International groundbreaking research on country-specific ...

whitepaper

April 2010

International groundbreaking research on country-specific differences in employee vitality

• Highest Vitality scores for the Netherlands • French and Spanish employees feel the most stressed • How about the stress levels amongst the Belgians? • In-depth interviews with HR directors of top multinational organisations

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

CONTENTS I.

FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................................... 3

II.

AUTHOR ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

III.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVES........................................................................................ 5

A. B. C. IV. A. B. V.

WHY MEASURE VITALITY? ........................................................................................................................ 5 WHY ANALYSE INTERNATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN VITALITY? .................................................................... 6 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 6 METHOD ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE .......................................................................................................................... 7 SURVEY ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 RESEARCH FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 10

A. B.

GENERAL INTERNATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN VITALITY ............................................................................ 10 DETAILED INTERNATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN VITALITY ........................................................................... 11 a) b) c) d)

C.

IMPACT OF VITALITY ON PERFORMANCE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES ........................................................ 19 a) b)

D.

A. B.

In general ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 International differences ................................................................................................................................ 20

INFLUENCE OF SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ON VITALITY .............................................................. 22 a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

VI.

Stress .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Working capacity ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Lifestyle ......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Energy ............................................................................................................................................................ 18

Gender ........................................................................................................................................................... 22 Age................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Seniority......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Management .................................................................................................................................................. 24 Education ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 Labour regime ................................................................................................................................................ 25 Sector ............................................................................................................................................................. 25

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS .................................................. 26 SOME STRIKING FINDINGS THROUGH THE EYES OF HR DIRECTORS .......................................................... 26 RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................... 27

VII. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 32

1

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

Intellectual property rights The user recognizes that all information and data provided to it are the property of Securex, and undertakes not to make any changes to them. Files may not be reproduced, distributed, sold, shared or changed, either in whole or in part, nor may the information and data be made available to the public and/or re-used in any form whatsoever, or adapted and used for commercial purposes, except with the prior written consent of Securex. It is equally forbidden to store the data electronically and to use them for illegal purposes. The information provided may be reproduced in non-commercial publications and presentations, on fulfilment of the two following conditions: 1. prior written communication to [email protected], indicating the data being reproduced and the medium in which they are being reproduced; and 2. accompaniment of the following mention of source: © Securex.

2

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

I.

FOREWORD

Organisations wishing to differentiate themselves in the current market need to be constantly innovating. For this, it is important for them to keep their talented people on board. It is these employees who provide the necessary entrepreneurship, innovation and change. Anyone operating in an international context quickly realizes that a ‘one size fits all’ approach does not always work. Elements like job content, working conditions, management, career and compensation & benefits, contribute to vitality, ‘performance’ and ‘excellence’ and help create innovative and entrepreneurial individuals. How far and in what way employees respond to this image can vary greatly from country to country. This research presented here shows just how important the vitality is here. Vital employees are not only more productive and motivated, with lower absenteeism, but also exhibit a lower turnover intention. More and more HR directors are aware of this and are applying preventive measures to support the vitality of their employees. This is a challenge that becomes even more complex once international differences need to be taken into account. This study points to the critical importance of managing employee stress levels, as excess or negative stress is detrimental to vitality. Increase energy and reduce stress, that is the message! Dutch HR Directors have clearly understood this and pay a lot of attention to well-being at work. With success. The present results show Dutch employees as having the lowest stress levels and the highest vitality. In this white paper, you will discover the importance of a sound stress policy. A wellimplemented stress policy provides more energy and greater working capacity among your employees. Our measurement models in the area of vitality and, more specifically, of stress can help you identify the situation within your own organisation and determine what factors will create a positive impact in your organisation. In international organisations, this measurement model will show the differences between different countries which allow you to adapt your strategy aligned to the specific survey results per country. I wish you interesting reading. Jan Vandemoortele Business Unit Director Securex Health & Safety

3

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

II.

