysis.

Reliability α—Cronbach's is at a high level in all variables studied. For WWB it is 0.93, ED 0.80, ER 0.77, while the overall score for employee engagement is 0.91 and employee satisfaction 0.91.

Correlation analysis

Table 4 values of Pearson correlation coefficients between analysed variables.

Employee workplace well-being correlated positively with employee satisfaction, which supports hypothesis H1. Employee development correlated positively with employee satisfaction, which supports hypothesis H2. Employee retention correlated positively with employee satisfaction, which supports hypothesis H3.

Vigor, dedication, absorption, and total employee engagement also positively correlated with employee satisfaction, which supports hypothesis H4.

The results of the correlation analysis indicate that all the variables adopted in the study are significant and influence job satisfaction. Therefore, it can be concluded that employee well-being, employee development, retention and engagement determine in an employee satisfaction with the work he does for his organization. This result has practical implications for the organization, as will be discussed later.

Mediation analysis

Employee engagement and its components, vigor, dedication, and absorption, were analysed as mediators of the relationship between employee workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention and employee satisfaction. The analysis was performed with the use of Hayess Process macro ( 2018 ) and based on the model no. 4. Figure  2 depicts analysed relationships between analysed variables. Employee workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention and employee satisfaction were analysed in separate statistical models. Vigor, dedication, and absorption were analysed as three parallel mediators. Total employee engagement was analysed as a mediator in a separate statistical model.

Model of analysed relationships between analysed variables.

Table 5 presents results of mediation analysis. 95% confidence intervals were based on the bootstrap method with 1.000 consecutive drawings.

The acquired results support hypothesis H5. Depending on the explained variable analysed statistical models explained from 52 to 67% of employee satisfaction variance. Interpreting the results, we can consider that total employee engagement, vigor (Vi) and dedication (De) were statistically significant mediators between employee workplace well-being (WWB), employee development (ED), employee retention (ER), and employee satisfaction.

The results of the study show that the direct relationships between employee workplace well-being (WWB), employee development (ED), employee retention (ER) and employee satisfaction were also statistically significant. Interpreting the results, it can be concluded that total employee engagement, vigor, and dedication were partial mediators.

In contrast, there was no statistically significant mediation effect for absorption (Ab).

We referred to this result in the discussion section of the article, pointing out the dangerous phenomenon with which absorption is associated. The phenomenon concerns losing track of time, immersing oneself in work, and having issues with detaching from it.

In addition, the results showed that higher levels of employee well-being in the workplace (WWB), employee development (ED), employee retention (ER) was related to higher level of vigor, higher level of dedication and higher total level of employee engagement, which in turn led to higher level of employee satisfaction.

The results of the mediation analysis indicate the mediating role of vigor and dedication increasing job satisfaction considering the relationship of well-being, employee development, retention with job satisfaction.

Discussion and conclusion

It is shown that the sustainable HRM is a developmental approach for employees. Within sustainable HRM practice employees are not just resources but assets. Sustainable HRM ensures leveraging capabilities of employees guaranteeing the sustenance of this ‘human capital’ as a source of competitive advantage. Sustainable HRM considers employees' satisfaction, engagement, and well-being. It finally endorses that ultimately successful individuals become the foundation stones for effective and successful organizations (Indiparambil, 2019 ; Parakandi & Behery, 2015 ).

The main objective of our study was to identify individual-level correlations between factors affecting employee satisfaction, such as workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention, job engagement and employee satisfaction. As the literature review shows, this goal is extremely legitimate because of the practical implications for both organizations, employees, and science.

Overall, our results indicate that workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention, and employee engagement positively correlate with employee satisfaction. In addition, the results show the mediating role of employee engagement in the relationship between workplace well-being, employee development, employee retention, and employee satisfaction. This means that the higher the level of these variables, the higher the level of commitment and this in turn leads to higher levels of satisfaction.

We studied engagement based on 3 dimensions: vigor, dedication, absorption. As the results show, the absorption dimension has no effect on the level of job satisfaction. This means that what is important is the level of energy put into the work, mental stamina, readiness to make an effort, doing the work with enthusiasm, pride, a sense of its importance, willingness to accept challenges. All this, while avoiding excessive work, inability to stop working, and losing track of time. In our opinion, a high level of absorption can often lead to workaholism, which can act adversely to the well-being of employees.

In our theoretical framework, we argued that job satisfaction is a complex theoretical construct that, when studied empirically, takes into account many different factors that influence it. Thus, it is up to researchers to determine which factors are empirically studied. Our review of the literature indicated that there are studies that have considered factors in terms of organization, interpersonal relationships, activities, and tasks, and working conditions (Sypniewska, 2014 ; Sarmiento et al., 2004 , 134–143;; Zalewska, 2001 ). These factors relate simultaneously to the organizational and individual levels.

We considered it necessary to delineate factors in our study by considering the individual level due to the employee's perspective in the context of sustainable HRM. A condition that is theoretically important and recommended in the literature, according to us, has been fulfilled, which means, according to many authors, that the level of satisfaction increases or decreases depending on the individual respondents' evaluation of the variables studied (Meneghel et al., 2016 ; Nemani & Diala, 2011 ).

Given the above, our findings show confirmation of the hypotheses posed prior to the study, which relate to factors such as workplace well-being, employee development, retention, and engagement.

Analyzing the first hypothesis, concerning the correlation of well-being and satisfaction, it turned out that the two variables correlate positively with each other (this confirms the posited H1).

This means that people who experience well-being in the workplace simultaneously experience job satisfaction. Considering the theoretical framework, we see that some researchers of job satisfaction describe it as a motivational factor related to engagement and as a measure of the quality of human capital management and a determinant of the quality of relational capital (Chrupała-Pniak, 2012 ; Juchnowicz, 2014 ). In contrast, psychologists drawing from cognitive and humanistic psychology treat job satisfaction by referring to the concept of quality of life and human well-being in organizations, where it is an end in itself, rather than as a tool for increasing efficiency (Czerw, 2016 ; Łaguna, 2012 ; Dobrowolska, 2010 ; Ratajczak, 2007 ; Bańka, 2002 ).

What then is well-being? "The well-being of an individual is related to the fact of employment, in which there is hope, optimism, peace" (Dobrowolska, 2010 ). In our view, an organization can influence the overall and partial level of job satisfaction by contributing to the overall well-being of employees in the workplace and to overall job satisfaction by creating appropriate working conditions for employees, including attention to the atmosphere at work. Thus, it can also be considered that an employee's sense of well-being occurs when they find their job satisfying and when emotions such as joy and happiness dominate.

Our results also show that employee development positively correlates with job satisfaction (H2), which is theoretically and practically justified. We recognize that every employee strives for his own professional development. It matters to him not so much to do a job in a particular organization, but let this development be an added value for him in the future. Given the current technological changes and high competition, the demand for employee training is growing. So effective employee development initiatives offer benefits not only to employees, but also to organizations.

The incurred contribution to employee development by the organization pays off in the near term through increased employee productivity, engagement, and openness to new ideas. As previously mentioned for employees, development improves their chances in the competitive labor market, especially during times of economic recession, for example (Millman & Latham, 2001 ). It should also be noted that some employees seek self-improvement within the profession. Successful, relevant, and effective training experiences can also serve as an indication that an organization is willing to invest in human capital and notices and meets the development needs of its employees. Such feelings can increase attachment to the organization, which in turn can translate into job satisfaction and enjoyment of being in that organization.

Our findings also show a positive correlation regarding employee retention with job satisfaction (H3). As mentioned earlier, satisfaction is a combination of what an employee feels (emotions) and what they think about various aspects of the job (cognition) (Rich et al., 2010 ; Organ & Near, 1985 ; Locke, 1969 ). It includes values, willingness to put effort into work, commitment, and a strong desire to stay with the organization (Schultz & Schultz, 2002 ). It is important for a company to promote values in common with those of its employees, this affects positive brand perception and effective work. Activities aimed at identifying employees with the company's values, as well as ways of managing and/or motivating them, influence positive perceptions of the organization and significantly affect job satisfaction. All this influences the desire to stay with the organization or leave it. So, when the right conditions are met, an employee does not look for another job, another organization. He feels fulfilled in the one where he works and does not decide to leave it, which of course is of great value to the organization even due to the huge costs associated with the search for new employees.

Our next findings concerned the correlation of engagement with employee satisfaction. It turned out that this hypothesis (H4) was positively verified. Undoubtedly, when employees' expectations and needs are met, they are more engaged in their tasks. This fulfillment of expectations and needs by the organization in turn translates into their satisfaction not only with their jobs, but also with being in an organization that cares about them (Qing et al., 2020 ). For many years, organizational psychologists have recognized the potential of work to meet the needs of belonging, esteem, and self-actualization (Alderfer, 1969 ; Maslow, 1943 ), as well as to design workplaces that provide opportunities to use a variety of skills and provide employees with meaning and autonomy (Hackman & Oldham, 1976 ; Herzberg et al., 1959 ).

In our study, we demonstrated the mediating role of engagement in the relationship between employee well-being in the workplace, employee development, employee retention and employee satisfaction (H5). Thus, our study demonstrated engagement at work as a mediator. The relationship showed statistical significance for all these factors with the engagement dimension: vigor and dedication, but no significance with the absorption dimension. This means that in people who show an experience of high levels of energy and mental toughness at work, a willingness to put effort into work, and are resilient and resilient in the face of adversity, the sense of job satisfaction is enhanced. Such enhancement is also found in people who perform work with enthusiasm, experience a sense of meaning and importance, feel pride in their work, and view work as a challenge and inspiration.

The lack of statistical significance for the absorption dimension does not necessarily mean that people do their work without being immersed in it and forgetting about the passage of time or the difficulty in detaching from it. In fact, research shows that people who score low on the absorption dimension do not have difficulty detaching themselves from it and forgetting everything going on around them, including time (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003 ). As noted earlier, a state of excessive concentration on work, excessive losing oneself in work while feeling the passage of time unnaturally and finding it difficult to detach oneself from work can lead to workaholism, which in turn affects the well-being of the employee. There must be moderation in everything, and it is the role of the organization to create such working conditions and delegate such tasks that the employee does not work beyond his or her strength and does not lose himself or herself in work while feeling immense time pressure. Positive emotions, well-being, a sense of self-efficacy, energy translate into factors that make up the sense of job satisfaction internally, individually, but it does not have to be characterized by difficulties in dedicating oneself to work or even in interrupting a task, as in the case of workaholism.

As highlighted earlier, the perception of job satisfaction is a subjective feeling. What is important, however, is that this subjectivity of perceived satisfaction makes it impossible to design measures aimed at increasing job satisfaction that are the same for all employees, measures aimed at increasing positive feelings (Fiech & Mudyń, 2011 ). Being happy and fulfilled at work is a function of the multiplicity of work experiences in an organization. (Crede et al., 2007 ).

Our literature review showed that when employees have meaningful and meaningful work, they tend to be more enthusiastic about developing pro-sustainability activities and practices (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009 ); however, when they perceive that such practices do not align with the organization's values, their willingness to experience engagement at work decreases (Colvin & Boswell, 2007 ; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ;), and their performance becomes lower than it potentially could be (Bakker et al., 2004 ).

Practical, organizational, and scientific implications

In addition to our contribution to the mainstream of research on job engagement and job satisfaction in the practice of SHRM, we enrich the literature on human capital by studying the impact of factors at the individual level on job satisfaction. In a similar way, we contribute to the perspective of managing people in an organization, explaining how to motivate employees, what factors at work to pay attention to in order to increase their satisfaction and engagement which translates into the success of the organization itself. Of course, it is clear that the factors we study are not the only factors. Therefore, we point out that it is important to expand the research to include still other factors of importance for greater satisfaction and engagement. While the literature to date has pointed to other factors, our study was by design to take a sustainability approach.

Another of our contributions is a deeper understanding of the mediating role that employee engagement, including its dimensions, plays on job satisfaction. Our results showed that engagement and its dimensions mediate the relationship between individual factors (employee development well-being, retention, overall engagement) and job satisfaction. Another of our contributions is the measurement of empirical relationships between the factors studied and job satisfaction. The size of our research sample may indicate some generalization (but not generalization) of our results at the individual level with boundary conditions defined by multilevel interactions taking into account other factors.

Our analysis is particularly valuable to decision-makers because it can inform them about the conditions to be created for employees and how to motivate them from a sustainability perspective. The implications for decision-makers also translate into implications for the organization itself. Organizations should strive to apply/implement SHRM practices. Organizations should focus on individual SHRM levels that translate into employee job satisfaction as an indicator of success in creating workplaces that foster well-being, employee well-being, employee retention, engagement, and productivity. If work is unsatisfactory, employees may feel tension, refrain from contributing more, or quit. Therefore, periodic job satisfaction surveys are extremely important to help identify negative and positive feelings.

It is worth noting the findings of other researchers on job satisfaction, in which satisfaction was a motivating factor in entrepreneurial activities (Blaese et al., 2021 ). Other studies have highlighted the role of conflict in perceived job satisfaction, which is related to employees' feelings of well-being (Schoss et al., 2022 ).

Another implication for practice from the presented study is the creation of SHRM policies for employee development, as this is one of the factors that has a significant impact on job satisfaction and engagement. Successful employee development initiatives benefit not only employees, but also the organization. It is therefore important to include training programs that, among other things, promote employee self-actualization and team building, a work atmosphere that promotes employee well-being.

Intuitive methods to motivate employees to work more efficiently used by decision-makers seem to be insufficient. Therefore, our study can make an important contribution to expanding knowledge about ways to increase job satisfaction and engagement. The organization's policies in terms of ways to motivate employees translate into the employees themselves, especially their willingness to stay or leave the organization. An employee who feels that the organization cares about the development of employees, their mental state and perceived emotions, their well-being is less likely to decide to leave. After all, as mentioned earlier, high employee turnover is associated with huge recruitment costs. It is not just financial costs, but also the cost of recruiter time or the cost of adapting a new employee.

Limitations and direction for future research

The studied sample, although quite numerous, cannot be considered representative of the general population of Polish employees. Therefore, the generalizability of the findings obtained is not without questions. It should be noted that the questionnaire was not oriented towards employees of organizations which report to have sustainability strategies.

A potential limitation is related to our measure of WWB, ED, ER. Although the current research provides evidence that these factors are related to job satisfaction, additional research is needed to further examine the form and function of these factors. Future studies could use objective measures to evaluate those factors.

Among the limitations, it should be noted that, since all the variables were measured in the same questionnaire, the results could have been affected by biases due to the variance of the common method. With a view to overcoming this problem (Podsakoff et al., 2012 ), future research should/could include other sources of exploration, such as supervisors’ opinions, as well as systematic observations.

The authors are aware that the article does not exhaust the research problem research problem and is only an impulse for further research on the complex issue of SHR practices and their relationship to engagement and satisfaction in the workplace. There are few humanity direction studies in SRHM, also this is a gap that needs to be filled in the future.

It would also be useful to examine the impact of various sustainable HRM practices to see which ones have the greatest impact on work engagement.

Future research may also consider other individual and individual-level factors that could potentially moderate this relationship between human resources and engagement, such as leader-team member relationship, collectivism/individualism orientation, organization support, and employee type.

The present study could be capitalized for the inauguration of new lines of research in the area. The suggestions, without being exhaustive, are oriented to the following disseminate and foster SHRM practices that are positively associated with job satisfaction.

Looking ahead, an interesting research direction would be to conduct a longitudinal study analyzing the relationships studied in different phases of the organization's life cycle. In our opinion, it could contribute to defining the currently studied variables (factors) in retrospect, whether they are still important to employees or have lost their importance.

Abid, G., Ahmed, S., Elahi, N. S., & Ilyas, S. (2020). Antecedents and mechanism of employee well-being for social sustainability: A sequential mediation. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 24 , 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.06.011

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (5), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968

Akdere, M., & Egan, T. (2020). Transformational leadership and human resource development: Linking employee learning, job satisfaction, and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 31 (4), 393–421.

Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4 (2), 142–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90004-X

Ali, M., Ali, I., Albort-Morant, G., & Leal-Rodríguez, A. L. (2021). How do job insecurity and perceived well-being affect expatriate employees’ willingness to share or hide knowledge? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17 (1), 185–210.

Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A review of the research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24 (4), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240903188398

Avery, G. (2005). Leadership for sustainable futures: Achieving success in a competitive world . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2010). Honeybees & locusts: The business case for sustainable leadership . Allen & Unwin.

Google Scholar  

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22 , 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13 (3), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43 (1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20004

Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research . Psychology Press.

Bańka A. (1996). Psychopatologia pracy [Workplace psychopathology]. Gemini.

