Metrics of Wellness in an Organization and its Impact on Employees’ Performance

Well-being is the deliberate cultivation of awareness and the adoption of life-enhancing behaviors that lead to a state of optimal health and happiness. The term encompasses more than just the absence of disease; it also refers to a state of being in which one is healthy, happy, prosperous, and otherwise well-off. A company's ability to maintain positive relationships with its employees and to keep its workers engaged in their work depends, in large part, on how effectively it cares for their health and happiness (Wilson et al., 2004). As employee well-being is a company-wide concern, we need buy-in from the CEO all the way down to the departments of HR, Marketing, Finance, Equipment, and Information Technology if we want to roll out a new company-wide project successfully. Workers' health include their mental and physical well-being. Access to biophilic features like adequate lighting, ventilation, and temperature regulation, which primarily influence our bodies directly, are all part of our corporeal well-being. Offering a quiet space where employees can unwind or scheduling ad hoc get-togethers with coworkers are also great ways to support employees' mental health and wellbeing. Building a healthy, productive workforce may be facilitated by workplace design that prioritizes the physical and mental wellness of its employees. One's degree of happiness at work and in one's personal life are both indicators of one's health and well-being. People working at a company are a valuable resource. Companies may dramatically raise the value of their assets by investing in their workers' education and health. Every business with a focus on employee wellness and satisfaction does so primarily to draw in and retain talented workers, retain, and motivate a high-quality workforce. Companies should prioritize employee well-being in order to increase employee happiness, which in turn increases the likelihood that workers will remain with the firm. The happiness and satisfaction of workers are crucial to the success of any business. Providing employee well-being measures is an effective way to maintain employee satisfaction in the workplace. The business commissioned research on "Staff well-being" to learn more about the resources available to their staff. Providing a pleasant place to work is crucial to retaining and attracting talented employees. You can assist your company meet its objectives more quickly and cheaply if you optimize your team's performance. Employee performance is crucial to a company's success; when workers are productive, interested, and motivated, they are more likely to accomplish their goals and make the firm a success. Boosting productivity will not only get you closer to your business's ultimate goals, but it will also make your workers happier and decrease attrition. Although it's true that your workers' talent, experience, and abilities are critical to their success in their roles, these criteria aren't the only ones that influence their performance. The health of an organization's workforce is dependent on both structural elements and the abilities of its members to cope with daily challenges. Joubert claims that an individual's

which a person is happy in every aspect of his or her life, is one measure of an employee's well-being. The definitions of employee wellbeing that will be used in this research are those that take an integrated approach, including all the factors that contribute to an individual's health: their physical surroundings, their mental reserves, and their personal history. In every company, the staff members are the most valuable assets. Employees are crucial to the success of any business, as executives depend on them to help them meet their goals and adopt tactics to surpass the competition. The level of an employee's work performance may be predicted by how happy they are with their job. Companies with well-designed wellness programs hope their initiatives will have positive effects on employees' well-being and productivity. A company's purpose in creating a workplace is to foster a social and psychological atmosphere where employees feel valued and have room to advance in their careers. Businesses have increasingly turned to wellness programmes in an attempt to raise morale and encourage healthy behaviours among their staff, but this has prompted calls for further research into employee well-being.