AUTHOR

Securex offers specific expertise, consulting and innovative solutions in all areas of human capital management. Its client portfolio includes individuals, starters and self-employed, as well as small, medium and large enterprises. In May 2009, Securex repositioned its brand, with a renewed logo, the baseline ‘human capital matters’ and 6 competence centres: HR Services, Health & Safety, HR Insurance, HR Consulting, Social Admin and HR Research. Securex offers a wide range of products and services, ranging from a health insurance fund for individuals, payroll services and insurance products through consulting in the areas of recruitment, health & safety, talent management and research for self-employed and enterprises. Securex achieved a turnover of 220 million euros in 2008. In Belgium, Securex employs 1,500 employees spread amongst 26 regional offices. They take care of the services for more than 150,000 individuals and enterprises, for more than 110,000 self-employed and for 5,400 privileged partner-accountants and -brokers. Securex is also active in Luxemburg and France. This scientific study was carried out by a team of experienced researchers.

4

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

III. BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVES A.

Why measure Vitality?

In order to maintain or build their competitive advantage and future success, organisations need committed workforces. Scientific research has sufficiently shown that it is of high importance for an organisation to measure and to enhance employee productivity, commitment, motivation, entrepreneurship, etc., as these characteristics have a major influence on the operating results (i.e. the bottom line) of the organisation. Scientific studies also point out to vitality as an important precursor of organisational results. Vital employees are employees who do not experience too much (or negative) stress, who are healthy and have a large working capacity, enough energy and a healthy lifestyle. Vital employees are more productive, more involved in their work and their organisation, more satisfied, more motivated and more prepared to change (e.g. Boles, Pelletier, & Lynch, 2004; Loeppke, 2003; Mohler, Byrne, & Cropanzano, 2003; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000), leading to higher performance and excelling behaviour at work. Furthermore, vitality has an impact on organisational results both through higher productivity, engagement, extra-role behaviours, etc., and through lower levels of absenteeism and personnel turnover. According to calculations by Securex, the total cost – all Belgian employers included – of absenteeism was 10.58 billion Euro in 2008. This cost is increasing year-on-year.1 Research, both in Europe and beyond European boundaries, proves that programmes which promote health can bring down the number of days of inability to work and increase the return on investment (ROI) (Bertera, 1990; Bowne, Russel, Morgan, Optenberg, & Clarke, 1986; Goetzel et al., 1998; Leigh et al., 1992; Ozminkowski et al., 2002; Rosenfeld, Tenenbaum, Ruskin, & Halfon, 1989). In addition, vitality can also lead to a higher ROI by decreasing personnel turnover. Turnover represents high (direct and indirect) costs to organisations in terms of loss of valuable human resources, the disruption of ongoing activities, recruitment and training costs, etc.2 De Croon, Sluiter, Blonk, Broersen, and Frings-Dresen (2004) found that ‘strain’ (subjective perceptions of stress) mediates the influence of stressful work on voluntary turnover. Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner (2000) concluded from their meta-analysis that stress was, if not one of the most predictive, still an important determinant of personnel turnover. Likewise, our own Securex studies (based on representative samples) show significant negative relations between vitality and turnover intentions (for example, a correlation of -.20 in the Belgian Benchmark study of 2009). In sum, it is of high importance for an organisation to measure and to enhance employee vitality, as vital employees can contribute positively to the bottom line of the organisation.

1

If you are interested in our white papers on absenteeism (available in French and Dutch only), you can contact Securex HR Research & Measurement (see contact details on the back of this paper) or you can download the papers from www.zebrazone.eu. 2 If you are interested in our white papers on personnel turnover (available in French and Dutch only), you can contact Securex HR Research & Measurement (see contact details on the back of this paper) or you can download the papers from www.zebrazone.eu.

5

Country-specific differences in employee vitality Why analyse international differences in Vitality?3

B.

Research into international differences in vitality provides valuable information, especially for international organisations wishing to raise their employees’ vitality. HR directors and HR managers from a number of international organisations in the Netherlands, Belgium and UK gave us the following arguments in favour of international research into vitality:    

C.

demonstrating that international differences really do exist; comparing apples to apples in different countries; tailoring action guidelines to different countries; contributing to developing a ‘group spirit’ in international organisations.