Bańka, A. (2002). Psychologia organizacji [Organizational psychology]. In J. Strelau (Ed.), Psychologia. Podręcznik akademicki (pp. 321–350). GWP.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Becke, G. (2014). Human-resources mindfulness. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 83–103). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37524-8_4

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Blaese, R., Noemi, S., & Brigitte, R. (2021). Should I stay, or should I go? Job Satisfaction as a moderating factor between outcome expectations and entrepreneurial intention among academics. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17 (3), 1357–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00744-8

Böckerman, P., & Ilmakunnas, P. (2012). The job satisfaction-productivity nexus: A study using matched survey and register data. ILR Review, 65 (2), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979391206500203

Bombiak, E. (2020). Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7 (3), 1667–1687. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.7.3(16)

Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management, 44 (2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20054

Browne, I. (2021). Exploring reverse mentoring: “Win-win” relationships in the multi-generational workplace. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 15 , 246–259. https://doi.org/10.24384/jkc9-2r51

Browning, V., & Delahaye, B. (2011). Enhancing workplace learning through collaborative HRD. In M. Clarke (Ed.), Readings in HRM and sustainability (pp. 36–50). Australia: Tilde University Press.

Byrne, Z. S., Palmer, C. E., Smith, C. L., & Weidert, J. M. (2011). The engaged employee face of organizations. In M. A. Sarlak (Ed.), The new faces of organizations in the 21st century (pp. 93–135). NAISIT Publishers.

Cannas, M., Sergi, B. S., Sironi, E., & Mentel, U. (2019). Job satisfaction and subjective well-being in Europe. Economics and Sociology, 12 (4), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2019/12-4/11

Cantele, S., & Zardini, A. (2018). Is sustainability a competitive advantage for small businesses? An empirical analysis of possible mediators in the sustainability–financial performance relationship. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182 , 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.016

Champoux, J. E. (1991). A multivariate test of the job characteristics theory of work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12 (5), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030120507

Chamsa, N., & García-Blandónb, J. (2019). On the importance of sustainable human resource management for the adoption of sustainable development goals. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 141 , 109–122.

Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (5), 928–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.928

Chatzopoulou, M., Vlachvei, A., & Monovasilis, T. (2015). Employee’s motivation and satisfaction in light of economic recession: Evidence of Grevena Prefecture-Greece. Procedia Economics and Finance, 24 , 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00633-4

Chen, K., & Chen, Ch. (2022). Effects of university teachers’ emotional labor on their well-being and job satisfaction. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 76 , 123–132. https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.78.8

Chordiya, R., Sabharwal, M., & Doug, G. (2017). Affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A cross-national comparative study. Public Administration, 95 (1), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12306

Chrupała-Pniak, M. (2012). Satysfakcja zawodowa - artefakt czy funkcjonalny wymiar kapitału intelektualnego: Przegląd koncepcji teoretycznych i podejść badawczych [Job satisfaction - a relic or functional dimension of intellectual capital: A review of theoretical concepts and research approaches]. Edukacja Ekonomistów i Menedżerów, 2 (24), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0009.5785

Clarke, M., & Hill, S. (2012). Promoting employee wellbeing and quality service outcomes: The role of HRM practices. Journal of Management & Organization, 18 (5), 702–713. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2012.18.5.702

Cleveland, J. N., & Cavanagh, T. M. (2015). The future of HR is RH: Respect for humanity at work. Human Resource Management Review, 25 (2), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.005

Colbert, B. A., & Kurucz, E. C. (2007). Three conceptions of triple bottom line business sustainability and the role for HRM. People and Strategy, 30 (1), 21.

Colvin, A. J. S., & Boswell, W. R. (2007). The problem of action and interest alignment: Beyond job requirements and incentive compensation. Human Resource Management Review, 17 (1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.11.003

Cooper, B., Wang, J., Bartram, T., & Cooke, F. L. (2019). Well-being-oriented human resource management practices and employee performance in the Chinese banking sector: The role of social climate and resilience. Human Resource Management, 58 (1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21934

Crede, M., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Dalal, R. S., & Bashshur, M. (2007). Job satisfaction as a mediator: An assessment of job satisfaction’s position within the nomological network. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80 , 515–538. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317906X136180

Czakon, W. (2011). Metodyka systematycznego przeglądu literatury [Methodology of systematic literature review]. Przegląd Organizacji, 3 , 57–61.

Czerw, A. (2016). Psychologiczny model dobrostanu w pracy: Wartość i sens pracy [A psychological model of well-being at work: The value and meaning of work]. PWN.

Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., Basuil, D., & Pandey, A. (2010). Causes and effects of employee downsizing: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 36 , 281–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309346735

Davidescu, A. A., Apostu, S. A., Paul, A., & Casuneanu, I. (2020). Work flexibility, job satisfaction, and job performance among Romanian employees – Implications for sustainable human resource management. Sustainability, 12 (15), 6086. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156086

De Prins, P., De Vos, A., Van Beirendonck, L., & Segers, J. (2014). Sustainable HRM: Bridging theory and practice through the ‘Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)’-model. Management Revue, 25 (4), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2014-4-263

De Prins, P., De Vos, A., Van Beirendonck, L., & Segers, J. (2015). Sustainable HRM for sustainable careers: Introducing the Respect Openness Continuity (ROC) model. In A. De Vos, & I. J. M. Beatrice (Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable careers (pp. 319–334). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782547037.00026

de Souza Freitas, W. R., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2011). Continuing the evolution: Towards sustainable HRM and sustainable organizations. Business Strategy Series, 12 (5), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/17515631111166861

Debroux, P. (2014). Sustainable HRM in east and Southeast Asia. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 315–337). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37524-8_14

Dobrowolska, M. (2010). Związek satysfakcji z pracy i kosztów psychologicznych pracowników tymczasowo zatrudnionych [Relationship of job satisfaction and psychological costs of temporarily employed workers]. In B. Kożusznik, & M. Chrupała-Pniak (Eds.), Zastosowania psychologii w zarządzaniu (pp. 229–248) . Wydawnictwo UŚ. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12128/1523

Docherty, P., Forslin, J., Shani, A. B., & Kira, M. (2002). Emerging work systems. In P. Docherty, J. Forslin, & A. B. Shani (Eds.), Creating sustainable work systems (pp. 3–14). Routledge.

Docherty, P., Kira, M., & Shani, A. B. (2009). What the world needs now is sustainable work systems. In P. Docherty, M. Kira, & A. B. Shani (Eds.), Creating sustainable work systems. developing social sustainability (pp. 1–21). Routledge.

Donnelly, N., & Proctor-Thomson, S. (2011). Workplace sustainability and employee voice. In M. Clarke (Ed.), Readings in HRM and sustainability (pp. 117–132). Tilde University Press.

Dorenbosch, L. (2014). Striking a balance between work effort and resource regeneration vitality as a sustainable performance concept . Springer.

Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2007). Organization change for corporate sustainability (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Ehnert, I. (2006). Sustainability issues in human resource management: Linkages, theoretical approaches, and outlines for an emerging field [Conference presentation]. 21st EIASM SHRM Workshop, Aston, Birmingham.

Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2188-8

Ehnert, I. (2011). Sustainability and human resource management. In A. Wilkinson & K. Townsend (Eds.), The future of employment relations (pp. 215–237). Palgrave Macmillan.

Ehnert, I. (2014). Paradox as a lens for theorizing sustainable HRM. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 247–271). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37524-8_11

Ehnert, I., & Harry, W. (2012). Recent developments and future prospects on sustainable human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. Management Revue, 23 (3), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/41783719

Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2016). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27 (1), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1024157

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (5), 812–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812

Fiech, M., & Mudyń, K. (2011). Pomijanie działań kształtujących poziom zadowolenia zawodowego pracowników jako przejaw dysfunkcji w procesie zarządzania zasobami ludzkimi [Omission of activities shaping the level of professional satisfaction of employees as a manifestation of dysfunction in the process of human resource management]. Problemy Zarządzania, 9 (4/34), 147–161.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40 (2), 287–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x

Giang, H. T. T., & Dung, L. T. (2022). The effect of internal corporate social responsibility practices on firm performance: The mediating role of employee intrapreneurial behaviour. Review of Managerial Science, 16 (4), 1035–1061.

Gockel, C., Robertson, R., & Brauner, E. (2013). Trust your teammates or bosses? Differential effects of trust on transative memory, job satisfaction, and performance. Employee Relations, 35 (2), 222–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451311287880

Gollan, P. (2000). Human resources, capabilities and sustainability. In D. Dunphy, J. Beneviste, A. Griffiths, & P. Sutton (Eds.), Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the twenty first century (pp. 55–77). Allen & Unwin.

Gollan, P. J., & Xu, Y. (2014). Fostering corporate sustainability: Integrative and dynamic approaches to sustainable HRM. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations (pp. 225–245). Springer.

Guerci, M., & Vinante, M. (2011). Training evaluation: An analysis of the stakeholders’ evaluation needs. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35 (4), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591111128342

Guerci, M., Shani, A. B. R., & Solari, L. (2014). A stakeholder perspective for sustainable HRM. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations (pp. 205–223). Springer.

Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27 (1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12139

Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16 (2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

Halbesleben, J. R. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). Psychology Press.

Hantula, D. A. (2015). Job satisfaction: The management tool and leadership responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35 , 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2015.1031430

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 , 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268

Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Hendriks, M., Burger, M., & Commandeur, H. (2022). The influence of CEO compensation on employee engagement. Review of Managerial Science, 17 , 607–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00538-4

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work . John Wiley.

Hirsig, N., Rogovsky, N., & Elkin, M. (2014). Enterprise sustainability and HRM in small and medium-sized enterprises. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 127–152). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37524-8_6

Hoeppe, J. C. (2014). Practitioner’s view on sustainability and HRM. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 273–294). Springer.

Hulin, C. L., & Hanisch, K. A. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39 (1), 110–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(91)90006-8

Indiparambil, J. J. (2019). Strategic to sustainable human resource management: Shifting paradigms of personal managerial trends. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 8 (3), 65–70.

Indiparambil, J. J., Collage, S., & Mullakkanam, K. (2019). Strategic to sustainable human resource management: Shifting paradigms of personal managerial trends. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 8 (3), 65–70.

Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19 (12), 2133–2154. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802479389

Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D. W., Jabbour, C. J., & Muller-Camen, M. (2011). State-of-the-art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25 (2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/23970022110250020

Jackson, S. L. (2012). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Järlström, M., Saru, E., & Vanhala, S. (2018). Sustainable human resource management with salience of stakeholders: A top management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152 (3), 703–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3310-8

Jaskeviciute, V., Stankeviciene, A., Diskiene, D., & Savicke, J. (2021). The relationship between employee well-being and organizational trust in the context of sustainable human resource management. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19 (2), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.10

Juchnowicz, M. (2014). Satysfakcja zawodowa pracowników: Kreator kapitału ludzkiego [Employee job satisfaction: A creator of human capital]. PWE.

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 , 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100511

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33 (4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287

Khan, N. A., Bharadwaj, S., Khatoon, A., & Jamal, M. T. (2021). Assessing the nexus between employer branding and employee retention: Moderating role of organizational identification. Management and Labour Studies, 46 (4), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X21100533

Kim, J. S., Milliman, J., & Lucas, A. (2020). Effects of CSR on employee retention via identification and quality-of-work-life. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32 (3), 1163–1179. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2019-0573

Kira, M., & Lifvergren, S. (2014). Sowing seeds for sustainability in work systems. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 57–81). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37524-8_3

Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25 (8), 1069–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.816863

Łaguna, M. (2012). Satysfakcja z życia i satysfakcja z pracy a motywacja do podejmowania szkoleń: Doniesienie z badań [Life satisfaction and job satisfaction versus motivation to undertake training: A research report]. Psychologia Jakości Życia, 11 (2), 163–172.

Lestari, R. P., Sudiarditha, I. K. R., & Handaru, A. W. (2021). The influence of compensation and career development on employee loyalty with job satisfaction as mediator. Oblik i Finansi, 93 , 135–141. https://doi.org/10.33146/2307-9878-2021-3(93)-135-141

Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4 (4), 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0

Locke, E. A. (1970). Job satisfaction and job performance: A theoretical analysis. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 5 (5), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(70)90036-X

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Rand McNally.

Lopez-Cabrales, A., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2020). Sustainable HRM strategies and employment relationships as drivers of the triple bottom line. Human Resource Management Review, 30 (3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100689

Lorincova, S., Hitka, M., Starchon, P., & Stachova, K. (2018). Strategic instruments for sustainability of human resource management in small and medium-sized enterprises using management data. Sustainability, 10 (10), 3687. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103687

Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 , 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

Machin-Rincon, L., Cifre, E., Dominguez Castilio, P., & Segovia-Perez, M. (2020). I am a leader, I am a mother, I can do this! The moderated mediation of 141 psychological capital, work–family conflict, and having children on well-being of women leaders. Sustainability, 12 (5), 2100–2100. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052100

Macke, J., & Genari, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208 , 806–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.Jclepro.2018.10.01

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis . Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Makin P., Cooper C. & Cox C. (2000). Organizacje a kontrakt psychologiczny [Organizations and the psychological contract]. PWN.

Maleka, M. J., Schultz, C. M., Van Hoek, L., Paul-Dachapalli, L., & Ragadu, S. C. (2021). Union membership as a moderator in the relationship between living wage, job satisfaction and employee engagement. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 64 (3), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-021-00322-0

Mariappanadar, S. (2003). Sustainable human resource strategy: The sustainable and unsustainable dilemmas of retrenchment. International Journal of Social Economics, 30 , 906–923. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290310483779

Mariappanadar, S. (2012). The harm indicators of negative externality of efficiency focused organisational practices. International Journal of Social Economics, 39 , 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291211199378

Mariappanadar, S. (2014). The model of negative externality for sustainable HRM. In S. O. Idowu & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 181–203). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37524-8_8

Maślanka-Wieczorek, B. (2014). Talent management and high performance work system. Journal of International Studies, 7 (1), 102–108. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2014/7-1/9

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 , 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77 (1), 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892

Meneghel, I., Salanova, M., & Martínez, I. M. (2016). Feeling good makes us stronger: How team resilience mediates the effect of positive emotions on team performance. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17 (1), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9592-6

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 , 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9592-6

Millman, Z., & Latham, G. (2001). Increasing reemployment through training in verbal self-guidance. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. Thierry (Eds.), Word motivation in the context of a globalizing economy (pp. 94–104). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Monusova, G. A. (2008). Job satisfaction: International comparisons. World Economy and International Relations, 12 , 74–83.

Nemani, R., & Diala, I. (2011). Job satisfaction: Key factors influencing information technology (IT) professionals in Washington DC. International Journal of Computer Technology and Applications, 2 (4), 827–838.

Nguyen, C., & Duong, A. (2020). The impact of training and development, job satisfaction and job performance on young employee retention. International Journal of Future Generation Communication and Networking, 13 (3), 373–386.

Ngwenya, B., Pelser, T. (2020), Impact of psychological capital on employee engagement-job satisfaction and employee performance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 46 (4). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v46i0.1781

Oliveira, A. F., Junior G., S., & Poli B. V. (2020). Antecedents of well-being at work: trust and people management policies. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 21( 1). https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMD200105

Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1985). Cognition vs affect in measures of job satisfaction. International Journal of Psychology, 20 (2), 241–253.

Page, K. M., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2009). The “what”, “why” and “how” of employee well-being: A new model. Social Indicators Research, 90 (3), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9270-3

Parakandi, M., & Behery, M. (2015). Sustainable human resources: Examining the status of organizational work–life balance practices in the United Arab Emirates. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55 , 1370–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.095

Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74 , 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.01.001

Pawar, D., & Kunte, M. (2022). A strategic approach to employees’ well-being: Study assessing the relationship between holistic wellness, job satisfaction emotions, and productivity. Cardiometry, 23 , 2304–7232.

Pipoli, G., Fuchs, R. M., & Prialé, M. A. (2014). Sustainable HRM in Peruvian Companies. In S. O. Idowu & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Sustainability and Human Resource Management (pp. 359–377). Springer.

Podgorodnichenko, N., Edgar, F., & McAndrew, I. (2020). The role of HRM in developing sustainable organizations: Contemporary challenges and contradictions. Human Resource Management Review, 30 (3), 100685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.04.001

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. B. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 (1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Poon, T., & Law, K. K. (2022). Sustainable HRM: An extension of the paradox perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 32 (2), 100818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100818

Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17 (1), 3–20.

Qing, M., Asif, M., Hussain, A., & Jameel, A. (2020). Exploring the impact of ethical leadership on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in public sector organizations: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Review of Managerial Science, 14 (6), 1405–1432.