Donel J. Richemond et al (2020) In this research, we look at how university wellness initiatives affect workers' happiness on the workplace. This correlational analysis compared full-time and part-time college and university faculty members from public and private, non-profit and for-profit institutions in the United States, did not indicate that participation in wellness programs would lead to increased job satisfaction for employees. Interaction investigations also revealed a link between gender and contentment in the workplace. Employment satisfaction, as well as years of experience and work happiness, were all areas where women outpaced men. Job satisfaction was highest among faculty members with 11-15 years of service. Muhammad Nawaz Qaisar et al (2018) From a management point of view, we examined the connection between how healthy workers feel, their level of productivity, and the success of the company as a whole. Scales with representative items were used to gather information about the variables of interest. The sample included 108 managers from government agencies specializing in fighting corruption and regulating the industry. The study's findings demonstrated a robust beneficial association between organizational productivity, workplace wellness programs, employee wellbeing, and productivity. The connection between workers' well-being and their output at work was mediated through workplace wellness programs. Employee wellbeing organisational productivity via employee productivity at all moderator levels (low, medium, and high). The results suggest that businesses that invest less in workplace health may have to deal with sicker and less productive workers. We came to the conclusion that maximizing both the health and potential participation of workers depends on fostering healthy lifestyles via sufficient workplace wellness measures. Smith (2020) investigates the development of all-encompassing measures for measuring organizational health and its effect on staff productivity. To get a whole picture of an employee's well-being, it's crucial to take their health, happiness, and work-life balance into account, as emphasized by the study's authors. The research also looks at how wellness programs might boost productivity and morale in the workplace by analyzing the correlation between wellness measurements and employee performance. Patel, S., (2020). The link between wellness programs and productivity is explored in "Wellness Initiatives and Employee Productivity: A Study on the Relationship between Workplace Wellness Metrics and Performance" Workplace wellness initiatives and their effects on employee productivity are the primary focus of this study. Both studies shed light on the benefits to productivity and health that might result from using well-defined wellness indicators in standard business procedures.

The research population included 4037 individuals from the 20 treatment sites, 4106 from the 20 primary control sites, and 24 831 from the 120 secondary control sites. Table 1 displays their demographic and job data along with their respective balance weights. Almost one-fifth of the population was black, and nearly one-eighth was Hispanic. Around 60% of people in the sample worked full time. Hourly workers made around half as much as salaried employees each year, while the former earned just under $50,000. Table 4 in Supplement 2 shows demographics without balancing weights. Average participation in the program grew from 12.2% in the first module to 30.6% in the succeeding modules. Three-fifths of all workers at treatment sites have completed at least one module, and almost a quarter (24%) have finished three or more (mean of 1.3 modules). Sixty-nine percent of individuals who finished at least one module also completed at least three modules, on average. At the 18-month point (June 2016), 25.8% and 25.5% of participants who had ever worked in either the 20 treatment or response rate of 42.4% and 42.8% from workers in June 2016 for surveys and screenings, respectively. The tables below indicate the correlation between working at a treatment workplace and the primary outcomes.

In Table 2, we can see how these changes affected people's perceptions of their own health and their actions. Between 35.3% and 41.4% of the workforce as of June 2016 were responsible for delivering these results, with anywhere from 1722 to 2020). A greater percentage of those who were randomly assigned to a treatment workplace reported engaging in regular exercise and who were randomly assigned to a treatment workplace reported actively managing their weight.

Table 3 displays the results of clinical measures of health. Twenty-eight hundred and two to two thousand and thirteen people (42.6% to 43.8% of those employed in June 2016) provided these results. High cholesterol, hypertension, and obesity rates were not noticeably different between the experimental and control groups. No significant differences were found between treatment and control sites on any of the clinical measures of health or their baseline treatment impact.

Table 4 displays the outcomes with regards to health care expenditures and use. There were no blanks in the records of 7631 people who had employer-provided health insurance throughout the research period, which represents 23.2% of all workers. In the experimental group, annual medical expenditures totaled $3583 per worker, whereas in the control group, they averaged $3953. The treatment group spent an average of $1412 annually on pharmaceuticals for each employee, whereas the control group spent an average of

the treatment group had to pay an average of $102 annually for their share of prescription drugs, whereas those in the control group only had to pay $94. When employees were randomly assigned to a treatment or control workplace, no significant differences were seen in either health care expenditure or use (P >.05).

High cholesterol, hypertension, and obesity rates were not noticeably different between the experimental and control groups. No significant differences were found between treatment and control sites on any of the clinical measures of health or their baseline treatment impact. Employees in the treatment group missed 2.5% of their planned hours due to illness or personal leave, compared to 2.6% in the control group. On average, workers received evaluations higher than a 3.0. Of the time, 60.6% were in the treatment group whereas only 60.5% were in the control group. Throughout the trial period, workers in the treatment group averaged 305.9 days on the job, whereas their counterparts in the control group averaged 308.8.

