WORKER’S SATISFACTION AND WORKPLACE PRODUCTIVITY IN MEGA PLATE OFFICES WITH ACTIVITY-BASED WORKING

Academia serves as a valuable case for studying the effects of social forces on workplace productivity, using a concrete measure of output: scholarly papers. Many academics, especially women, have experienced unprecedented challenges to scholarly productivity during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The authors analyze the gender composition of more than 450,000 authorships in the arXiv and bioRxiv scholarly preprint repositories from before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis reveals that the underrepresentation of women scientists in the last authorship position necessary for retention and promotion in the sciences is growing more inequitable. The authors find differences between the arXiv and bioRxiv repositories in how gender affects first, middle, and sole authorship submission rates before and during the pandemic. A review of existing research and theory outlines potential mechanisms underlying this widening gender gap in productivity during COVID-19. The authors aggregate recommendations for institutional change that could ameliorate challenges to women’s productivity during the pandemic and beyond.

Download Full-text

Measurements of workplace productivity in the office context: A systematic review and current industry insights

10.32920/14638242 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

B. Bortoluzzi ◽

D. Carey ◽

J.J. McArthur ◽

C. Menassa

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Performance Indicators ◽

Knowledge Worker ◽

Key Performance Indicators ◽

Expert Interviews ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Productivity Measurement ◽

The Past ◽

Workplace Productivity ◽

Comprehensive Survey

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive survey of workplace productivity key performance indicators used in the office context. Academic literature from the past ten years is systematically reviewed and contextualized through a series of expert interviews. Design/methodology/approach – The authors present a systematic review of literature to identify Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and methods of workplace productivity measurement, complemented by insights semi-structured interviews to inform a framework for a benchmarking tool. 513 papers published since 2007 were considered, of which 98 full-length papers were reviewed, and 20 were found to provide significant insight and are summarized herein. Findings – Currently, no consensus exists on a single KPI suitable for measuring workplace productivity in an office environment, though qualitative questionnaires are more widely adopted than quantitative tools. The diversity of KPIs used in published studies indicates that a multidimensional approach would be most appropriate for knowledge-worker productivity measurement. Expert interviews further highlighted a shift from infrequent, detailed evaluation to frequent, simplified reporting across human resource functions and this context is important for future tool development. Originality/value – This paper provides a summary of significant work on workplace productivity measurement and KPI development over the past ten years. This follows up on the comprehensive review by B. Haynes (2007a), providing an updated perspective on research in this field with additional insights from expert interviews.

Download Full-text

Psychological Antecedents to the Effects of Psychedelics on Workplace Productivity: Interview Evidence of a Naturalistic Setting

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.3910688 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Greg Ferenstein

Keyword(s):

Workplace Productivity ◽

Naturalistic Setting

Download Full-text

Measurements of workplace productivity in the office context

Journal of Corporate Real Estate ◽

10.1108/jcre-10-2017-0033 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 20 (4) ◽

pp. 281-301 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Brandon Bortoluzzi ◽

Daniel Carey ◽

J.J. McArthur ◽

Carol Menassa

Keyword(s):

Knowledge Worker ◽

Expert Interviews ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Productivity Measurement ◽

Worker Productivity ◽

Content Type ◽

The Past ◽

Workplace Productivity ◽

Detailed Evaluation ◽

Comprehensive Survey

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a comprehensive survey of workplace productivity key performance indicators (KPIs) used in the office context. Academic literature from the past 10 years has been systematically reviewed and contextualized through a series of expert interviews. Design/methodology/approach The authors present a systematic review of the literature to identify KPIs and methods of workplace productivity measurement, complemented by insights semi-structured interviews to inform a framework for a benchmarking tool. In total, 513 papers published since 2007 were considered, of which 98 full-length papers were reviewed, and 20 were found to provide significant insight and are summarized herein. Findings Currently, no consensus exists on a single KPI suitable for measuring workplace productivity in an office environment, although qualitative questionnaires are more widely adopted than quantitative tools. The diversity of KPIs used in published studies indicates that a multidimensional approach would be the most appropriate for knowledge-worker productivity measurement. Expert interviews further highlighted a shift from infrequent, detailed evaluation to frequent, simplified reporting across human resource functions and this context is important for future tool development. Originality/value This paper provides a summary of significant work on workplace productivity measurement and KPI development over the past 10 years. This follows up on the comprehensive review by B. Haynes (2007a), providing an updated perspective on research in this field with additional insights from expert interviews.