Ratajczak, Z. (2007). Psychologia pracy i organizacji [The psychology of labor and organisation]. PWN.

Raziq, A., & Maulabakhsh, R. (2015). Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23 , 717–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00524-9

Rhéaume, A. (2021). Job characteristics, emotional exhaustion, and work-family conflict in nurses. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 1–9 , 1939459211005712. https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459211005712

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (3), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2 (2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384942

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., & Martínez, I. M. (2012). We need a hero! Towards a validation of the Healthy & Resilient Organization (HERO) model. Group & Organization Management, 37 , 785–822. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112470405

Sahrish, S., et al. (2021). Moral identity centrality and employee engagement: Job satisfaction acting as mediator. Ilköğretim-Online, 20 (5), 2858–2866. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2021.05.312

Sarmiento, T. P., Laschinger, H. K., & Iwasiw, C. (2004). Nurse educators’ work-place empowerment, burnout, and job satisfaction: Testing Kanter’s theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 46 (2), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2003.02973.x

Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (Volume 5): Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 135–177). Information Age Publishers.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248

Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2013). Acritical review of the job demands- resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Bauerand & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 43–68). Springer.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3 (1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57 (2), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES Utrecht work engagement scale. preliminary manual. Version 1, November. Occupational Health Psychology Unit. Utrecht University. http://www.beanmanaged.eu/pdf/articles/arnoldbakker/article_arnold_bakker_87.pdf

Schoss, S., Urbig, D., Brettel, M., & Mauer, R. (2022). Deep-level diversity in entrepreneurial teams and the mediating role of conflicts on team efficacy and satisfaction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 18 , 1173–1203.

Schultz D. P., & Schultz S. E. (2002). Psychologia a wyzwania dzisiejszej pracy [Psychology and the challenges of modern labor]. PWN.

Sharma, S., Sharma, J., & Devi, A. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: The key role of human resource management. Business Intelligence Journal, 2 (1), 205–213.

Sheraz, F., Batool, S., & Ijaz, S. (2021). Mediating role of career development program on employees’ motivation and job satisfaction in telecom Sector Peshawar. City University Research Journal, 11 (1), 84–98. http://cusitjournals.com/index.php/CURJ

Siddiqui, S. H., & Ijaz, A. (2022). Conceptualizing the Sustainable Workplace Well-being: A Measurement Framework. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 42 (2), 363–380.

Simbula, S., & Guglielmi, D. (2013). I am engaged, I feel good, and I go the extra-mile: Reciprocal relationships between work engagement and consequences. Revista De Psicología Del Trabajo y De Las Organizaciones, 29 (3), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.5093/tr2013a17

Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13 (6), 693–713.

Stankeviciute, Z., & Savaneviciene, A. (2018). Designing sustainable HRM: The core characteristics of emerging field. Sustainability, 10 (12), 4798. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124798

Stanton, P., Young, S., Bartram, T., & Leggat, S. (2010). Singing the same song: Translating HRM messages across management hierarchies in Australian hospitals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21 (4), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585191003612075

Strenitzerová, M., & Achimský, K. (2019). Employee satisfaction and loyalty as a part of sustainable human resource management in postal sector. Sustainability, 11 (17), 4591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174591

Sypniewska, B. (2014). Evaluation of factors influencing job satisfaction. Contemporary Economics, 8 (1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.131

Teo, S. T., & Rodwell, J. J. (2007). To be strategic in the new public sector, HR must remember its operational activities. Human Resource Management, 46 (2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20160

Thevanes, N., & Arulrajah, A. A. (2017). The search for sustainable human resource management practices: A review and reflections. In Proceedings of Fourteenth International Conference on Business Management (ICBM) (pp. 606–634).

Uysal, G. (2019). Human resource management in Turkey: Concept and cases. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 16 (1), 1–6.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation . Wiley.

Wagner, M. (2013). Green’ human resource benefits: Do they matter as determinants of environmental management system implementation? Journal of Business Ethics, 114 (3), 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1356-9

Warr, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work & Stress, 8 (2), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379408259982

Warr, P., & Clapperton, G. (2010). The joy of work . Routledge.

Wehling, C., Guanipa Hernandez, A., Osland, J., Osland, A., Deller, J., Tanure, B., Neto, A. C., & Sairaj, A. (2009). An exploratory study of the role of HRM and the transfer of German MNC sustainability values to Brazil. European Journal of International Management, 3 (2), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2009.024321

Wells, S. (2011). HRM for sustainability: Creating a new paradigm. In M. Clarke (Ed.), Readings in HRM and sustainability (pp. 133–146). Tilde University Press.

Wirtenberg, J., Harmon, J., Russell, W. G., & Fairfield, K. D. (2007). HR’s role in building a sustainable enterprise: Insights from some of the world’s best companies. Human Resource Planning, 30 (1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.93

Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12 (2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.93

Wu, T. J., Yuan, K. S., & Yen, D. C. (2021). Leader-member exchange, turnover intention and presenteeism - the moderated mediating effect of perceived organizational support. Current Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01825-1

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). How job and personal resources influence work engagement and financial returns: A diary study in a Greek fast-food company. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82 , 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X285633

Zalewska, A. (2001). Arkusz opisu pracy O. Neubergera i M. Allerbeck- adaptacja do warunków polskich [Description of the work of O. Neuberger and M. Allerbeck- adaptation to Polish conditions]. Studia Psychologiczne, 39 (1), 197–218.

Zalewska, A. (2003). Skala satysfakcji z pracy – pomiar poznawczego aspektu ogólnego zadowolenia z pracy [Job satisfaction scale - measuring the cognitive aspect of overall job satisfaction]. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Psychologica, 7 , 49–61.

Zaugg, R. J., Blum, A., & Thom, N. (2001). Sustainability in human resource management: Evaluation report . IOP-Press.

Zhang, B., Xiong, S., Jiang, H., & Qiu, Z. (2016). Mediating effect of job satisfaction between professional identity and turnover intention in nurses. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24 (6), 1123–1125.

Zhang, Y., Sun, J. M., Shaffer, M. A., & Lin, C. H. (2022). High commitment work systems and employee well-being: The roles of workplace friendship and task interdependence. Human Resource Management, 61 (4), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22093

Zink, K. J. (2014). Social sustainability and quality of working life. In S. O. Idowu & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management (pp. 35–56). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37524-8_2

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Economics and Human Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

Barbara Sypniewska

Collegium Civitas, Warsaw, Poland

Małgorzata Baran

Adam Mickiewicz Univeristy in Poznan, Poznań, Poland

Monika Kłos

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Sypniewska .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sypniewska, B., Baran, M. & Kłos, M. Work engagement and employee satisfaction in the practice of sustainable human resource management – based on the study of Polish employees. Int Entrep Manag J 19 , 1069–1100 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00834-9

Download citation

Accepted : 17 January 2023

Published : 28 March 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00834-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Employee satisfaction
• Work engagement
• Sustainability
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How Companies Can Improve Employee Engagement Right Now

• Daniel Stein,
• Nick Hobson,
• Jon M. Jachimowicz,
• Ashley Whillans

Start by connecting what people do to what they care about.

A year and a half into the pandemic, employees’ mental “surge capacity” is likely diminished. Managers must take proactive steps to increase employee engagement, or risk losing their workforce. Engaged employees perform better, experience less burnout, and stay in organizations longer. The authors created this Employee Engagement Checklist: a distilled, research-based resource that practitioners can execute on during this critical period of renewed uncertainty. Use this checklist to boost employee engagement by helping them connect what they do to what they care about, making the work itself less stressful and more enjoyable, and rewarding them with additional time off, in addition to financial incentives.

As the world stumbles toward a Covid-19 recovery, experts warn of a surge of voluntary employee departures, dubbed the “Great Resignation.” For instance, one study estimates that 55% of people in the workforce in August 2021 intend to look for a new job in the next 12 months. To counteract the incoming wave of employee turnover, organizations — more than ever — need to focus on cultivating employee engagement .

• DS Daniel Stein is a fifth-year doctoral student in the Management of Organizations (MORS) Group at UC Berkeley, Haas School of Business. He conducts research on groups and teams, focusing on commitment to one’s group. He studies commitment across multiple levels, ranging from teams to organizations.
• NH Nick Hobson is chief scientist and director of labs for  Emotive Technologies , a behavioral technology think tank that brings together leading academic researchers, technologists, and business strategists in order to create and share knowledge. A PhD-trained behavioral scientist and adjunct lecturer at the University of Toronto, Nick’s research and client practice specializes in employee experience (EX) and the influence of behavioral science as a tool for business success.
• Jon M. Jachimowicz is an assistant professor in the Organizational Behavior Unit at the Harvard Business School. He received his PhD in management from Columbia Business School. He studies how people pursue their passion for work, how they perceive passion in others, and how leaders and organizations seek to manage for passion.
• Ashley Whillans is an assistant professor in the negotiations, organizations, and markets unit at the Harvard Business School School and teaches the “Negotiations” and “Motivation and Incentives” courses to MBA students and executives. Her research focuses on the role of noncash rewards on engagement and the links between time, money, and happiness. She is the author of Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life (Harvard Business Review, 2020).

Partner Center

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Accounting, Management, and Economics (ICAME 2023)

The Influence of Self-Efficacy and Work Environment on Employee Performance Through Employee Job Satisfaction

This research aims to determine the influence of self-efficacy and work environment on performance through job satisfaction in Service Units in Makassar City. The research method used is quantitative research. The number of samples in this study was 100 person. The data collection techniques used in this research are document study, questionnaires and interviews. The data analysis technique uses Structural Equational Modeling (SEM) using Smart-PLS. The research results show that: (1) Employee performance is positively and significantly impacted by self-efficacy(2) Job happiness is positively and significantly impacted by self-efficacy (3) Employee performance is positively and significantly impacted by the work environment, (4) Job satisfaction is positively and significantly impacted by the workplace (5) Employee performance is positively and significantly impacted by job satisfaction, (6) Through job satisfaction and other factors, self-efficacy has a positive and considerable impact on employee performance, (7) Through job satisfaction, the work environment has a favorable and considerable impact on employee performance.

Download article (PDF)

Cite this article

PENGARUH BUDAYA ORGANISASI DAN LINGKUNGAN KERJA TERHADAP KINERJA KARYAWAN MELALUI KEPUASAN KERJA KARYAWAN SEBAGAI VARIABEL INTERVENING (STUDI PADA KARYAWAN PRODUKSI DIVISI SNACK PT DUA KELINCI PATI)

BibTex Citation Data :

Refworks Citation Data :

PT Dua Kelinci is a manufacturing company in Indonesia in the food industry in the form of snacks. The problem faced is fluctuations in employee performance decline in 2018 - 2021. Until 2021 employee performance has decreased significantly. Organizational culture, work environment and job satisfaction are variables that can affect employee performance. This study aims to determine the effect of organizational culture and work environment on employee performance through job satisfaction at PT Dua Kelinci. This type of research uses Explanatory Research with a sample size of 55 production employees who have more than 1 year of service using the census technique. The data analysis technique uses a Partial Least Square-based Structural Equation Model (SEM PLS) using the SmartPLS 4 for windows application. Based on the results of data processing analysis with SmartPLS, it explains that organizational culture and work environment have a positive and significant direct influence on job satisfaction and employee performance. Organizational culture and work environment have a positive and significant indirect effect on employee performance through job satisfaction. The job satisfaction variable in this study acts as a partial mediator. The recommendation suggested for PT Dua Kelinci is to increase employee tenacity by modeling more active work and improving the quality of the work environment so that it can support employees to produce better performance.

Keywords : Organizational Culture, Work Environment, Job Satisfaction, Employee Performance

PT Dua Kelinci adalah perusahaan manufaktur di Indonesia di bidang industri makanan berupa makanan ringan. Permasalahan yang dihadapi adalah fluktuasi penurunan kinerja karyawan pada tahun 2018 – 2021. Hingga tahun 2021 kinerja karyawan mengalami penurunan yang signifikan. Budaya Organisasi, lingkungan kerja dan kepuasan kerja menjadi variabel yang dapat mempengaruhi kinerja karyawan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh budaya organisasi dan lingkungan kerja terhadap kinerja karyawan melalui kepuasan kerja pada PT Dua Kelinci. Tipe penelitian ini menggunakan Explanatory Research dengan jumlah sampel adalah 55 karyawan produksi yang telah memiliki masa kerja lebih dari 1 tahun menggunakan teknik sensus. Teknik analisis data menggunakan Structural Equation Model berbasis Partial Least Square (SEM PLS) menggunakan aplikasi SmartPLS 4 for windows . Berdasarkan hasil analisis olah data dengan SmartPLS menjelaskan budaya organisasi dan lingkungan kerja memiliki pengaruh langsung positif dan signifikan terhadap kepuasan kerja dan kinerja karyawan. Budaya organisasi dan lingkungan kerja berpengaruh positif dan signifikan secara tidak langsung terhadap kinerja karyawan melalui kepuasan kerja. Variabel kepuasan kerja dalam penelitian ini berperan sebagai pemediasi parsial. Rekomendasi yang disarankan untuk PT Dua Kelinci adalah meningkatkan keuletan karyawan dengan cara mencontohkan kerja yang lebih giat dan memperbaiki kualitas lingkungan kerja sehingga dapat mendukung karyawan menghasilkan kinerja yang lebih baik.

Kata kunci : Budaya Organisasi, Lingkungan Kerja, Kepuasan Kerja, Kinerja Karyawan

• Citing articles (0)
• Citing articles on Scopus (0)

Last update:

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Following Up on Employee Surveys: A Conceptual Framework and Systematic Review

Lena-alyeska huebner.

1 Wilhelm Wundt Institute of Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany

2 Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, Germany

Hannes Zacher

Associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Employee surveys are often used to support organizational development (OD), and particularly the follow-up process after surveys, including action planning, is important. Nevertheless, this process is oftentimes neglected in practice, and research on it is limited as well. In this article, we first define the employee survey follow-up process and differentiate it from other common feedback practices. Second, we develop a comprehensive conceptual framework that integrates the relevant variables of this process. Third, we describe the methods and results of a systematic review that synthesizes the literature on the follow-up process based on the conceptual framework with the purpose of discussing remaining research gaps. Overall, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the organizational and human factors that affect this process. This is useful for practitioners, as it provides guidance for the successful implementation of this human resource practice. For example, research suggests that it is important to enable managers as change agents and to provide them with sufficient resources.

Introduction

Employee surveys are widely used in organizations today, and their popularity continues to grow ( Church and Waclawski, 2017 ). Their implementation varies from annual surveys to surveying in shorter intermittent time intervals (e.g., “pulse surveys;” Welbourne, 2016 ). The purposes of employee surveys include, but are not limited to, enhancing communication between management and staff, giving employees a voice, reducing social distance between management and employees, and intervention/organizational development (OD) ( Hartley, 2001 ; Kraut, 2006 ). The implementation of an employee survey is not limited to only one of these purposes, but can serve several of them simultaneously ( Burke et al., 1996 ). The success of employee surveys for OD depends heavily on the implementation of a proper follow-up process, that is, the use of the collected data for the initiation of organizational changes ( Falletta and Combs, 2002 ).

Despite its importance, the employee survey follow-up process is often neglected, limiting the effectiveness of this widely used management tool ( De Waal, 2014 ). Many times, organizations view the employee survey process as completed once the data have been collected, consequently failing to properly follow-up on the results and use them as a tool to drive change ( Church et al., 2012 ). Similarly, the literature on the employee survey follow-up process is scarce, as this stage receives less attention by researchers in comparison to numerous studies examining the actual surveying process ( Fraser et al., 2009 ). For example, research has investigated why surveys are conducted at all and what types of items they include ( Sugheir et al., 2011 ), as well as the issue of social desirability in survey responses ( Keiser and Payne, 2019 ). In addition, the sparse literature on the employee survey follow-up process is conceptually fragmented, published across various academic disciplines, and uses inconsistent labels (e.g., employee survey follow-up, feedback intervention). This is especially disadvantageous for practitioners, as it makes it difficult for them to locate reliable evidence-based research, even though employee surveys are a common OD technique ( Falletta and Combs, 2002 ). Also, practitioners lack an extensive overview of relevant factors to consider during implementation, as no comprehensive theoretical model of the process exists. Lastly, there have been reviews on survey feedback interventions or that included such as one of other OD practices, but the most recent work was published over 30 years ago (see Neuman et al., 1989 ). However, more research on the topic has been conducted since then, but we lack guidance on what variables and domains in this line of research to examine with future studies. Hence, the lack of an updated review of the employee survey follow-up process literature prevents systematic theoretical and empirical research on this important topic and practical progress in this area.