Research objectives

The general aims of the present study are to:  investigate international differences in employees’ Vitality;  analyse the relation between Vitality and Performance, and whether this relation is country-dependent;  take a closer look at socio-demographic variables which might impact employees’ Vitality in different countries;  capture qualitative, practical implications and applications of these results.

3

We also refer to our white paper “Groundbreaking research into international differences in engagement”, which can be downloaded from www.zebrazone.eu. In this white paper, and more specifically in the chapter “Why measure performance and excellence?”, we gave the floor to a number of HR directors and HR managers from international organisations in the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK and France.

6

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

IV. METHOD A.

Sample and procedure

The sample was composed of 3017 employees from 8 different countries: Belgium (n = 302), France (n = 403), the Netherlands (n = 302), the UK (n = 405), Germany (n = 402), Spain (n = 300), Sweden (n = 301) and the US (n = 602). The survey data were collected using online research panels between 10 and 26 June 2009. Selected members of various research panels (in the different countries), representative for the population in each country, received email invitations for the survey.  In the first part of this survey, 10 socio-demographic questions were asked: gender, age, educational level, seniority level, management position, full-time or part-time employment, the organisation’s main activity, number of countries in which the organisation is located, number of workers in the organisation and intention to move jobs.  In the second part of the survey, 63 Likert-type items were asked (on a 6-point scale) in order to measure employees’ Vitality, Performance and Excellence (see following part for more information on the survey). In this white paper, the focus is on employees’ vitality.

B.

Survey

In this study, we used the ZebraZone Vitality, Performance & Excellence (VPE) questionnaire.4 The VPE model is a comprehensive model (accompanied by a questionnaire), that has been developed to measure the vitality, performance and excellence of employees, and to show how an organisation can increase its employees’ vitality, performance and excellence. The model and questionnaire have been developed in close cooperation with the academic world, HR consultants, industrial psychologists, etc. In this way, the model incorporates the latest findings in the scientific literature and current trends in management, organisation and health. The model has been developed gradually on the basis of large heterogeneous national and international datasets, which have been gathered during our various benchmark studies. Each development stage took place in close cooperation with various experts involved (industrial psychologists, HR managers, professors, HR consultants etc.). With the help of these extensive datasets, the various concepts, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and factors were subjected to thoroughgoing analyses (linear regression analysis, correlation analysis, impact analysis, etc.). Each statistical analysis method was preceded and later completed by in-depth literature research. The final model has been validated by Structural Equation Modelling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

4

ZebraZone is the ensemble of scientifically validated measuring models and related questionnaires, which serve to map employees’ perceptions like satisfaction, vitality and motivation. If you would like further information on the ZebraZone measuring models in general or about the VPE model in particular, please send an e-mail to [email protected] or phone +32 2 729 94 04.

7

Country-specific differences in employee vitality Each ZebraZone model contains one or more concepts, each consisting of several KPIs. Each KPI is defined on the basis of one or more sub-sectors called factors. Factors consist of one or more validated items or questions.5 The VPE model consists of four concepts (115 items). These can be further subdivided into two groups, viz. drivers and outcomes (see also Figure 1):  Drivers: • Work & Organisation features (W & O): elements that are specific to the job and organisation and that can influence employee vitality, performance and/or excellence (e.g. Job content, Working conditions, Career, Compensation & Benefits, …). 

Outcomes: • Vitality: comprises employees stress, working capacity, life style, and energy. • Performance: comprises employee productivity, commitment, satisfaction and motivation. • Excellence: comprises employee openness to change, innovation and entrepreneurship.