Download Full-text

Self-Reported Mobile Phone Use & Workplace Productivity between Age Groups

Gerontology & Geriatrics Studies ◽

10.31031/ggs.2018.03.000555 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Jyotsna Kalavar

Keyword(s):

Mobile Phone ◽

Age Groups ◽

Mobile Phone Use ◽

Workplace Productivity

Download Full-text

Impact of Topiramate Migraine Prophylaxis on Workplace Productivity: Results from Two US Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Trials

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine ◽

10.1097/jom.0b013e3180322134 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 49 (3) ◽

pp. 252-257 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Jennifer H. Lofland ◽

Joshua J. Gagne ◽

Laura T. Pizzi ◽

Marcia Rupnow ◽

Stephen D. Silberstein

Keyword(s):

Migraine Prophylaxis ◽

Double Blind ◽

Double Blind Placebo ◽

Multicenter Trials ◽

Workplace Productivity

Download Full-text

Health-Related Workplace Productivity Measurement: Adding to the List

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine ◽

10.1097/01.jom.0000085895.26715.f4 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 45 (9) ◽

pp. 912-914 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Walter Stewart ◽

Brian Schwartz ◽

Judith Ricci

Keyword(s):

Productivity Measurement ◽

Workplace Productivity ◽

Health Related

Download Full-text

Abstract P134: Higher Optimal Lifestyle Score is Associated with Greater Workplace Productivity

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circ.125.suppl_10.ap134 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 125 (suppl_10) ◽

Author(s):

Jackie L Boucher ◽

Jeffrey J VanWormer ◽

Heather R Britt ◽

James M Peacock ◽

Kevin J Graham

Keyword(s):

Productivity Loss ◽

Work Productivity ◽

Economic Benefits ◽

Lifestyle Factor ◽

Full Time ◽

Lifestyle Habits ◽

Activity Impairment ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Workplace Productivity ◽

The Impact

Introduction: Unhealthy lifestyles are associated with low workplace productivity, but lifestyle risks tend to cluster and the impact of this is not well studied. This analysis examined the cross-sectional association between an optimal lifestyle score (OLS) and overall workplace productivity in the Heart of New Ulm Project. Hypothesis: It was hypothesized that a higher OLS would be associated with higher workplace productivity relative to a lower OLS. Methods: Complete data was available from 2,987 adults age 18-85 years (with ≥0.40 FTE work agreement) without self-reported diabetes or heart disease, who underwent a cardiovascular risk factor screening in 2009. For each participant, an OLS of 0-4 total points was created by summing one point for each of the following factors: non-smoker, ≥150 min/wk of moderately equivalent physical activity, 1-14 alcoholic drinks/wk, and ≥5 serv/d of fruits and vegetables. Overall productivity loss combined absenteeism and presenteeism from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, reflecting the percentage loss of all available work hours (per work agreement) due to health reasons. Results: After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, and Perceived Stress Scale score, least squares adjusted mean±SE productivity loss was 9.9±1.9% for an OLS of 0, 5.7±0.6% for an OLS of 1, 4.9±0.4% for an OLS of 2, 4.9±0.4% for an OLS of 3, and 4.7±1.0% for an OLS of 4 (p for trend <0.001). Post hoc comparisons revealed that OLS’s of 0 were significantly different (p =0.05) from all other OLS’s, while OLS’s of 1, 2, 3, or 4 were statistically indistinguishable (p=0.05) from one another. Conclusions: A beneficial threshold of having at least one optimal lifestyle factor was observed. When productivity loss is converted to lost dollars under the assumptions that all employees work full time with an annual salary of $50,000, an OLS of 0 (-$4,950/employee) has over two-fold higher annual estimated workplace productivity losses relative to an OLS of 4 (-$2,350/employee). Employees with no optimal lifestyle habits, however, represent a very small proportion (1.5% of this analysis; 46 of 2,987) of the total workforce. As such, greater absolute economic benefits may be realized by focusing interventions primarily on supporting the maintenance of existing optimal lifestyle habits.

Download Full-text