To advance this area of research and practice, we conducted a systematic literature review ( Daniels, 2018 ; Siddaway et al., 2019 ) on the employee survey follow-up process. First, we define employee surveys, conceptually integrate them into the existing feedback and change management/OD literature, and differentiate them from other feedback practices, such as 360 degree feedback. Describing the nomological network of employee surveys is important because past literature on the topic has been mainly on “survey feedback interventions,” rather than specifically the employee survey follow-up process. Also, differentiating this process from other feedback practices (e.g., 360 degree feedback) demonstrates the necessity of treating this concept as a distinct human resource practice even though it shows similarities to other feedback processes. Second, we developed a conceptual framework to depict the relationships between the relevant variables for the employee survey follow-up process as a change tool. Third, we systematically reviewed and evaluated the literature on the follow-up of employee surveys based on the components of the comprehensive conceptual model. With this approach, the present systematic review explores the following research question: Which variables of our conceptual model have been sufficiently informed by past research and which variables require future research? Finally, we discuss the implications of our review for future research and offer several recommendations for organizational practice.

Overall, our conceptual framework and systematic review contribute to the organizational change and development literature and to practice in four important ways. First, based on a conceptual integration and framework, our review highlights which variables research in this area has investigated, and which variables have been neglected and require further attention. Second, the employee survey follow-up process can generally be categorized as a survey feedback intervention, but is nevertheless a distinct process that deserves focused attention. For example, in contrast to reviews on survey feedback interventions, this review excludes studies conducted with student samples (e.g., Brown, 1972 ), and on the other hand includes other empirical research conducted on the topic, as for example cross-sectional work (e.g., Church et al., 1995 ) or qualitative interviews with survey practitioners (e.g., Gable et al., 2010 ). Third, past reviews on survey feedback are outdated, as more research has been conducted on the topic since then. Hence, our review includes all relevant literature that has been published until today. Fourth, the results of our review are useful for practitioners as they provide an integrated overview of the current state of knowledge on the employee survey follow-up process and of the factors that should be taken into account for the successful implementation of this human resource practice.

Theoretical Background

We begin by conceptually integrating the employee survey follow-up process into the literature on related and overarching topics, including feedback, feedback interventions, survey feedback interventions, and other formats (see Figure 1 ).

The nomological network of employee surveys. 360 degree-, multisource-, and upward feedback practices are by definition also survey feedback interventions, but generally not explicitly labeled as such in the literature, hence the dotted line.

In the broadest sense, an employee survey is a form of feedback, defined as a communication process in which a sender sends a message to a recipient, with the message containing information about the recipient ( Ilgen et al., 1979 ). The term feedback is poorly defined and used inconsistently in the literature ( Besieux, 2017 ). It has been conceptualized and labeled in many different ways, for example as process feedback (how) and performance feedback (what) ( Besieux, 2017 ), as feedback to the individual or the group ( Nadler, 1979 ), or as cognitive (how and why) and outcome feedback (what) ( Jacoby et al., 1984 ). This has led to a plethora of literature on feedback, for example on how to give effective feedback (e.g., Aguinis et al., 2012 ) or on recipients’ reactions to feedback (e.g., Fedor et al., 1989 ).

Feedback Interventions

When feedback is used as an intentional intervention by providing information about a recipient’s task performance and actions being taken by an agent to intervene, this is called a feedback intervention ( Kluger and DeNisi, 1996 ). A meta-analysis on feedback interventions by Kluger and DeNisi (1996) showed large variability in its effects, but there was also large variability in the types of feedback interventions included in the analyses, for example feedback for memory tasks, test performances, and physical tasks.

Feedback interventions have also been considered in the change literature. Guzzo et al. (1985) examined 11 different types of organizational interventions, with feedback interventions being one of them. They found positive effects for this type of intervention practice, yet their scope was broad, too, in that they also included performance appraisal techniques and access to performance data. Nadler’s review ( 1979 ) of experimental research on feedback regarding task group behavior, on the other hand, found conflicting results for the effectiveness of feedback interventions to groups. However, feedback was again considered in a broad sense, including feedback for coding or sorting tasks, problem solving exercises, or group discussions.

Survey Feedback Interventions

When feedback is solicited through the medium of surveying and transferred back to relevant stakeholders for the purpose of diagnosis and intervention, it is called survey feedback (intervention) ( Nadler, 1976 ). Throughout the industrial and organizational (IO) psychology literature, this is generally referred to as “survey feedback,” whereas such interventions can also be applied in different contexts, as for example education or research (e.g., Gehlbach et al., 2018 ). In the work context, survey feedback interventions entail systematic data collection and feeding the results back to organizational members ( Nadler, 1976 ).

Studies on survey feedback interventions are scattered across the OD literature. Several reviews and meta-analyses have included them as one of many OD interventions. For example, Friedlander and Brown (1974) conducted a review on several different approaches to OD, with survey feedback being one of them. They summarized ten survey feedback intervention studies and concluded that such can have positive effects on the attitudes of those involved. Shortly after, Margulies et al. (1977) summarized six studies relevant to this type of OD intervention and concluded that more research was needed on this technique to understand under which circumstances it produces the most benefits. A few years later, Porras and Berg (1978) and Porras (1979) reviewed four survey feedback intervention studies as one of several different OD techniques, but could not find superiority of this technique over others. Another example of survey feedback relevant for the OD literature is a meta-analysis by Neuman et al. (1989) . The authors identified six survey feedback intervention studies out of 84 studies implementing other human processes approaches to OD, meaning such techniques attempt to achieve improved organizational performance via improved human functioning. Indeed, the human approach techniques were found to be more effective than techno-structural interventions (i.e., modifications to work or the work environment) in changing organizational attitudes. Lastly, Hopkins (1982) reviewed the use of survey feedback in educational settings and concluded that it is generally useful as a tool in educational organizations. In summary, there is much research on survey feedback interventions, but previous reviews and meta-analyses on this topic have shown mixed results. The majority of authors concluded that more research is needed on this topic, and this assumption holds up until today.

Other Types of Feedback Practices

Other related human resource practices, for example performance appraisals, such as 360 degree-, multisource-, and upward feedback also rely on systematic data collection and feeding it back to organizational members ( DeNisi and Kluger, 2000 ). Due to the necessity of collecting anonymous feedback, the data for these practices are usually collected with surveys ( Bracken et al., 2001 ), similarly to employee surveys. Therefore, by definition, these practices are survey feedback interventions, but are usually not labeled as such throughout the literature (see dotted line in Figure 1 ). Also, as the following discussion will show, the specific processes of these practices differ from those of employee surveys.

360 Degree Feedback

One popular practice of performance management is 360 degree feedback, which is a type of performance appraisal that solicits feedback from several sources, mostly for employees in management positions ( Atwater et al., 2007 ). As the name implies, the vertical and horizontal feedback that is collected from multiple rating sources can be conceptualized as a circle. A full circle of feedback constitutes feedback from superiors and subordinates (vertical feedback), peers (horizontal feedback), and self-ratings ( Foster and Law, 2006 ). The goal is to provide feedback to a single person regarding their management qualities ( Vukotich, 2014 ). The two general frameworks in which 360 degree feedback programs are implemented are either for developmental purposes of the rated manager or for administrative purposes, such as promotions ( Hannum, 2007 ).

Generally though, only a small group of people provides feedback. Usually, these are individuals capable of making statements about leadership behaviors because they have worked closely with the rated person. However, the effectiveness of the process is rather limited when the recipients of feedback are left with acting on it without training, which is why it is recommended to have trained facilitators or consultants deliver the anonymous feedback and support managers in understanding the data ( Nowack and Mashihi, 2012 ; Vukotich, 2014 ).

Multisource Feedback

The term multisource feedback (MSF) is often used interchangeably with 360 degree feedback, even though this is not accurate ( Foster and Law, 2006 ). MSF constitutes more than one source of feedback (e.g., self-ratings and peer-ratings), but it must not necessarily involve the full circle of 360 degree feedback. Hence, 360 degree feedback is a type of MSF, but MSF is not necessarily 360 degree feedback ( Foster and Law, 2006 ). However, MSF programs share similar processes with 360 degree feedback initiatives and generally also provide feedback to a single recipient, most often a leader ( Atwater et al., 2007 ). They can also be implemented for developmental or administrative purposes, for example as part of performance appraisal processes ( Timmreck and Bracken, 1997 ).

Upward Feedback

Upward feedback is a more narrow form of 360 degree feedback and MSF. It is the vertical feedback derived from subordinates with the purpose of appraising a manager’s performance ( van Dierendonck et al., 2007 ). Upward feedback programs typically include self-ratings of leader behaviors that can then be compared to subordinates’ ratings to help feedback recipients identify development needs and subsequently improve their leadership skills. Similar to 360 degree feedback or MSF programs, upward feedback programs aim to support leadership development or administrative decision-making and entail comparable processes ( Atwater et al., 2000 ).

Comparing Other Feedback Practices to Employee Surveys

Employee surveys are similar to the above mentioned human resource feedback practices, but are nevertheless distinct in their processes and goals. Their most overlap occurs when an employee survey contains items on leadership behavior, specifically direct leaders. In such a case, the employee survey functions as upward feedback to managers in addition to the assessment of general work conditions ( Church and Oliver, 2006 ). The most prominent differences between the various human resource feedback practices and the employee survey is the type of feedback that is solicited and the handling of the data following the survey. Employee surveys only utilize vertical feedback, meaning feedback is carried up the organizational hierarchy starting at the bottom. They entail formal feedback derived from large groups of or all employees in an organization (best case at least from a representative sample), and the results are aimed at evaluating general work conditions. The goal is therefore not to evaluate a specific employee’s leadership skills, but to obtain feedback from a wide range of employees on more general work-related topics ( Bungard et al., 2007 ).

The employee survey follow-up process then entails using the group-level feedback data for organizational change initiatives. Some organizations choose to implement top–down initiatives in reaction to survey results in which management or other stakeholders review the data at a higher and aggregated level than that of single teams. They then decide on overarching action plans for the whole company or certain departments, such as the implementation of new performance appraisal systems, overhauling internal communication, or changing the company strategy ( Linke, 2018 ). Such top–down approaches are not the focus of this review, but the interested reader is referred to different case study descriptions (see e.g., Chesler and Flanders, 1967 ; Goldberg and Gordon, 1978 ; Rollins, 1994 ; Falletta and Combs, 2002 ; Feather, 2008 ; Tomlinson, 2010 ; Costello et al., 2011 ; Cattermole et al., 2013 ).

The focus of this review is the bottom–up approach to change, which focuses on employee involvement and participation and is of a more decentralized nature ( Conway and Monks, 2011 ). The employee follow-up in line with this approach entails the discussion of psychosocial working-environment data between managers and their teams and having a dialogue about results that pose areas with need for action. Ideally, action planning and proper action plan implementation should follow these discussions ( Welbourne, 2016 ).

As mentioned previously, such follow-up steps after the survey are oftentimes neglected in practice ( Church et al., 2012 ). One reason for this could be that employee surveys generally have different purposes in comparison to 360 degree, multisource, and upward feedback approaches. They are mostly used for OD or assessment purposes ( Hartley, 2001 ). They are much less likely to be tied to personal rewards, such as promotions of specific managers. Hence, the responsibility to review the data and to implement changes based on it does not lie as clearly with managers as it does with the feedback practices described above.

Overall, there is little empirical evidence regarding the follow-up on employee surveys, and the research that is available is scattered and labeled inconsistently (e.g., employee satisfaction survey, opinion survey, engagement survey). As noted above, researchers have offered reviews and meta-analyses on different types of feedback, feedback interventions, and specifically survey feedback interventions. From a holistic perspective, however, the results of these reviews are mixed and inconsistent, calling for a systematic review on the distinct concept of the employee survey follow-up. In the following section, we offer a conceptual framework for presenting research on this topic.

A Conceptual Framework of the Employee Survey Follow-Up Process

We developed a conceptual framework of the employee survey process, with particular focus on the follow-up (see Figure 2 ). For its development, we drew from existing theory and research. Mainly, the OD/change and organizational behavior literature informed this model, more specifically models proposed by Nadler and Tushman (1980) ; Burke and Litwin (1992) , and Porras and Robertson (1992) .

Conceptual framework of the employee survey process, specifically the follow-up process. Variables listed as external factors serve as examples; list is not exhaustive.

Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model of Organizational Behavior (1980) informed the general structure of our model with its input-, transformation process-, and output approach to behavioral systems in an organization, which is in alignment with open systems theory ( Katz and Kahn, 1978 ). According to their conceptualization, there are inputs for the behavioral system (i.e., the organization). This behavioral system consists of specific organizational elements and produces behaviors that ultimately lead to certain levels of organizational performance (i.e., outputs).

This systems and transformation view of the organization is applicable to the employee survey (follow-up), as this process itself is an approach to identifying and solving organizational problems. Specifically, the post-survey follow-up is an organizational transformation process fed with data from certain input sources, such as the employee survey ( Falletta and Combs, 2002 ). This transformation process emerges, like any other organizational process, through the interaction of human and organizational factors and the resulting behaviors ( Nadler and Tushman, 1980 ). Lastly, such systems put forth outputs that can be categorized into organizational and individual performance ( Nadler, 1981 ).

Two other common and popular change models inform the more specific variables of the model; Burke and Litwin’s Model of Organizational Performance and Change (1992) and Porras and Robertson’s Change-Based Organizational Framework (1992). Figure 2 attempts to portray the primary variables and components relevant to the employee survey follow-up process. Below we will describe each component of the model in more detail.

The Employee Survey

The employee survey itself produces the necessary data for all subsequent steps (i.e., teams receive their results and plan actions based on them) ( Linke, 2018 ), hence it can be considered as an antecedent of the survey follow-up process. Much research has been accumulated on survey development and administration, but it stands mostly in isolation from the steps following the actual survey, meaning most studies do not connect this knowledge to the survey follow-up steps, creating a disconnect between these bodies of literature.

External Factors

Besides the survey delivering data as input for the follow-up process, there are also factors external to the organization that provide input for the follow-up. As other researchers have noted, external factors affect and sometimes initiate organizational change ( Burke and Litwin, 1992 ; Porras and Robertson, 1992 ). These factors can include any outside conditions that influence the organization, for example political circumstances, culture, marketplaces, or even industry category ( Burke and Litwin, 1992 ). These external factors represent the context in which the employee survey is embedded and therefore also have an effect on the employee survey and follow-up. For example, the culture of the country that the company resides in will most likely influence what kind of questions are asked in an employee survey (e.g., collectivist vs. individualistic cultures). Culture most likely also influences participation rates in an employee survey (e.g., there might be low participation rates when the survey content does not fit the cultural context).

The Employee Survey Follow-Up Process

Consistent with Porras and Robertson’s (1992) Change-Based Organizational Framework, we identified two main factors that are relevant for the follow-up process: The work setting (i.e., organizational system) and its organizational members (i.e., the human system).

Organizational System

There are many ways to think about the components of an organization, hence there is no one way agreed upon description ( Nadler and Tushman, 1980 ). Generally, these components refer to the organizational arrangements that characterize how an organization functions. We have listed the components we deemed most important for the implementation of employee surveys and their follow-up: Structure, resources, culture/climate, and strategy. Structure refers to the arrangement of people and their functions into different levels of responsibility and authority ( Duncan, 1979 ). As employee survey follow-up processes take place in work groups, the structure of an organization becomes defining for the constellations in which the process is carried out ( Nadler, 1980 ). Resources refer to any organizational, physical, psychological, or social aspects of work that help achieve work goals ( Demerouti et al., 2001 ) and are hence also relevant for all work-related processes, such as employee surveys and their follow-up. Culture and climate are related constructs, with culture referring to the collection of rules, values, and principles that guide organizational behavior. Climate refers to the collective impressions, feelings, and expectations of members in a team or work unit ( Burke and Litwin, 1992 ). Culture has long been recognized to play an important role in OD ( Beer and Walton, 1987 ), and with the follow-up process being a team-level task, there is reason to believe that especially the climate in a work unit will affect this process as well. Strategy is how an organization intends to achieve effectiveness over an extended time frame ( Burke and Litwin, 1992 ), and the literature on employee surveys suggests that the goals of employee surveys (including their follow-up) should be aligned with the company’s strategy ( Falletta and Combs, 2002 ). Generally, surveys can and should also be used to support the organization’s strategy ( Macey and Fink, 2020 ).

Human System

The human system refers to any participants and change agents involved in the process of the employee survey and its follow-up. Leaders are important change agents in OD ( Beer and Walton, 1987 ), and the employee survey (follow-up) process requires dedication from top management down to direct supervisors ( Knapp and Mujtaba, 2010 ). Whereas the top–down approach to change is of a strategic and centralized nature and managed from higher levels of the organization, the bottom–up approach to change focuses on employee involvement and participation ( Conway and Monks, 2011 ). Hence, employees are also important to the process und take on the role of change agents.