variation in the dependent variable that may be attributed to the independent variable is shown in tables 6a, 6b, and 6c below. The wellness program was shown to be a significant predictor of performance at work, with a R value of.178 and an R2 value of 0.032 from a regression study. The rest of the 96.8% variability is accounted for by the other variables in the model. For the model, we may write: Performance= 2.072+0.111. (wellness program index). Significant model fit was discovered (F (1,408) = 13.330, p 0.001), indicating that the goodness of fit model adequately accounts for the observed fluctuations in the dependent variables. This proves that wellness programs are an accurate predictor of business success, suggesting that companies with wellness programs tend to have more productive workers. When questioned about the importance of wellness programs in their jobs, respondents gave the following account, which represents 40.5% of the total: The health initiatives provided by my bank have made me feel respected and encouraged. A similar percentage of respondents also said that "health and fitness education improves their organization's performance of their bank." (57.3%) Regression study showed a favorable and statistically significant link ( = 0.178, p 0.001) between wellness initiatives and business success. In other words, the possibility (probability) of the regression model making an incorrect forecast is less than 0.001. As a result, we can trust the regression model with 95% certainty.

There were no significant changes in clinical indicators of health, health care expenditure and usage, or employment outcomes among workers of has not diminished. There was a linear relationship between providing wellness programs, such as those that emphasize preventative care, offer wellness-related education and training, and have managers who are supportive of wellness initiatives in terms of their employees' satisfaction, productivity, and job satisfaction.

1. Richemond, D.J. and Needham, C. (2020) The Impact of Wellness Programs on Employee Job Satisfaction in Colleges and Universities. Open Journal of Business and Management, 8, 569-599. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2020.82035. 2. Qaisar, Muhammad & Mariam, Shahida & Ahmad, Farooq. (2018). Employee Wellness as Predictor of Productivity from Public Sector Management Perspectives: Conditional Process Analysis. 13. 104-116. 3. Richemond, D.J. and Needham, C. (2020) The Impact of Wellness Programs on Employee Job Satisfaction in Colleges and Universities. Open Journal of Business and Management, 8, 569-599. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2020.82035 4. Smith, J. (2020). "Measuring Wellness: Developing Comprehensive Metrics for Organizational Well-being and Employee Performance." Vol. 10, No. 1, 2020, pp. 13-19. doi: 10.11648/j.ajhr.20221001.13 5. Patel, S. (2020). "Wellness Initiatives and Employee Productivity: A Study on the Relationship between Workplace Wellness Metrics and Performance."-25. 10.15239/j.brcacadjb.2022.12.01.ja01. 6. Adams JM. The Value of Worker Well-Being. Public Health Reports. 2019;134(6):583-586. doi:10.1177/0033354919878434 7. Yamada, A., Subica, A.M., Kim, M.A., et al. State of Spirituality-Infused Mental Health Services in Los Angeles County Wellness and Client-Run Centers. Administrative Policy Mental Health (2014), 41, 835–844 8. WHO. Stress at the workplace, 2015. Retrieved on February 2016 from http://www.who.int/occupational_health/topics/stressatwp/en/ 9. WHO (2016). Mental health: strengthening our response. Fact sheet. Retrieved on April 2016 from 10. Collymore B. Leaders Africa, 2015. Retrieved on March 19, 2015 from http://www.leaders-africa.com/ceo-of-safaricom/ 11. CDC. Benefits of Health Promotion Programs (2013). Retrieved on March 19, 2016 from http://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/businesscase/benefits/ 12. Philips, J.M. & Gully, S. M. Human Resource Management, International edition., USA, South-Western, Cengage Learning, 2014. [18] Pelletier, B., Boles, M. & Lynch, W. Change in health Risks and Work Productivity Over Time. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine (2004), 46 (7), pp. 746 – 754. 13. Doyle K. L‘Estrange J. & Bauman A. Healthy Workplace Guide: Ten Steps to implement a workplace health program. 2nd Edition. The National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2016. Retrieved on October 30, 2016 from https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/images/uploads/main/4669_HF_-_Healthy_Wor kplace_guide_booklet_update_2016_Web_Email_FINAL.pdf 14. Bray, I. Healthy Employees, Health Workplace. Rotman Management Magazine, 2016 15. Merrill, R.M., Aldana, S.G, Vyhlidal, et al. (2011). The Impact of Worksite Wellness in a Small Business. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 53(2), 127-131.

Research Scholar, Faculty of Commerce & Management