Figure 1. ZebraZone Vitality, Performance & Excellence model (VPE model)6 5

All items were measured using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = ‘completely disagree’, 2 = ‘disagree’, 3 = ‘rather disagree’, 4 = ‘rather agree’, 5 = ‘agree’, 6 = ‘completely agree’). 6 The VPE model has a modular structure: it consists of three basic sub-models: Vitality, Performance and Excellence. Each sub-model is validated by Structural Equation Modelling, making each sub-model a fully-fledged measuring model for employee perceptions. Each sub-model consists of two concepts, first the Work and Organisation Features and second,

8

Country-specific differences in employee vitality Important note: As the Work & Organisation features were beyond the scope of this study, only the outcome variables (Vitality, Performance and Excellence) were measured. Furthermore, in this white paper, the focus is on Vitality.7

Vitality, Performance or Excellence. The Work and Organisation Features concept is fleshed out differently in each of the three sub-models. In each case, based on intensive analyses, a specific set of Work and Organisation features with influence on the respective Vitality, Performance and Excellence concepts is identified. Depending on the specific needs in a particular organisation, various sub-model combinations can be chosen. 7 If you are interested in our white paper focusing on international differences in Performance and Excellence, you can contact Securex HR Research & Measurement (see contact details on the back of this paper) or you can download the paper from www.zebrazone.eu.

9

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

V. RESEARCH FINDINGS A.

General international differences in Vitality

First of all, general differences between countries are given by means of so-called ‘index scores’. An index score is the average of the various KPI scores belonging to the concept in question (in this case ‘Vitality’). It reflects the general vitality of an employee group (in this case a country) and it makes it possible to compare vitality in different countries at a glance. The overall index score for Vitality (i.e. unweighted mean index score across all countries) is 6.85 on 10. The results (see Table 1) show that the Netherlands has the highest vitality score (7.17), followed by Sweden (6.98), the US (6.87) and Spain (6.86). Countries scoring under the overall mean are Belgium (6.79), the UK (6.79), France (6.73) and Germany (6.67), with the latter country having the lowest absolute vitality score.

Table 1. International differences in vitality: index scores

Taking a closer look at the different KPIs of Vitality (see significance Table 2 below8), we see that Dutch employees score significantly better on the KPIs stress and working capacity, meaning that they feel less stressed and more healthy as compared to the employees in the other countries. Swedish employees also feel more healthy as compared to employees in the other countries. The most stress is perceived in France and Spain, and the lowest working capacity in the UK, Germany and Spain. Swedish, Spanish and US employees have a significantly better lifestyle, whereas French, German and Belgian employees score significantly worse on lifestyle. Finally, Spanish

8 The significance table indicates whether significant differences exist between the socio-demographic groups chosen on beforehand for one and the same KPI. The significance table tells us whether or not certain employee groups have answered in a homogenous fashion. A green S shows that a particular employee group scores significantly better for this KPI than the other employee groups. A red S means that this employee group scores significantly worse for this KPI compared with the other employee groups. When the S for a particular KPI is blue, this points to a relatively homogenous response pattern between the selected socio-demographic group and the other employee groups.

10

Country-specific differences in employee vitality employees have significantly more energy, whereas Germans feel significantly less energetic, as compared to employees in other countries.

Table 2: International differences in vitality: KPI scores

In the following sections, a couple of interesting detailed results of the different KPIs (i.e. on item level) are described. For this, all items were dichotomized, so that the percentages mentioned below represent the proportion of employees agreeing with the item in question.9

B.

Detailed international differences in Vitality

a) Stress The employees in France and Spain feel the most stressed at work: only 38% of the French and 42% of the Spanish employees rarely feel stressed at work. These percentages are significantly lower than in the other countries (which all score rather identically, this is, between 47% and 53%).

Figure 2. International differences in work-related stress

9

All differences mentioned below (higher or lower percentages in country comparisons) are significant and are based on cross-tables with chi² tests.

11

Country-specific differences in employee vitality In the Netherlands, only 17% feel generally stressed. This percentage is significantly lower than in the other countries, which do not appear to be significantly different from each other. Not only is the difference between the Netherlands and the other countries a significant difference, it is also the largest difference observed in this study.

Figure 3. International differences in general stress

b) Working capacity French (93%) and Belgian (91%) employees think significantly more that they are generally in good health, as compared to employees in other countries (which score rather identically, this is, between 83% and 89%). Interestingly, only small minorities in each country think that they are generally not in good health.