Lastly, whereas some literature on employee surveys recommends that only employees and team leaders are present during the feedback and action planning meetings (see e.g., Knapp and Mujtaba, 2010 ), some sources recommend that trainers or consultants help facilitate during the process by supporting managers in making sense of the data and engaging in action planning discussions with their teams (see e.g., Bungard et al., 2007 ; Linke, 2018 ). Consequently, other change agents besides managers and employees can play an important role in the process.

Output is what the organization produces, more specifically its performance ( Nadler and Tushman, 1980 ), but there is a lack of consensus as to what constitutes a valid set of performance criteria in an organization ( Ostroff, 1992 ). There is, however, general agreement that performance is multi-dimensional and applies to the multiple levels of an organization (i.e., the individual-, team-, and organizational level) ( Sonnentag and Frese, 2002 ). In the context of this research, we drew from the above mentioned change models by Nadler and Tushman (1980) ; Burke and Litwin (1992) , and Porras and Robertson (1992) and differentiate between individual (psychological vs. physiological) and organizational outcomes, assuming that these two can influence each other.

Feedback Loops

The feedback loops pertain to the process of reviewing developed action plans and evaluating them regarding their effectiveness and sustainability. This helps create accountability and guide future decisions regarding readjustment of action plans or the necessity to develop additional action plans based on the current survey cycle (see smaller loop circling back to the follow-up process in Figure 2 ; Bungard et al., 2007 ).

The second loop connects back to a new survey cycle, restarting the process of action plan development based on newly collected data (see Figure 2 ). This feedback loop informs the future survey and follow-up process in that new action plans can be informed by the outcomes of previous action plans. For example, if an action plan was not successfully implemented, an additional action might be developed. Also, past research has shown that previous experiences with change initiatives can shape attitudes toward future change initiatives, such as levels of trust in future change programs ( Bordia et al., 2011 ). More specifically, past research suggests that the quality of handling survey data and conducting a follow-up process might influence attitudes toward future surveys, including perceptions of its usefulness ( Thompson and Surface, 2009 ) or the intent to participate in future surveys ( Rogelberg et al., 2000 ).

Literature Search

From September 2020 to December 2020 and in June 2021, we conducted several comprehensive literature searches in Google Scholar and PsycInfo. We used the search terms “employee survey,” “survey feedback,” “organizational survey,” “employee engagement survey,” “employee opinion survey,” “employee satisfaction survey,” “survey feedback intervention,” and “survey key driver analysis.” We also searched “upward feedback” as we expected for this term might not only refer to traditional upward feedback programs, but that this term might also put forth research that refers to vertical feedback.

The literature seldom discusses the follow-up process without the preceding surveying process. Therefore, during the initial phase of the database search, we included all titles that indicated a discussion of employee surveys in general. An important distinction was whether the title of the study indicated merely the use of surveys as the data collection method for other research purposes or whether the record discussed the process of conducting an employee survey. This especially posed a challenge for this review, as surveys are the most popular method of research in psychology ( Dillman et al., 2014 ). The search resulted in 462 initial records (see Figure 3 ).

Systematic literature review process.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) protocol ( Moher et al., 2015 ), we screened all articles. 1 The inclusion criteria applied during the scanning of abstracts and full texts were that the record (1) primarily discusses the bottom–up approach to organizational change in the context of the employee survey follow-up process, which constitutes the group discussion of fed back psychosocial data, (2) constitutes primary empirical literature published in peer-reviewed academic journals or book chapters of edited books, and (3) it is written in English or German. Regarding point (2), we chose to not include gray literature (e.g., dissertations, conference papers) to ensure a sufficient level of quality of the included literature, which is guaranteed by the peer-review process of academic journals and of edited books.

We excluded general books on the matter because, as a common and popular human resource practice, there are numerous books on employee surveys, which are ultimately based on the empirical literature we summarize in this review. The employee survey process at organizations is defined by the dynamics between managers and teams, and this is different to a teacher and student context. Hence, we excluded research conducted in educational settings when it was conducted with teacher and student samples (e.g., Brown, 1972 ; Hand et al., 1975 ). We did, however, include studies in educational settings when the survey feedback was used among educational staff (e.g., between principals and teachers) for the development of the educational institution as an organization (e.g., Miles et al., 1969 ). We also excluded non-primary literature, such as book reviews and commentaries, because these are also based on the primary work we summarize in this review. Finally, we searched the references of relevant papers until no new records were identified, which resulted in an additional 11 records. The final sample constitutes 53 records published between 1952 and 2021.

For each paper, we tabulated and extracted the following information: Author(s), year of publication, the research field the study was published in, the terms used to describe the employee survey/the follow-up process, the study type/analytic methods, and a short summary of findings (see Appendix). We also coded all records according to which components of the conceptual model they inform. When the record contained information pertaining specifically to a variable as listed in the conceptual model, the record was coded and listed accordingly in Table 1 . In addition, we coded records according to whether the study indicated the involvement of an external change agent, more specifically the level of involvement of another change agent. We coded a study as indicating low change agent involvement when there was no involvement or little involvement either during the preparation stage of feedback meetings or during the actual feedback meetings. We coded a study as indicating medium involvement of a change agent when such supported managers thoroughly either during the preparation phase (e.g., thoroughly briefed managers on how to conduct meetings) or during the actual feedback meetings (e.g., they moderated the feedback meetings for or with managers), or when they supported moderately during both phases. We coded the record as indicating high involvement of an external change agent when they thoroughly supported managers during preparation and during the actual feedback meetings.

Reviewed empirical studies coded according to which components of the conceptual model of the employee survey follow-up process they inform.

Total number of studies: 53. *For according citations, see Appendix. **Studies were coded according to involvement levels of additional change agents other than managers: Low (no involvement or little involvement before or during feedback meetings); medium (thorough involvement either before or during feedback meetings or moderate involvement during both phases); high (high involvement before and during feedback meetings).

Coder(s) also recoded 10% of the studies to check their consistency ( Daniels, 2018 ). 2

Six records indicated that data was used for multiple publications (i.e., constituting three unique publications) and were marked as such in the Appendix. We suspected eight additional records to constitute only four unique publications based on the analog study design descriptions. We were able to acquire contact information from at least one author of two (i.e., four) manuscripts. One confirmed the multiple use of data and one was not able to provide information due the long time that had passed since publication.

In the following, we summarize and integrate the findings derived from the records we identified via our literature searches and structure them according to the components of our conceptual model with the purpose of revealing domains in which our evidence-based knowledge remains underdeveloped.

None of the studies included in this review investigated the characteristics of the employee survey as antecedents to the follow-up process. A variety of different questionnaires served as the basis for follow-up activities, and there was also much variety in the extent of information that the authors provided about the questionnaires. Whereas some provided many details and item examples, others merely named the survey. In some instances, the questionnaires were matched to the specific context and circumstances of the organization, for example to a military setting [the Army’s General Organizational Questionnaire (GOQ); Adams and Sherwood, 1979 ], or to mining and milling (the Work Attitudes Survey; Gavin and Krois, 1983 ).

Overall, the surveys contained items regarding a variety of psychosocial constructs relevant to the workplace. Examples include, but are not limited to, job demands, control at work, social interactions, leadership, and commitment to the organization ( Björklund et al., 2007 ), as well as rewards, communication, quality of management, participation, employee satisfaction, organizational climate, and effectiveness ( Amba-Rao, 1989 ). More examples include items on response to stress, the need for work development, and perceived work environment ( Elo et al., 1998 ), as well as items regarding quality of work life, individual morale, individual distress, supportive leadership, role clarity ( Jury et al., 2009a , b ).

Results by Gavin and McPhail (1978) of an implemented employee survey at an Admissions and Records Department suggest that it might be more beneficial to use items developed for the specific context of an organization, rather than general organizational climate measures, as those items improved more in comparison to the general items. Consequently, the authors suggested that tailored survey interventions might be more effective than global initiatives. Similarly, Adams and Sherwood (1979) also suggested that items tailored to the specific context might be more beneficial than general items.

Lastly, one study discussed the usefulness of survey key driver analysis (SKDA) for managers in the survey data analysis process, which is a statistical procedure to identify topics that can be prioritized for action planning among a variety of other measured topics in a survey. More specifically, the identified key drivers are most highly associated with the outcome (oftentimes employee engagement). Cucina et al. (2017) called for the moratorium of this practice, which evoked a series of commentaries (see Hyland et al., 2017 ; Johnson, 2017 ; Klein et al., 2017 ; Macey and Daum, 2017 ; Rotolo et al., 2017 ; Scherbaum et al., 2017 ). Similarly, some authors have suggested that managers do not need statistical training to recognize significant differences, but instead can deal best with their data by examining percentages of favorable and unfavorable results and comparing them to other departments or past survey results ( Dodd and Pesci, 1977 ). However, in some studies, managers received survey results prepared through survey key driver analysis (SKDA) (e.g., Griffin et al., 2000 ; Ward, 2008 ).

In summary, whereas all studies provide a mostly sufficient description of the employee survey that was used for the intervention, we recognized a disconnect between the survey items and their significance as antecedents to the action planning process. It is reasonable to assume though that the questionnaires help participants structure their subjective feelings and guide subsequent action planning by providing relevant concepts for discussion. Also, the way the data is prepared by or for managers most likely also affects the subsequent action planning process.

None of the studies included in this review explicitly examined external factors, but as we described in earlier sections, such are complex and difficult to define and measure. One important factor to consider could be, for example, the national culture in which the organization is embedded. None of the empirical studies examined the employee survey follow-up process from a cross-national perspective, but our review yielded studies conducted in Australia, Germany, Finland, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Also, the studies included in this review were implemented in a variety of different industries, as for example military, banking, schools, hospitals, manufacturing, and mining, but none of them examined effects across different industries. Therefore, our results suggest that the role of external factors is yet to be explored in the context of employee surveys and their follow-up.

The classic structure for the implementation of employee surveys is the waterfall design in work families. Within this approach, higher level feedback sessions serve as role models for lower level work groups, and results are presented to and in the according work families (i.e., a manager with her/his subordinates) ( Nadler, 1980 ). Most reviewed intervention studies made use of this model (see Table 1 ); Adams and Sherwood (1979) for example reported some improvements following an employee survey conducted in a military setting with strong hierarchical structures, which matched the classic waterfall and work family design.

However, some researchers have suggested the superiority of other structure models for survey feedback meetings. For example, Alderfer and Ferriss (1972) found that higher level managers denied their problems in feedback meetings, while exhibiting a decline in workplace morale. The authors suggested that the traditional work family model might not be the most effective way to conduct survey feedback meetings, as it might lack psychological safety for participants. Instead, it could be useful to first conduct peer meetings, which can be followed by work family meetings. One year later, Alderfer and Holbrook (1973) followed up with a study in which they implemented a peer-/intergroup model instead of a work family design with which they found some positive effects: Individuals that shared a common organizational fate, for instance because they had similar tasks, but they did not have direct authority relationships, were brought together for the employee survey follow-up meetings. Managers also met among each other, and these meetings were followed-up by intergroup sessions in which members of the different systems at different levels of authority interacted. The authors proposed that there might be less hesitance of employees to speak up in such meetings because direct managers are not present.

Eklöf et al. (2004) compared other types of structure models during which feedback was provided by a trained ergonomist: Individually to each person in the group, to only the group supervisors, and to the entire group with the supervisor present. Results suggested potential benefits in giving feedback to only supervisors. This was the most cost effective intervention group, as it resulted in a higher average number of psychosocial modification types per individual (i.e., different types of modifications to the workplace) and required the least time investment. It is important to note though that the average number of psychosocial modification types per individual decreased for all groups during this intervention, but the supervisor feedback group merely showed the least decrease.

In summary, research suggests that other implementation structures besides the classic waterfall and work family design for the employee survey follow-up could be useful, but we require additional research to compare and further explore such implementation strategies.

Only three of the studies specifically examined resources in the employee survey follow-up context. Dodd and Pesci (1977) found that managers who received feedback training seemed to conduct more feasible, measureable, visible, and timely action programs than managers without training. Trained managers were also more likely to improve employee attitudes and morale through the feedback intervention. Wiley (2012) surveyed 31 survey practitioners from a sample of large organizations, and the top three barriers to effective post-survey action planning named were execution (following through), importance (lacking attention by executive management), and resources (especially time, but also lacking training, technical, and financial resources). Lastly, Fraser et al. (2009) interviewed 18 managers from large multi-site companies that had implemented employee surveys in the past. Results indicated that important resources for the implementation of a successful follow-up process included a clear action purpose of the survey itself, senior management endorsement of the implementation, experienced leaders, and the support of trained change agents to drive the process.

Some other studies mentioned almost in passing different types of resources (e.g., time, financial resources, training) that affected the employee survey process. For example, participation in the survey intervention implemented by Elo et al. (1998) was voluntary, but sessions were held at times where shift workers could participate immediately before or after their working hours, and the company paid compensation to those who participated. Church et al. (2012) provided some qualitative data from employees who reported that action was not taken based on their survey results, and they named a lack of commitment by managers to follow through as one of the reasons. The participants also named the lack of other resources, including time, funding, or manpower. Lastly, Baker et al. (2003) reported in their study that some managers noted that the pressures of their daily work made it difficult to disseminate the results to the entire staff.

Overall, resources seemed to not find much attention in the reviewed literature. The reason for this neglect could be that the majority of study contexts might not have suffered from lacking resources because organizations consenting to collaborate in research and the research teams implementing the intervention are likely to ensure that the research can be carried out appropriately with sufficient resources.

Culture/climate

Similarly to resources, organizational culture/climate was given little attention throughout the literature. An exception was a study by Bowers (1973) , in which he examined organizational climate as a mediator. He found that the positive effects of survey feedback on measures of organizational functioning were weaker when controlling for climate. Other anecdotal descriptions provide inferential information about the importance of culture/climate to the employee survey follow-up. Swanson and Zuber (1996) described the hostile organizational culture of the mailing company that their intervention was attempted to be implemented in. There was high turnover with managers routinely being fired or demoted without clearly stated reasons, which resulted in managers maintaining low profiles and not speaking up. Top management generally showed defensiveness toward the survey reports and an unwillingness to change. Overall, the organizational culture was hostile, hierarchical, and demonstrated low ability to change which contributed to the employee survey intervention to fail.

In strong contrast to this stands a case study by Ward (2008) . It describes the successful implementation of a survey endeavor at Fujitsu through a consulting firm, whose methodology was “say, stay, strive.” This strategy was aimed at giving employees a voice, giving them incentive to stay with the company, and striving to be better. This fit Fujitsu’s organizational culture well, and top management was very supportive of the survey implementation. The company made an effort to share best practices, and improvements in employee engagement were noted through action planning at the local level.

In summary, only one study specifically examined climate or culture, but we can draw inferences from the descriptions provided by some of the authors. Most likely, this research topic has been given little attention for similar reasons as the neglect of resources. An organization is not likely to collaborate in intervention research when their culture does not allow such efforts.

None of the studies included in this review contained specific information pertaining to organizational strategy, which poses a large research gap.

Nearly all studies provided descriptions of the employees involved in the studies, as they constituted the participants of their research. Only five studies examined the relevance of group composition and the characteristics of employees participating in feedback meetings. For example, Alderfer and Holbrook (1973) found that group composition was related to the length of time that different topics were discussed. Branch managers mainly discussed authority, control, communication, and conflict, whereas management trainees were mainly concerned with communication, conflict, and careers. Church et al. (2012) examined whether the same pattern of results (i.e., groups that reported action was being taken based on their survey results showed more favorable survey responses over the years) held up for different groups of employees, such as frontline employees, executives, and professionals. Results suggested that frontline managers were more dissatisfied when results were not acted on in comparison to the other two groups, but they were equally satisfied when results were acted upon. Hence, the results held up across different groups of employees.

Gavin and Krois (1983) examined the demographic characteristics of the feedback groups, including employees. For example, younger groups displayed more constructive problem-solving and fewer avoidance behaviors. More highly educated groups spent relatively more time on problem resolution. Nadler et al. (1976 , 1980) found differing effects in different departments of a bank (i.e., tellers, financial consultants). The authors concluded that different approaches may be called for in different types of work units that are made up of different kinds of organizational members. Tellers, for example, have little control over their tasks, and higher performance might be less rewarding for them as for financial consultants, who have more autonomy in their tasks. Hence, these groups might have different levels of motivation to engage with the survey feedback data.

Overall, we still know very little about employees’ roles in the survey feedback process and how different individuals might perform and engage in it. Church et al. (2012) already highlighted this gap in the literature almost 10 years ago and noted that different individual predispositions might lead to differing response profiles and subsequently might also affect all following steps (e.g., action planning).

Leaders/managers

It is widely accepted throughout the change management literature that leaders and managers play a central role as change agents ( Conway and Monks, 2011 ). Nevertheless, only nine studies gave specific attention to leadership (see Table 1 ). For example, results suggest that teams led by managers with poor leadership skills potentially benefit most from survey feedback interventions ( Solomon, 1976 ), but managers with low ratings on leadership questions might also be less likely to use the feedback with their units, even though they have the most need to do so ( Born and Mathieu, 1996 ). On the contrary, Conlon and Short (1984) found that managers with higher ratings on an item asking how the manager performs under pressure and how often the manager holds group meetings for communication purposes, were more likely to provide survey feedback to their teams. Even though these items were weak predictors, the authors concluded that supervisors who have preexisting processes in place to discuss work related matters with their teams might be at an advantage to continue such behavior within the scope of the employee survey follow-up. Supervisor ratings also improved after the intervention; more specifically, the intervention had the greatest effect on supervisor ratings in comparison to all other measures (e.g., climate or resources).

Jöns (2000) examined leadership and the type of feedback discussions (with or without a neutral presenter/moderator) as moderators of perceived quality of the feedback meetings and their outcomes. However, the author jointly examined leadership assessments (upward feedback) and employee surveys while acknowledging their close parallels. Self-guided feedback meetings, in comparison to moderated meetings, led to greater improvements in leadership behaviors, but only for groups in which leaders were rated as satisfactory, in comparison to high and very high ratings. Results also suggested that managers improved in their moderation skills over time.

In summary, the results of these studies suggest that managers and leaders play a central role in the employee survey follow-up process, but only few studies examined the characteristics of leaders in-depth to determine which factors contribute to and which might inhibit the employee survey follow-up.

Other change agents

Overall, most studies included some kind of change agent or consultant (internal or external) who accompanied the employee survey endeavors in addition to work unit managers. Their involvement in the process differed with regard to intensity, but also with regard to the steps of the employee survey process they supported. However, only three studies specifically examined the role of change agents. For example, Alderfer and Ferriss (1972) found that managers who received support from a consulting team that consisted of insider and outsider consultants were more likely to view the intervention positively and showed more awareness of interpersonal problems. This suggests that it might be beneficial to utilize the expertise of an external consultant who can foster communication across organizational boundaries, but to also have an internal consultant present who understands the specific needs of the team and can evaluate the feasibility of action plans.

We will now provide a few study examples of different levels of change agent involvement from least to most (see Table 1 for an overview). Some studies described no or low involvement of other change agents, which meant that there was, if any, little involvement either during the preparation stage or during the feedback meetings. For example, some studies did not mention any consultant or other change agent supporting the survey feedback process ( Björklund et al., 2007 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ). Other studies described low involvement of other change agents. For example, in a study of survey feedback in neonatal intensive care units, Baker et al. (2003) reported that team leaders participated in some exercises to foster their understanding of the data, which the study heavily relied on, rather than interpreting the data for managers. However, respondents in several care center units commented that a facilitator or an expert in organizational behavior would have been helpful to support them during the actual feedback meetings in reviewing, interpreting, and highlighting the relevant results and deciding on which topics to target with action planning.

Other studies described a medium level of involvement of consultants, which means that managers received thorough support either during the preparation phase of feedback meetings or during the actual meetings. For example, Born and Mathieu (1996) provided thorough training for supervisors in which they were coached on how to conduct feedback meetings with their teams and how to develop action plans. Then, supervisors were independently responsible for holding the according meetings with their teams. Similarly, Solomon (1976) reported that managers participated in a workshop in which they received the result reports of their teams, received help in interpreting the data, and were guided on how to develop action plans. Subsequently, they held feedback meetings with their teams.

Lastly, some studies described high involvement of other change agents, which means managers received thorough support before and during feedback meetings. For example, in an intervention study by Elo et al. (1998) , occupational health physicians and nurses took on active roles by providing consultative support in the face-to-face discussions with work teams and managers, which was furthermore supported by an external researcher–consultant. The occupational health personnel also ensured the continuity of the process and kept participating in the meetings.

Overall, the different grades of change agent involvement and the contrasting results across studies make a definite statement regarding the effectiveness of involving other change agents in the process challenging.

Individual Outcomes

Psychological outcomes.

The majority of studies (38) provided information about a variety of psychological outcomes following employee survey follow-up processes (see Table 1 ). For example, a large-scale survey feedback intervention showed improvements in all areas measured by the survey, which mainly related to indicators of workplace culture, such as quality of work life, morale, opportunity for professional growth, and supportive leadership ( Jury et al., 2009a , b ). Survey feedback has also been shown to lead to increases in readiness to change among executives of the organization ( Alderfer and Holbrook, 1973 ), or improvements in communication, ease in tension in organization, satisfaction, and employee relations ( Amba-Rao, 1989 ). Conlon and Short (1984) reported improved ratings of supervisor behavior, goal clarity, task perceptions, and opportunity for advancement improved during their intervention, whereas at least a medium level of feedback was needed to produce meaningful changes.

However, most results of the studies included in this review were rather mixed. In a short case description by Miles et al. (1969) , survey feedback meetings among school staff led to improvements in participant ratings of own openness and collaborative problem-solving, but other improvements, such as in communication, were short-lived. The authors suspected a lack of follow-through regarding the planned actions and a relatively low number of actions generally were the reason that changes did not persist. Björklund et al. (2007) reported that groups with feedback and action plans showed improvements on leadership factors and commitment to the organization, but job demands and control at work did not improve. Adams and Sherwood (1979) reported that one of the intervention groups in a military setting even showed a decline in job satisfaction. However, this group experienced a change in commanders during the intervention, which could have been a possible confound to the study.

Anderzén and Arnetz (2005) found improvements 1 year after their intervention in terms of employee well-being, work-related exhaustion, performance feedback, participatory management, skills development, efficiency, and leadership, but no changes for goal clarity. Church and Oliver (2006) showed that respondents who reported that their survey results had been used for action, rated overall job satisfaction more favorably. Church et al. (2012) followed up on these results with more longitudinal data of the same organization and found that the group that indicated that its survey results had been shared and acted upon, were consistently more favorable raters across all items and across all years.

Another type of psychological outcome is the satisfaction of participants with the feedback process, which most likely influences their motivation to participate in the following feedback sessions. In a study by Peter (1994) , the necessary follow-up survey could not be administered to conduct a proper comparison of employee attitudes and turnover intentions before and after the survey feedback intervention due to administrative changes in the organization. However, nursing manages reported high satisfaction with the survey intervention and process in general. Specifically, 75% responded they would want to use the intervention again and 25% indicated that they would probably use it again. In a follow-up study, improvements on job satisfaction could be found for one work unit ( Peter et al., 1997 ). Klein et al. (1971) found that variables such as quality of meetings, the person presenting the information, and the number of meetings influenced how satisfied participants were with the feedback process and data utilization. Also, ratings of feedback quality were higher when meetings were held in person by frontline managers.

In summary, most studies were able to find improvements on a variety of psychosocial outcomes, but results were generally mixed and seemed to differ depending on different factors that could have acted as moderators of the found relationships.

Physiological outcomes

Only four studies examined physiological changes following survey feedback interventions, and they were all published in medical and health journals, rather than in industrial and organizational psychology journals. For example, Anderzén and Arnetz (2005) found that improvements in psychosocial work factors were associated with improvements in self-rated health and ratings of quality of sleep. Also, levels of stress-related hormones (i.e., serum triglycerides and serum cholesterol) in blood samples were reduced at an aggregate level after the intervention, and serum testosterone (an important restorative hormone) increased. The authors also measured increased levels of cortisol; low levels of cortisol are indicative of chronic fatigue and burnout. Similarly, Elo et al. (1998) reported reduced mental, but also physical strain for one of the three departments (i.e., finishing department of a factory) in which the survey feedback was implemented.

Eklöf et al. (2004) examined the proportion of workgroup members who reported any workplace modifications with regard to ergonomics (e.g., screen placement, visual conditions, etc.) or with regard to psychosocial aspects (e.g., social support, support from supervisor) following a survey feedback intervention. They found that both outcomes decreased for all feedback groups (i.e., feedback to groups, only to supervisors, only to individual employees) and for the control group. However, the feedback groups positively differed from the control group in that there was less decrease in ergonomic workplace modifications. Importantly, this study did not measure actual modifications or physiological benefits, such as reduced musculoskeletal complaints. The authors also caution that intervention effects could have been inflated or diminished due to a variety of confounds, such as recall bias, control-group effects, and social desirability. This study was followed up on by Eklöf and Hagberg (2006) using the same intervention implementation. The researchers could not find any intervention effects for symptom indicators, such as eye discomfort or musculoskeletal symptoms, which were self-reported as pain or discomfort in neck, shoulder, upper or lower back. There was, however, an improvement in social support measures when feedback was fed back to supervisors only.

In sum, results suggest that physiological benefits can be derived from employee surveys, but results were generally mixed and require further investigation.

Organizational Outcomes

Nine studies examined organizational outcomes following survey feedback. For example, Church and Oliver (2006) found that groups that reported action was taken following their surveys showed 50% lower incident rates of accidents on the job and 48% less lost time in days due to accidents. Those groups also showed lower turnover intentions and actual turnover. However, as the turnover data was not longitudinal, causality cannot be inferred. Similarly, Nadler et al. (1976) reported reduced turnover in one of the branches for bank tellers that used the feedback system effectively. Branches that used the feedback system ineffectively even showed a slight increase in turnover. Hautaluoma and Gavin (1975) reported a lower turnover rate for older employees and less absenteeism for blue-collar workers at an organization in which consultants held quite intense survey feedback meetings with staff.

Anderzén and Arnetz (2005) found that as self-rated health ratings increased following the survey intervention, absenteeism decreased. Also, decreased work tempo and improved work climate were related to decreased absenteeism. In contrast, Björklund et al. (2007) could not replicate these findings and did not find decreased sick leave for any of the comparison groups (a group without any feedback, a group with feedback only, and a group with feedback and action planning).

In summary, employee surveys seem to have the potential to lead to improvements in organizational outcomes, such as reduced turnover or absenteeism, but results are mixed and do not seem to hold up in every context.

With an increasing number of organizations that survey their employees ( Welbourne, 2016 ), it is likely that the topic of implementing a proper follow-up process will also continue to gain importance. We reviewed the literature on this topic based on an integrative conceptual model that we developed drawing from Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model of Organizational Behavior (1980), Burke and Litwin’s Model of Organizational Performance and Change (1992), and Porras and Robertson’s Change-Based Organizational Framework (1992).

In the following, we summarize the major insights of our review pertaining to each component of the model. By doing so, we answer our research question regarding which variables of our conceptual model have been sufficiently informed by past research and which variables require future research. Based on this discussion, we also provide implications for practice and offer suggestions for future research. Overall, we conclude that research on the employee survey follow-up process has investigated some of the relevant aspects, but large gaps of knowledge remain. Most of the research we reviewed focused on the measurement and achievement of human or organizational outcomes following a survey feedback intervention, which was mostly accomplished with pre/post designs. There were less studies focusing on the process of the employee survey follow-up. Some studies did investigate the process with other research designs, including qualitative interviews with survey practitioners or managers (e.g., Fraser et al., 2009 ; Wiley, 2012 ) or by surveying managers who conducted employee follow-up meetings (e.g., Gable et al., 2010 ). Researchers use longitudinal designs to measure change and to answer questions of causality ( Wang et al., 2017 ). However, there may be also value in other designs that collect cross-sectional or qualitative data.

In this regard, we suggest that more attention should be paid to the organizational actors who drive the employee survey (follow-up) process. In the majority of studies, managers and employees played what seemed a rather passive role in the process in the sense that they were described as attendees to the survey feedback meetings, but their specific characteristics were often not examined. Sometimes, demographic variables (e.g., age, education, marital status) were merely treated as correlates, rather than independent variables (e.g., Peter, 1994 ). However, these actors are the main organizational stakeholders that drive the process and are mostly affected by it as well. Hence, they play an essential role and should receive more research attention.

Especially the topic of leadership is of great significance. Leaders generally constitute important change agents in organizations ( Conway and Monks, 2011 ) and, accordingly, they play an important role in the employee survey process ( Welbourne, 2016 ). Despite their importance, only few studies examined leadership in this context. However, several studies included in this review mentioned the potential for tension between leaders and subordinates and the resulting lack of psychological safety for participants in the employee survey process (e.g., Alderfer and Holbrook, 1973 ; Dodd and Pesci, 1977 ; Baker et al., 2003 ). This potential for tension between managers/supervisors and subordinates during the employee survey follow-up has not yet been fully explored, but instead was mostly named as a limitation to or challenge of the included studies. In contrast, the issue of reactions to received feedback has received more attention in the upward feedback and 360 degree feedback literature (e.g., Atwater et al., 2000 ; Atwater and Brett, 2005 ) and in the performance appraisal literature as well (e.g., Pichler, 2012 ).

Experts often recommend that an additional change agent should be involved in these other feedback practices to support the recipients of the feedback in the process of understanding the data and using it for developmental purposes. The majority of studies included in this review involved change agents in addition to managers, such as human resource personnel or consultants. However, their level of involvement varied greatly between studies, and differences between groups with and without support by a change agent remain largely unexplored. Some results suggest that some type of support for managers, such as training, may present advantages for the process ( Dodd and Pesci, 1977 ).

Furthermore, other additional research gaps emerged in light of our conceptual model, including the effects of survey items/questionnaires as antecedents to the follow-up tasks. Whereas most studies sufficiently described the surveys they were using, none of them examined the characteristics of the survey as predictors. Related to this, another gap concerns the interpretation of the survey data after it is available to managers. It remains unclear, how the data should best be presented to managers (and also employees), and how much support managers should receive in the process. Another gap concerns the effects of organizational culture/climate, organizational strategy, and the availability of resources on the follow-up process. Almost none of the studies explicitly examined these factors, whereas the results of some case study descriptions suggest that organizational culture and climate could be important to consider (e.g., Swanson and Zuber, 1996 ; Ward, 2008 ). As the majority of research described some type of intervention in an organization, it is possible that the above mentioned factors were not explicitly studied because it is likely that they were sufficient when an organization agrees to collaborate in such research. Examining natural settings, for example by retrospectively asking survey practitioners about their experiences in the survey implementation process, could deem useful to further explore these variables.

Generally, this body of literature remains underdeveloped, which stands in contrast to research on more specific workplace interventions that aim to improve worker well-being and job attitudes (e.g., Fox et al., 2021 ; Solinger et al., 2021 ). However, other OD interventions are more clearly defined in terms of their goals and, hence, they must be carefully chosen to match the characteristics of the target group ( Bowers and Hausser, 1977 ). For example, a team building intervention might be appropriate to help ameliorate issues pertaining to communication and collaboration in a team ( Margulies et al., 1977 ). There have also been suggestions for interventions targeted at supporting an age-diverse workforce ( Truxillo et al., 2015 ).

In contrast, the employee survey is much less clearly defined as an intervention tool, as the reasons to implement an employee survey vary. Research suggests that, generally, employee surveys are implemented for the purpose of organizational assessment, organizational change ( Hartley, 2001 ), or for improving communication ( Kraut, 2006 ). Also, the assessment of a current situation or current state of organizational culture might be to prepare for the upcoming implementation of change interventions ( Hartley, 2001 ). Hence, the survey is the diagnostic tool that precedes an intervention and is an indicator for the kind of action plans that could be useful. Based on the variety of topics a survey can cover, the types of identified needs to implement a change initiative can be just as versatile and can target different levels of the organization ( Falletta and Combs, 2002 ).

Therefore, examining employee surveys as change tools might be more challenging in comparison to targeted change initiatives with predefined goals. As the following discussion will show, this also hinders a general estimation of employee surveys’ effectiveness in achieving changes. It does, however, argue for the necessity to view the employee survey follow-up in a more differentiated manner, rather as a dichotomous process (i.e., action planning was or was not completed). Different types of interventions following the survey might require different implementation and research approaches than those that are currently applied.