Figure 4. International differences in general health

12

Country-specific differences in employee vitality Spanish employees in particular (43%) think that their health would be better if they had a different job. This percentage is significantly higher than in the UK (35%) and Sweden (32%), which in turn are significantly higher than in France (28%), the US (28%), Germany (23%) and Belgium (22%). Dutch employees think the least that their health would be better if they had a different job (only 16%).

Figure 5. International differences in job-related health problems

29% of the Spanish employees feel that – in recent months – their physical health has interfered with their job. This percentage is significantly higher as compared to employees in the UK (23%), Germany (20%), France (20%), and the US (20%). Swedish, Belgian and Dutch employees complain the least about interference of their physical health with their job (19%, 16% and 16% respectively).

Figure 6. International differences in physical health problems

13

Country-specific differences in employee vitality German employees (41%) complain almost twice as much about problems with their motor system (this is, problems with the back, shoulders, arms, legs, elbow, etc.) than do Americans (22%). Belgian employees too have many problems with their motor systems (36%).

Figure 7. International differences in motor system problems

In Germany, employees feel the least physically fit for work (81%). Although this percentage is quite high, it is significantly lower than in the other countries, which score rather identically (this is, between 91% and 95%).

Figure 8. International differences in physical fitness

14

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

c) Lifestyle Only in Spain, more than half of the employees (54%) do an activity involving hard physical effort lasting at least 20 minutes on average three times a week. Some examples of activities involving hard physical effort are aerobics, running and swimming. Spanish, but also US employees (48%) score significantly better than the other countries when it comes to physical activity. There are no significant differences between the UK (43%), Sweden (42%), the Netherlands (41%) and Belgium (39%). French (34%) and German employees (36%) score the worst.

Figure 9. International differences in physical activity

Only 43% of the German and Dutch employees eat – on average – two or more items of fruit a day, which is significantly less than in the other countries. Spanish – followed by UK – employees eat the most fruit (70% and 68% respectively). France (59%), the US (55%), Sweden (53%) and Belgium (49%) do not differ significantly from each other.

Figure 10. International differences in healthy nutrition

15

Country-specific differences in employee vitality Spanish and Swedish employees are the biggest ‘breakfast-eaters’, with 86% and 82% of them eating breakfast every morning. In France, this percentage is significantly lower: 75% of the French employees eat breakfast every morning. The other countries (Belgium, Germany, UK, US and the Netherlands) are significantly less healthy when it comes to eating breakfast (percentages between 66% and 73%).

Figure 11. International differences in healthy nutrition

Alcohol use is the highest in the UK (20%) and the Netherlands (18%), whereas Sweden – where buying alcohol is extremely expensive – has the lowest percentage of ‘drinkers’ (6%). The other countries do not differ significantly from each other: Belgium (13%), US (11%), France (10%), Spain (10%) and Germany (10%).

Figure 12. International differences in alcohol use

16

Country-specific differences in employee vitality A remarkable – but understandable10 – finding is that the US has the lowest percentage of smoking employees (only 21% smoke 2 or more cigarettes a day), followed by Sweden (27%). Germany has the highest percentage of smokers (38%), followed by Belgium (36%), France (36%), Spain (33%), the UK (30%) and the Netherlands (30%).

Figure 13. International differences in smoking

Only 54% of the French, 58% of the German and 60% of the Swedish employees take sufficient time to relax during the day. They take significantly less time to relax during the day than employees in the other countries: UK (69%), Spain (70%), Belgium (70%), US (74%) and the Netherlands (75%).

Figure 14. International differences in relaxation

10

In the US the ban on smoking in all public places has been in place much longer. Sweden too has had a strict smoking policy longer than other countries.

17

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

d) Energy Only 64% of the German employees have been feeling active and fit in recent months. Spain has the highest percentage of employees feeling active and fit: 79%. The other countries score in between and do not differ significantly from each other: Belgium (69%), US (71%), Netherlands (73%), Sweden (74%), UK (74%) and France (76%).

Figure 15. International differences in energy

18

Country-specific differences in employee vitality C.

Impact of Vitality on Performance in different countries

a) In general The correlation (in the total sample, across all countries) between the concepts Vitality and Performance is .57. A linear regression analysis, with the four KPIs of Vitality (Stress, Working capacity, Lifestyle and Energy) as a set of independent variables and the concept of Performance as dependent variable, shows that 34% of the variance in Performance can be explained by the KPIs of Vitality.11 This suggests that performant behaviour in organisations is to some extent determined by the vitality of employees.12 13 A relative impact analysis14 (on the total sample, across all countries), with the four KPIs of Vitality as a set of independent variables and the concept Performance as dependent variable (see Figure 16), shows that working capacity, energy and stress have a high relative impact on Performance. The relative impact of lifestyle on Performance is only medium.15 Taking into consideration that working capacity – and to a lesser extent lifestyle – have positive perception scores, whereas energy and stress have rather negative perception scores, an employer should in the first place try to raise the energy levels and to decrease the stress levels of his employees.

11 In multi-linear regression the correlation coefficients of the various KPIs are used in calculating the percentage of explained variance. This gives rise to a sort of ‘weighting’. This explains why this percentage (34%) differs from the 32% (.57²) that one would expect based on the correlation between Vitality and Performance. In this latter correlation it is the general unweighted average of the Vitality KPIs that is used. 12 The rest of the variance in Performance can be explained for a large part by all kinds of Work and Organisational features (W&O features), like empowerment, values & culture, change management, management, career, etc. It is precisely these variables that an organisation needs to work on first in order to increase its employees’ Vitality, Performance and Excellence (see also the VPE model in the method section). Further information on measuring these features and their impact on Vitality, Performance and/or Excellence in your organisation can be obtained from the contact persons on the back flap of this white paper. The white paper “Productivity and Commitment: perception of Belgian employees 2009” (available in French and Dutch only), looks at the impact of the W&O features on Performance in Belgium. The white paper “Vitality, Performance and Excellence of Dutch employees” (available in Dutch only) looks at the impact of the W&O features on Vitality, Performance and Excellence in the Netherlands. These white papers can be downloaded free of charge on www.zebrazone.eu. 13 To compare: the correlation between Performance and Excellence is .77 and the percentage of variance in Excellence that can be explained by the KPIs of Performance is 63% (see our white paper “Groundbreaking research into country-specific differences in employee engagement”, which can be downloaded on www.zebrazone.eu. Thus, Performance and Excellence are much more strongly correlated than Vitality and Performance. 14 The relative impact analysis – developed by Securex – makes it possible to determine the individual influence (‘relative impact’) of each independent variable on the dependent variable. Organisations need to work first of all on those variables that have the highest impact on the dependent variable. Further information on this relative impact analysis is available on request. 15 In order to indicate the magnitude of the influence of a particular KPI, impact scores are subdivided into 3 zones: low impact, medium impact and high impact. Thorough empirical examination placed the borders between these impact zones at 0.06 (between low and medium) and 0.21 (between medium and high).

19

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

Figure 16. Relative impact of the KPIs of Vitality on Performance in the total sample16

b) International differences Relative impact analyses per country (with the Vitality KPIs as independent variables and the concept of Performance as the dependent variable) clearly show that the decisive vitality variables for Performance are to some extent country-dependent (see Figure 17).  In every country, lifestyle is the least important predictor of Performance. The extent to which employees smoke, drink alcohol, have healthy eating habits, move and relax has the lowest impact on their productivity at work. On the one hand, this is good news, given employers’ relatively limited ability to influence these behaviours. On the other hand, we should not underestimate the importance of lifestyle, given its medium impact in most countries and its even high impact in the UK and Belgium.  Stress has a high impact on Performance in all countries. The highest impact is observed for the US (where it even has a higher impact than energy) and the lowest (but still high) is in Belgium and Sweden.  Working capacity and energy have the highest impact on employee Performance in almost every country. In some countries, the impact of working capacity is higher than that of energy; this is the case for the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and US. In other countries, it is the other way round, as in France, Sweden and Spain. In Belgium, the difference is almost zero.