The Effectiveness of Employee Surveys for Change

Generally, findings were mixed regarding the effectiveness of survey feedback and the employee survey follow-up process. Several studies found benefits for a variety of outcomes, but others could not replicate those findings. As Born and Mathieu (1996) already noted, the quality of change interventions is difficult to gauge between and even within studies, as any given survey feedback intervention is most likely not implemented equally well. For example, Nadler et al. (1980) reported varying levels of intervention implementation between departments regarding the number of meetings held, the people who led discussions, and the extent to which employees got involved in the action planning process. Also, throughout the literature included in this review, some employees received the survey results shortly after the survey (e.g., 2 weeks later; Hautaluoma and Gavin, 1975 ), and others waited 12 weeks or longer (e.g., Jury et al., 2009a , b ). However, most practitioner books and other resources on the topic recommend that results should be available as quickly as possible after survey participation, so that feelings and thoughts during the survey are still present when results are discussed (e.g., Kraut, 2006 ; Bungard et al., 2007 ). Also, study durations and the (number of) measurement time points varied greatly from a few weeks or months (e.g., Eklöf et al., 2004 ; Eklöf and Hagberg, 2006 ) to several years (e.g., Church et al., 2012 ). Some results suggested though that the more time participants had to conduct action planning (e.g., 2 years vs. 1 year), the more scores tended to improve ( Church and Oliver, 2006 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ).

Furthermore, many studies reported issues during the implementation and confounds that could have diluted the results. For example, some researchers reported major restructuring of the organization during the intervention period of 2 years and generally much skepticism and apprehension of the workforce to participate in the survey ( Jury et al., 2009a , b ). Alderfer and Holbrook (1973) reported that some executives of the company thought that the researchers might have exaggerated the degree of problems that persisted in the company, which indicated a general lack of trust toward the research endeavor.

Related to this issue, we found that the literature provided differing levels of information and descriptions of the actual feedback meetings and developed action plans. Some studies described the intervention with much detail. For example, as one of few studies, Gavin and Krois (1983) examined specifically the topics discussed in feedback meetings and the duration of those discussions. Other studies, on the other hand, reported that feedback meetings were conducted, but the authors admitted that they did not examine how these meetings were conducted (e.g., Björklund et al., 2007 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ). Furthermore, very few studies reported or discussed the effect sizes of their interventions, (for exceptions see e.g., La Grange and Geldenhuys, 2008 ; Huebner and Zacher, 2021 ). Even though the reporting of standardized effect sizes is widely recommended ( Appelbaum et al., 2018 ), it is oftentimes neglected in research, which hinders the ability to draw interferential conclusions from the study results ( Kelley and Preacher, 2012 ).

In summary, we conclude that such a great variety in quality of implementation and descriptions of the interventions limits their comparability and the conclusions that can be drawn from this research. Nevertheless, the majority of studies were able to find positive effects on some outcomes, which suggests that employee surveys can have beneficial effects in organizations when used to implement a proper follow-up. These conclusions should be viewed with caution though, as results might have been affected by publication bias because null results tend to not get published ( Landis et al., 2014 ).

Implications for Practice

Even though there are many books on the topic, the employee survey process remains challenging, and many organizations fail to harvest the full benefits of this common human resource practice ( Brown, 2021 ). Depending on the organization, different change agents or organizational actors might be responsible for the implementation of the process (e.g., internal or external consultants/survey practitioners, human resource administrators, or managers), which creates ambiguity and the difficulty of finding the best implementation strategy. It is important for the responsible organizational actors to acknowledge that there is no “one size fits all” approach to employee surveys and their follow-up. Different organizations will thrive with different implementation models, depending on their culture, work environment, and staff.

Nevertheless, some recommendations can be offered based on this review. It seems to be most effective to not only provide survey feedback data, but to also make sure that actual action planning takes place ( Bowers, 1973 ; Björklund et al., 2007 ; Church et al., 2012 ). Also, it is beneficial when the questionnaire fits the organization, and the items are actionable for managers and their teams ( Church et al., 2012 ). Managers should be properly involved in the follow-up process, as they are the key change agents who must drive the implementation of action plans ( Mann and Likert, 1952 ; Welbourne, 2016 ). However, it is also important that managers receive the necessary tools to do the job. These tools include training, sufficient time, support from top management, and other necessary resources ( Wiley, 2012 ). The involvement of other change agents, such as consultants who help analyze the data, can be beneficial, but managers should not create the habit of relying too heavily on such resources. They should rather be enabled and trained to understand and utilize the data self-reliantly in collaboration with their teams. On that note, other supporting tools, such as SKDA can be useful aids, but they do not exempt managers from properly understanding the data. Supporting change agents might also be helpful in situations where there is much tension between managers and subordinates, which could potentially inhibit fruitful feedback discussions. Lastly, high involvement of all stakeholders seems to most beneficial as it creates accountability and a deeper understanding and acceptance of the actions following the survey ( Mann and Likert, 1952 ).

Whereas following this set of recommendations will not guarantee a perfect employee survey follow-up implementation, we believe it can help. Implementing employee surveys is costly, and designing a useful follow-up can support organizations in getting the most out of their investment. Benefits can manifest as improvements in employee attitudes, physiological outcomes, and even organizational factors, as for example reduced turnover. Consequently, organizations should evaluate how ready their workforce is to master the employee survey follow-up. In the beginning, managers might require more support, but as they become more acquainted and comfortable with the process, and they have been enabled to function as active change agents in the organization, they might need less resources as support.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

There are a few limitations to this systematic review worth noting. One limitation includes our method of searching for relevant literature in Google Scholar. One of this database’s shortcomings is that the search algorithm changes every day, making the search not completely replicable at a later point in time ( Bramer et al., 2016 ). Also, Google Scholar has low recall capabilities (only the first 1000 results are viewable), which is why it is preferable to also search in an additional database ( Bramer et al., 2016 ).

Another limitation is the exclusion of gray literature. As we only included studies published in peer-reviewed journals and edited books, the overall results might be subject to publication bias as null results tend to not get published ( Landis et al., 2014 ). Hence, as previously mentioned, the results of this review regarding the effectiveness of employee surveys for the purpose of OD should be viewed with caution.

Overall, drawing from other areas of industrial and organizational psychology, as for example the literature on leadership, teams, employee voice, and engagement could prove useful to examine the variables of the model that have not been sufficiently explored. For example, research on leadership suggests that different kinds of leadership behaviors contribute to the job performance of employees, but that such effects also depend on certain characteristics of employees ( Breevaart et al., 2016 ). Hence, leadership is an important variable that deserves more research attention, which could be accomplished by the application of leadership theories. Group voice climate also seems to be related to perceptions of leadership and group performance ( Frazier and Bowler, 2015 ), but as can be seen in Table 1 , culture and climate have not been fully explored as predictors or moderators of the employee survey process. Hence, we recommend cross-cultural examinations of post-survey practices. The alignment between company and employee survey strategy could also be crucial for this process, and we suggest examining such by conducting research in which the degree of alignment is measured. We also suggest that external factors should be examined in this research context. For example, the type of industry that the feedback meetings are held in could influence meeting effectiveness because action planning could be more or less influential, depending on industry-bound work environments.

Furthermore, we believe that research on the post-survey process would benefit from integrating and drawing from survey research, as for example research pertaining to survey modes (e.g., Borg and Zuell, 2012 ; Mueller et al., 2014 ) or questionnaire design and development (e.g., Roberson and Sundstrom, 1990 ; Alden, 2007 ). The survey itself should be considered an antecedent of the follow-up, as the type of data and data format could influence how the follow-up is carried out. Lastly, most studies included additional change agents who were involved in the survey feedback process, but future research should investigate these organizational actors in more depth. For example, qualitative data from experienced change agents could render important findings in regards to factors that inhibit or enhance the process from their perspective.

Overall, this body of literature provides much opportunity for the further integration of adjacent research areas, including other areas within industrial and organizational psychology, and for more theory-driven research. Whereas most records were published in industrial and organizational psychology journals, we also found some studies in journals of other disciplines, such as education or medicine (see Appendix). We propose that research in this area would benefit from more cross-disciplinary approaches. For example, research regarding physiological outcomes of survey feedback interventions might require the expertise of medical professionals.

Other disciplines, such as social psychology, could also provide useful insights for this research area. For example, the theory of planned behavior ( Ajzen, 2002 ) or control theory ( Carver and Scheier, 1982 ) could help explain certain behaviors during the employee survey follow-up discussions and render important findings for these processes. Applying other behavioral theories to the employee survey context could also put forth important findings, as for example goal setting theory ( Locke and Latham, 1990 ) or fundamental attribution error ( Ross, 1977 ).

Due to the applied nature of employee survey research, using experimental designs, specifically randomized controlled trials, can be challenging. Nevertheless, we believe this would be useful to examine the factors named above in more detail. Such designs could aid in systematically testing different process variables that are relevant for the employee survey follow-up. Also, examining the differing time intervals between the survey, receiving feedback, and action planning, should be examined, especially in light of the growing popularity of pulse surveys ( Welbourne, 2016 ). However, natural experiments can also render important findings regarding for example resources, as deficits in such might not become exposed unless natural settings are studied.

Overall, research on this topic has seemed to almost come to a halt. Out of 53 studies, 47 (∼90%) were published before 2010 – over 10 years ago. However, with increasing digitalization and the influx of new tools and ways of collaborating at the workplace, we require more research in this area to meet the newly emerging needs of organizations. This is especially relevant in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has started to change everyday life at work ( Allen et al., 2020 ; Rudolph et al., 2021 ).

Even though leaders can talk to their subordinates daily and on a regular basis, the employee survey and its follow-up remains an important communication forum for them. Generally, the results of this review suggest that the employee survey follow-up can lead to a variety of benefits for and improvements in organizations, but we have not sufficiently explored all factors that can support or inhibit this process. The literature yields many important findings for practitioners regarding the implementation and effectiveness of the process, but some research gaps remain. Hence, future research in this area should focus more on the relevant process variables and organizational actors involved, especially leaders who function as the main change agents in this data-based approach to OD.

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

L-AH and HZ contributed to conception and planning of the systematic review. L-AH performed the literature searches, organized the data, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Both authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Author Disclaimer

The results, opinions, and conclusions expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft.

Conflict of Interest

L-AH was employed by company Volkswagen AG. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1 The protocol can be found here: https://osf.io/y5be9/?view_only=f0ca973da2334db1b504291318b7c402

2 The list of all references can be found here: https://osf.io/y5be9/?view_only=f0ca973da2334db1b504291318b7c402

We acknowledge support from Leipzig University for Open Access Publishing.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.801073/full#supplementary-material