16

In this 2-dimensional graphic the perception scores are given on the vertical axis, while the relative impact of each individual Vitality KPI can be read on the horizontal axis. Two vertical lines delimit 3 impact areas (low, medium, high). KPIs falling in the upper right hand zone (in the green zone) are positively perceived and have a high impact on Performance. KPIs in the (red) zone at the bottom right are KPIs with a high impact and a negative perception score. These are in other words the pressure points. Once these are worked on, Performance will improve significantly. In order to indicate the magnitude of the influence of a particular KPI, impact scores are subdivided into 3 zones: low impact, medium impact and high impact.

20

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

Figure 17. Relative impact of the KPIs of Vitality on Performance in different countries

Although the influence of stress, working capacity, life style and energy seems to be countrydependent to some extent, the action points in all countries are mainly identical. Employers should prompt employees’ energy level, work on a stress policy and develop a stress action plan. They should also set the mark high when it comes to health. Employers should also note that, to enhance employee performance, they should in the first place work on those work and organisational features that have a large impact on Vitality, Performance and/or Excellence (see footnote 12).

21

Country-specific differences in employee vitality D.

Influence of socio-demographic variables on Vitality

In this chapter, we discuss the influence of socio-demographic variables on the different KPIs of Vitality, and whether these influences are country-dependent. To this end, we conducted several MANOVAs with each time one of the socio-demographic variables (gender, age, …) and country as two categorical, fixed factors, and the KPIs of Vitality as a set of four dependent variables. Where a MANOVA showed a multivariate interaction effect, we undertook follow-up univariate analyses. If – for a given KPI as dependent variable – the univariate interaction effect was not significant, this meant that the influence of the sociodemographic variable on the KPI was country-independent. This was the case for gender, management, labour regime and sector. However, if – for a given KPI as dependent variable – the univariate interaction effect was significant, this meant that the influence of the sociodemographic variable on the KPI was country-dependent. This was the case for age, seniority and education.

a) Gender There are no significant differences between men and women in working capacity and energy. However, women feel significantly more stressed (both general and work-related stress) than men, whereas men have a significantly unhealthier lifestyle than women.

Table 3. Significant differences between men and women

b) Age Across all countries, employees younger than 25 years feel significantly more energetic in comparison with older employees, but have unhealthier lifestyles. Employees between 25 and 39 years feel significantly more stressed, whereas employees aged 55 years or older seem significantly more relaxed. The latter group also has a better lifestyle. The 50 to 54 years group feels significantly less energetic.17

17

The ‘healthy worker effect’ assumes that the active working population is on average healthier than the general population. Older employees with multiple health complaints eliminate themselves and quit (early) the labour market, as a result of which the remaining active 55-plussers are just as healthy as younger employees. Other reasons why they experience less stress are that they set their sights lower and at the end of their careers have no need to prove themselves.

22

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

Table 4. Significant differences between different age groups

It should be noted, however, that the influence of age on vitality is highly country-dependent, as the interaction effects between age and country are significant for all the KPIs of vitality. We will not examine this more deeply here, as a summary of all these results would take us far too far.18

c) Seniority Employees with 21 or more years of seniority feel significantly less energetic than employees with fewer years of seniority. Interestingly, starters (i.e. employees with less than one year of seniority) feel significantly more energetic and score significantly higher on working capacity than the other employee groups.

Table 5. Significant differences between different seniority groups

The interaction effects between seniority and country are significant, meaning that the influence of seniority on vitality is country-dependent. We will not examine this more deeply into this here, as a summary of all these results would take us far too far.19

18

If you are interested in the age differences for a specific country, you can always contact Securex HR Research & Measurement (see contact details on the back of this paper). 19 If you are interested in the seniority differences for a specific country, you can always contact Securex HR Research & Measurement (see contact details on the back of this paper).

23

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

d) Management Interestingly, employees in management positions feel equally stressed and score equally on working capacity and lifestyle in comparison with employees with no management positions. However, managers feel significantly more energetic than non-managers.