• Adams J., Sherwood J. J. (1979). An evaluation of organizational effectiveness: an appraisal of how army internal consultants use survey feedback in a military setting. Group Organ. Stud. 4 170–182. 10.1177/105960117900400205 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aguinis H., Gottfredson R. K., Joo H. (2012). Delivering effective performance feedback: the strengths-based approach. Bus. Horiz. 55 105–111. 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.10.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajzen I. (2002). Residual effects of past behavior on later behavior: habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6 107–122. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_02 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alden J. (2007). Surveying attitudes: questionnaires versus opinionnaires. Perform. Improv. 46 42–48. 10.1002/pfi.141 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alderfer C. P., Ferriss R. (1972). “ Understanding the impact of survey feedback ,” in The Social Technology of Organization Development , eds Burke W. W., Hornstein H. A. (Bethel, ME: National Training Laboratories; ), 234–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alderfer C. P., Holbrook J. (1973). A new design for survey feedback. Educ. Urban Soc. 5 437–464. 10.1177/001312457300500405 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen J. B., Jain S., Church A. H. (2020). Using a pulse survey approach to drive organizational change. Organ. Dev. Rev. 52 62–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amba-Rao S. (1989). Survey feedback in a small manufacturing firm: an application. Organ. Dev. J. 7 92–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderzén I., Arnetz B. B. (2005). The impact of a prospective survey-based workplace intervention program on employee health, biologic stress markers, and organizational productivity. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 47 671–682. 10.1097/01.jom.0000167259.03247.1e [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Appelbaum M., Cooper H., Kline R. B., Mayo-Wilson E., Nezu A. M., Rao S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: the APA publications and communications board task force report. Am. Psychol. 73 3–25. 10.1037/amp0000191 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atwater L. E., Brett J. F. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of reactions to developmental 360 ° feedback. J. Vocat. Behav. 66 532–548. 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atwater L. E., Brett J. F., Charles A. C. (2007). Multisource feedback: lessons learned and implications for practice. Hum. Resour. Manag. 46 285–307. 10.1002/hrm.20161 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atwater L. E., Waldman D. A., Atwater D., Cartier P. (2000). An upward feedback field experiment: supervisors’ cynicism, reactions, and commitment to subordinates. Pers. Psychol. 53 275–297. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00202.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker R. G., King H., MacDonald J. L., Horbar J. D. (2003). Using organizational assessment surveys for improvement in neonatal intensive care. Pediatrics 111 419–425. 10.1542/peds.111.SE1.e419 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beer M., Walton A. E. (1987). Organization change and development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 38 339–367. 10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.002011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Besieux T. (2017). Why I hate feedback: anchoring effective feedback within organizations. Bus. Horiz. 60 435–439. 10.1016/j.bushor.2017.03.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Björklund C., Grahn A., Jensen I., Bergström G. (2007). Does survey feedback enhance the psychosocial work environment and decrease sick leave? Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 16 76–93. 10.1080/13594320601112169 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bordia P., Restubog S. L. D., Jimmieson N. L., Irmer B. E. (2011). Haunted by the past: effects of poor change management history on employee attitudes and turnover. Group Organ. Manag. 36 191–222. 10.1177/1059601110392990 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borg I., Zuell C. (2012). Write-in comments in employee surveys. Int. J. Manpow. 33 206–220. 10.1108/01437721211225453 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Born D., Mathieu J. (1996). Differential effects of survey-guided feedback. Group Organ. Manag. 21 388–403. 10.1177/1059601196214002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowers D. G. (1973). OD techniques and their results in 23 organizations: the Michigan ICL study. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 9 21–43. 10.1177/002188637300900103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowers D. G., Hausser D. L. (1977). Work group types and intervention effects in organizational development. Adm. Sci. Q. 22 76–94. 10.2307/2391747 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bracken D. W., Timmreck C. W., Fleenor J. W., Lynn S. (2001). 360 feedback from another angle. Hum. Resour. Manag. 40 3–20. 10.1002/hrm.4012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bramer W. M., Giustini D., Kramer B. M. R. (2016). Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and google scholar: a prospective study. Syst. Rev. 5 1–7. 10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breevaart K., Bakker A. B., Demerouti E., Derks D. (2016). Who takes the lead? A multi-source diary study on leadership, work engagement, and job performance. J. Organ. Behav. 37 309–325. 10.1002/job.2041 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown L. D. (1972). “Research action”: organizational feedback, understanding, and change. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 8 697–711. 10.1177/002188637200800606 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown M. I. (2021). Does action planning create more harm than good? Common challenges in the practice of action planning after employee surveys . J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 10.1177/00218863211007555 [Epub ahead of print]. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bungard W., Müller K., Niethammer C. (eds). (2007). Mitarbeiterbefragung - Was Dann …? MAB und Folgeprozesse Erfolgreich Gestalten [Employee surveys – and then what …? Successfully Designing Employee Surveys and the Follow-Up Process]. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag, 10.1007/978-3-540-47841-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burke W. W., Coruzzi C. A., Church A. H. (1996). “ The organizational survey as an intervention for change ,” in Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change , ed. Kraut A. I. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; ), 41–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burke W. W., Litwin G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. J. Manag. Dev. 18 523–545. 10.1177/014920639201800306 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carver C. S., Scheier M. F. (1982). Control theory: a useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychol. Bull. 92 111–135. 10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cattermole G., Johnson J., Roberts K. (2013). Employee engagement welcomes the dawn of an empowerment culture. Strateg. HR Rev. 12 250–254. 10.1108/shr-04-2013-0039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chesler M., Flanders M. (1967). Resistance to research and research utilization: the death and life of a feedback attempt. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 3 469–487. 10.1177/002188636700300403 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. H., Golay L. M., Rotolo C. T., Tuller M. D., Shull A. C., Desrosiers E. I. (2012). “ Without effort there can be no change: reexamining the impact of survey feedback and action planning on employee attitudes ,” in Research in Organizational Change and Development , Vol. 20 eds Woodman R. W., Pasmore W. A., Rami Shani A. B. (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing; ), 223–264. [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. H., Margiloff A., Coruzzi C. (1995). Using surveys for change: an applied example in a pharmaceuticals organization. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 16 3–11. 10.1108/01437739510089049 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. H., Oliver D. H. (2006). “ The importance of taking action, not just sharing survey feedback ” in Getting Action From Organizational Surveys: New Concepts, Technologies, and Applications , ed. Kraut A. I. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; ), 102–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. H., Waclawski J. (2017). Designing and Using Organizational Surveys. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conlon E. J., Short L. O. (1984). An empirical examination of survey feedback as an organizational change device. Group Organ. Stud. 9 399–416. 10.5465/ambpp.1983.4976350 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conway E., Monks K. (2011). Change from below: the role of middle managers in mediating paradoxical change. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 21 190–203. 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00135.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costello J., Clarke C., Gravely G., D’Agostino-Rose D., Puopolo R. (2011). Working together to build a respectful workplace: transforming OR culture. AORN J. 93 115–126. 10.1016/j.aorn.2010.05.030 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cucina J. M., Walmsey P. T., Gast I. F., Martin N. R., Curtin P. (2017). Survey key driver analysis: are we driving down the right road? Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10 234–257. 10.1017/iop.2016.97 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniels K. (2018). Guidance on conducting and reviewing systematic reviews (and meta-analyses) in work and organizational psychology. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 28 1–10. 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1547708 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Waal A. (2014). The employee survey: benefits, problems in practice, and the relation with the high performance organization. Strateg. HR Rev. 13 227–232. 10.1108/SHR-07-2014-0041 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Demerouti E., Bakker A. B., Nachreiner F., Schaufeli W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 499–512. 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeNisi A. S., Kluger A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Acad. Manag. Exec. 14 129–139. 10.5465/ame.2000.2909845 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dillman D. A., Smyth J. D., Christian L. M. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method , 4th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dodd W. E., Pesci M. L. (1977). Managing morale through survey feedback. Bus. Horiz. 20 36–45. 10.1016/0007-6813(77)90069-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan R. (1979). What is the right organization structure? Decision tree analysis provides the answer. Organ. Dyn. 7 59–80. 10.1016/0090-2616(79)90027-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eklöf M., Hagberg M. (2006). Are simple feedback interventions involving workplace data associated with better working environment and health? A cluster randomized controlled study among Swedish VDU workers. Appl. Ergon. 37 201–210. 10.1016/j.apergo.2005.04.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eklöf M., Hagberg M., Toomingas A., Tornqvist E. W. (2004). Feedback of workplace data to individual workers, workgroups or supervisors as a way to stimulate working environment activity: a cluster randomized controlled study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 77 505–514. 10.1007/s00420-004-0531-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elo A.-L., Leppänen A., Sillanpää P. (1998). Applicability of survey feedback for an occupational health method in stress management. Occup. Med. 48 181–188. 10.1093/occmed/48.3.181 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Falletta S. V., Combs W. (2002). “ Surveys as a tool for organization development and change ,” in Organization Development: A Data-Driven Approach to Organizational Change , eds Waclawski J., Church A. H. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; ), 78–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feather K. (2008). Helping HR to measure up: arming the “soft” function with hard metrics. Strateg. HR Rev. 7 28–33. 10.1108/14754390810847531 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fedor D. B., Eder R. W., Buckley M. R. (1989). The contributory effects of supervisor intentions on subordinate feedback responses. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 44 396–414. 10.1016/0749-5978(89)90016-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foster C. A., Law M. R. F. (2006). How many perspectives provide a compass? Differentiating 360-degree feedback and multi-source feedback. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 14 288–291. 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00347.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox K. E., Johnson S. T., Berkman L. F., Sianoja M., Soh Y., Kubzansky L. D., et al. (2021). Organisational- and group-level workplace interventions and their effect on multiple domains of worker well-being: a systematic review . Work Stress. 10.1080/02678373.2021.1969476 [Epub ahead of print]. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraser K. J., Leach D. J., Webb S. (2009). Employee surveys: guidance to facilitate effective action. Eur. Work Organ. Psychol. Pract. 3 16–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frazier M. L., Bowler W. M. (2015). Voice climate, supervisor undermining, and work outcomes. J. Manag. 41 841–863. 10.1177/0149206311434533 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedlander F., Brown L. D. (1974). Organization development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1 313–341. 10.1146/annurev.ps.25.020174.001525 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gable S. A., Chyung S. Y., Marker A., Winiecki D. (2010). How should organizational leaders use employee engagement survey data? Perform. Improv. 49 17–25. 10.1002/pfi.20140 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gavin J. F., Krois P. A. (1983). Content and process of survey feedback sessions and their relation to survey responses: an initial study. Group Organ. Stud. 8 221–247. 10.1177/105960118300800208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gavin J. F., McPhail S. M. (1978). Intervention and evaluation: a proactive team approach to OD. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 14 175–194. 10.1177/002188637801400203 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehlbach H., Robinson C. D., Finefter-Rosenbluh I., Benshoof C., Schneider J. (2018). Questionnaires as interventions: can taking a survey increase teachers’ openness to student feedback surveys? Educ. Psychol. 38 350–367. 10.1080/01443410.2017.1349876 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg B., Gordon G. G. (1978). Designing attitude surveys for management action. Pers. J. 57 546–549. [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffin M. A., Hart P. M., Wilson-Evered E. (2000). “ Using employee opinion surveys to improve organizational health ,” in Healthy and Productive Work: An International Perspective , eds Murphy L. R., Cooper C. L. (London: Taylor & Francis; ), 15–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guzzo R. A., Jette R. D., Katzell R. A. (1985). The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 38 275–291. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00547.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hand H. H., Estafen B. D., Sims H. P., Jr. (1975). How effective is data survey and feedback as a technique of organization development? An experiment. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 11 333–347. 10.1177/002188637501100306 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hannum K. M. (2007). Measurement equivalence of 360 ° assessment data: are different raters rating the same constructs. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 27 293–301. 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00389.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J. (2001). Employee surveys–strategic aid or hand-grenade for organisational and cultural change? Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 14 184–204. 10.1108/09513550110390846 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hautaluoma J. E., Gavin J. F. (1975). Effects of organizational diagnosis and intervention on blue-collar “blues”. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 11 475–496. 10.1177/002188637501100408 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hopkins D. (1982). Survey feedback as an organisation development intervention in educational settings: a review. Educ. Manag. Adm. 10 203–215. 10.1177/174114328201000304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huebner L.-A., Zacher H. (2021). Effects of action planning after employee surveys . J. Pers. Psychol. 10.1027/1866-5888/a000285 Advance online publication [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyland P. K., Woo V. A., Reeves D. W., Garrad L. (2017). In defense of responsible survey key driver analysis. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10 277–283. 10.1017/iop.2017.19 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ilgen D. R., Fisher C. D., Taylor S. M. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 64 349–371. 10.1037//0021-9010.64.4.349 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacoby J., Mazursky D., Troutman T. (1984). When feedback is ignored: disutility of outcome feedback. J. Appl. Psychol. 69 531–545. 10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.531 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson J. W. (2017). Best practice recommendations for conducting key driver analysis. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10 298–305. 10.1017/iop.2017.22 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jöns I. (2000). “ Supervisors as moderators of survey feedback and change processes in teams ,” in Innovative Theories, Tools and Practices in Work and Organizational Psychology , eds Vartiainen M., Avallone F., Anderson N. (Toronto, ON: Hogrefe & Huber; ), 155–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jury C., Goh H. E., Olsen S. P., Elston J., Phillips J. (2009a). Actions and results from the Queensland health “better workplaces” staff opinion survey. Aust. Health Rev. 33 371–376. 10.1071/AH090371 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jury C., Machin M. A., Phillips J., Goh H. E., Olsen S. P., Patrick J. (2009b). Developing and implementing an action-oriented staff survey: Queensland health and the “better workplaces” initiative. Australian Health Review 33 365–370. 10.1071/AH090365 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz D., Kahn R. L. (eds). (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations , Vol. 2 . New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keiser N. L., Payne S. C. (2019). Are employee surveys biased? Impression management as a response bias in workplace safety constructs. Saf. Sci. 118 453–465. 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.051 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelley K., Preacher K. J. (2012). On effect size. Psychol . Methods 17 , 137–152. 10.1037/a0028086 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein C., Synovec R., Zhang H., Lovato C., Howes J., Feinzig S. (2017). Survey key driver analysis: perhaps the right question is, “are we there yet?”. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10 283–290. 10.1017/iop.2017.20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein S., Kraut A., Wolfson A. (1971). Employee reactions to attitude survey feedback: a study of the impact of structure and process. Adm. Sci. Q. 16 497–514. 10.2307/2391769 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kluger A. N., DeNisi A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol. Bull. 119 254–284. 10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.254 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knapp P., Mujtaba B. (2010). Designing, administering, and utilizing an employee attitude survey. J. Behav. Stud. Bus. 2 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kraut A. I. (ed.) (2006). Getting Action from Organizational Surveys: New Concepts, Technologies, and Applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• La Grange A., Geldenhuys D. J. (2008). The impact of feedback on changing organisational culture. South. Afr. Bus. Rev. 12 37–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Landis R. S., James L. R., Lance C. E., Pierce C. A., Rogelberg S. G. (2014). When is nothing something? Editorial for the null results special issue of journal of business and psychology. J. Bus. Psychol. 29 163–167. 10.1007/s10869-014-9347-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Linke R. (2018). Mitarbeiterbefragungen Optimieren: Von der Befragung zum Wirksamen Management-Instrument [Optimizing Employee Surveys: From the Survey to the Effective Management Tool]. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke E. A., Latham G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macey W. H., Daum D. L. (2017). SKDA in context. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10 268–277. 10.1017/iop.2017.18 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macey W. H., Fink A. A. (2020). “ Surveys and sensing: realizing the promise of listening to employees ,” in Employee Surveys and Sensing: Challenges and Opportunities , eds Macey W. H., Fink A. A. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann F., Likert R. (1952). The need for research on the communication of research results. Hum. Organ. 11 15–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Margulies N., Wright P. L., Scholl R. W. (1977). Organization development techniques: their impact on change. Group Organ. Stud. 2 428–448. 10.1177/105960117700200405 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles M. B., Hornstein H. A., Callahan D. M., Calder P. H., Schiavo S. R. (1969). “ The consequence of survey feedback: theory and evaluation ,” in The Planning of Change , 2nd Edn, eds Bennis W. G., Benne K. D., Chin R. (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; ), 457–468. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D., Shamseer L., Clarke M., Ghersi D., Liberati A., Petticrew M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 4 1–9. 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mueller K., Straatmann T., Hattrup K., Jochum M. (2014). Effects of personalized versus generic implementation of an intra-organizational online survey on psychological anonymity and response behavior: a field experiment. J. Bus. Psychol. 29 169–181. 10.1007/s10869-012-9262-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadler D. A. (1976). The use of feedback for organizational change: promises and pitfalls. Group Organ. Stud. 1 177–186. 10.1177/105960117600100205 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadler D. A. (1979). The effects of feedback on task group behavior: a review of the experimental research. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 23 309–338. 10.1016/0030-5073(79)90001-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadler D. A. (1980). “ Using organizational assessment data for planned organizational change ,” in Organizational Assessment: Perspectives on the Measurement of Organizational Behavior and the Quality of Work Life , eds Lawler E. E., III, Nadler D., Cammann C. (New York, NY: Wiley; ), 72–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadler D. A. (1981). Managing organizational change: an integrative perspective. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 17 191–211. 10.1177/002188638101700205 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadler D. A., Cammann C., Mirvis P. H. (1980). Developing a feedback system for work units: a field experiment in structural change. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 16 41–62. 10.1177/002188638001600105 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadler D. A., Mirvis P., Cammann C. (1976). The ongoing feedback system: experimenting with a new managerial tool. Organ. Dyn. 4 63–80. 10.1016/0090-2616(76)90045-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadler D. A., Tushman M. L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior. Organ. Dyn. 9 35–51. 10.1016/0090-2616(80)90039-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuman G. A., Edwards J. E., Raju N. S. (1989). Organizational development interventions: a meta-analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes. Pers. Psychol. 42 461–489. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00665.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowack K. M., Mashihi S. (2012). Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree feedback. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 64 157–182. 10.1037/a0030011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ostroff C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: an organizational level analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 77 963–974. 10.1037//0021-9010.77.6.963 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peter M. A. (1994). Making the hidden obvious. Management education through survey feedback. J. Nurs. Adm. 24 13–19. 10.1097/00005110-199406000-00006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peter M. A., Lytle K. S., Swearengen P. (1997). Feedback to nurse managers about staff nurses’ perceptions of their jobs. Semin. Nurse Manag. 5 209–216. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pichler S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: a meta-analysis. Hum. Resour. Manag. 51 709–732. 10.1002/hrm.21499 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porras J. I. (1979). The comparative impact of different OD techniques and intervention intensities. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 15 156–178. 10.1177/002188637901500204 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porras J. I., Berg P. O. (1978). The impact of organization development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 3 249–266. 10.2307/257666 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porras J. I., Robertson P. J. (1992). “ Organizational development: theory, practice, and research ,” in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 3rd Edn, eds Dunnette M. D., Hough L. M. (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; ), 719–822. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberson M., Sundstrom E. (1990). Questionnaire design, return dates, and response favorableness in an employee attitude questionnaire. J. Appl. Psychol. 75 354–357. 10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.354 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogelberg S. G., Luong A., Sederburg M. E., Cristol D. S. (2000). Employee attitude surveys: examining the attitudes of noncompliant employees. J. Appl. Psychol. 85 284–293. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.284 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rollins T. (1994). Turning employee survey results into high-impact improvements. Employ. Relat. Today 21 35–44. 10.1002/ert.3910210105 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross L. (1977). “ The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process ,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 10th Edn, ed. Berkowitz L. (New York, NY: Academic Press; ), 173–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rotolo C. T., Price B. A., Fleck C. R., Smoak V. J., Jean V. (2017). Survey key driver analysis: our GPS to navigating employee attitudes. Ind. Organ. Psychol. Perspect. Sci. Pract. 10 306–313. 10.1017/iop.2017.23 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rudolph C. W., Allan B., Clark M., Hertel G., Hirschi A., Kunze F., et al. (2021). Pandemics: implications for research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology. Indus. Organ. Psychol. 14 1–35. 10.1017/iop.2020.48 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scherbaum C. A., Black J., Weiner S. P. (2017). With the right map, survey key driver analysis can help get organizations to the right destination. Indus. Organ. Psychol. 10 290–298. 10.1017/iop.2017.21 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siddaway A. P., Wood A. M., Hedges L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70 747–770. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solinger O. N., Joireman J., Vantillborgh T., Balliet D. P. (2021). Change in unit-level job attitudes following strategic interventions: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J. Organ. Behav. 42 964–986. 10.1002/job.2523 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon R. J. (1976). An examination of the relationship between a survey feedback O.D. technique and the work environment. Pers. Psychol. 29 583–594. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1976.tb02081.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonnentag S., Frese M. (2002). “ Performance concepts and performance theory ,” in Psychological Management of Individual Performance , ed. Sonnentag S. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; ), 3–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sugheir J., Coco M., Kaupins G. (2011). Perceptions of organizational survey within employee engagement efforts. Int. J. Bus. Public Adm. 8 48–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swanson R. A., Zuber J. A. (1996). A case study of a failed organization development intervention rooted in the employee survey process. Perform. Improv. Q. 9 42–56. 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1996.tb00719.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson L. F., Surface E. A. (2009). Promoting favorable attitudes toward personnel surveys: the role of follow-up. Mil. Psychol. 21 139–161. 10.1080/08995600902768693 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Timmreck C. W., Bracken D. W. (1997). Multisource feedback: a study of its use in decision making. Employ. Relat. Today 24 21–27. 10.1002/ert.3910240104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomlinson G. (2010). Building a culture of high employee engagement. Strateg. HR Rev. 9 25–31. 10.1108/14754391011040046 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Truxillo D. M., Cadiz D. M., Hammer L. B. (2015). Supporting the aging workforce: a review and recommendations for workplace intervention research. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2 351–381. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111435 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Dierendonck D., Haynes C., Borrill C., Stride C. (2007). Effects of upward feedback on leadership behaviour toward subordinates. J. Manag. Dev. 26 228–238. 10.1108/02621710710732137 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vukotich G. (2014). 360 ° feedback: ready, fire, aim - issues with improper implementation. Perform. Improv. 53 30–35. 10.1002/pfi.21390 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang M., Beal D. J., Chan D., Newman D. A., Vancouver J. B., Vandenberg R. J. (2017). Longitudinal research: a panel discussion on conceptual issues, research design, and statistical techniques. Work Aging Retire. 3 1–24. 10.1093/workar/waw033 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward P. (2008). Reinventing the employee survey at Fujitsu Services. Strateg. Commun. Manag. 12 32–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Welbourne T. M. (2016). The potential of pulse surveys: transforming surveys into leadership tools. Employ. Relat. Today 43 33–39. 10.1002/ert.21548 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiley J. (2012). Achieving change through a best practice employee survey. Strateg. HR Rev. 11 265–271. 10.1108/14754391211248675 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]