Table 6. Significant differences between managers (‘yes’) and non-managers (‘no’)

e) Education As education levels differ per country, one common variable was created to cover the differences. This new recoded variable has 3 categories or 3 levels of education: low, medium and high.20 Employees with a low level of education feel the least stressed and energetic, and they have a significantly unhealthier lifestyle in comparison with higher educated employees. Highly educated employees feel the most stressed, but they score better on working capacity, lifestyle and energy.

Table 7. Significant differences between low, medium and high educated employees

The interaction effect between education and country demonstrates that educational level does not influence working capacity in the UK and Spain.

20

Further information on how the ‘education’ variable was recoded in the various countries can be obtained on request (see contact details on the back flap).

24

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

f) Labour regime Full-time and part-time employees score equally on working capacity and energy, but fulltime employees feel significantly more stressed and report a significantly worse lifestyle.

Table 9. Significant differences between full-time and part-time employees

g) Sector Respondents were asked: “What is your organisation’s main activity?”, a multiple-choice question with 21 different sectors as answer categories. This variable was recoded into a new variable with only 3 categories: ‘manufacturing’, ‘commercial services’ and ‘non-commercial services’. An ANOVA with post-hoc analyses shows that (global) sector only influences lifestyle, with employees in the industrial and commercial services sectors having significantly worse lifestyles than employees in the non-commercial services sector. There were no effects of sector on stress, working capacity and energy.

25

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

VI. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS In this final chapter, the most important research findings will be summarized, and some remarkable findings, practical implications and applications through the eyes of HR directors and HR managers will be discussed. A.

Some striking findings through the eyes of HR directors

This study into international differences in Vitality comes up with interesting results. This observation was also shared by a number of HR directors and HR managers of international organisations in the Netherlands, Belgium and UK. Ed Vervoort (HR Director at Smurfit Kappa and responsible for Benelux from the Netherlands): “For me the most striking finding is the extremely positive score of the Dutch on stress. In other studies too, you often find the Netherlands doing well on vitality and stress. If you question Dutch people in a group, then for me they are more likely to say “I don’t have so much vitality”, but if you ask them individually, then they will reply, “Yes, I have lots of vitality”. The French will not, and certainly not the Germans, who are much more modest here. Belgium, I find, scores pretty well here. I had expected higher vitality scores for Sweden than for the Netherlands, because in Sweden the climate of standards, values and culture is very different. Everything is better organized there in this area. Returning to the fact that Dutch people apparently experience so little stress: at lot of restructuring has been done in recent years in the Netherlands to ratchet up production. And because of the need to make do with far fewer employees, people set to work differently and more efficiently. And greater clarity simply means less stress. Another important aspect is that Dutch employees have bigger possibilities of control and a higher degree of freedom than in other countries. We are less hierarchical. An employee can do more to avoid stressors. On the one hand, I can well understand why the Dutch come out so well in this area, but on the other hand I had not expected such an extreme result.” Cathy Vanden Broeck (Corporate Associate Relations Manager at Delhaize Group in Belgium) comments on our lifestyle results and reacts to the fact that Belgian employees score lower than their US counterparts: “At Delhaize in the United States, we have taken lots of initiatives to supplement the weak social system. The Americans are not very advanced in terms of social security and businesses; therefore, they take many initiatives in this area. These also represent a competitive advantage. By contrast, what surprises me in particular in the Securex international survey is the results obtained in Belgium. They do not reflect the idea that I had of the situation, at least not within our company. But I guess my perception is influenced by the fact that Delhaize operates in a sector which attaches great importance to lifestyle.” Robert Halton (Board Member People at College of Law in the UK): “Looking at the results and more specifically at “stress at work”, I think a lot of people who are currently in jobs, are feeling more insecure because of the recession in the past 18 months. Moreover, if we look at what has been happening in the economy across Europe, other European countries are coming out of recession, while UK is not. The recession hit the UK harder from that perspective because in the UK the financial sector is so significant and this recession has clearly hit this sector. Therefore the impact on people has being quite profound. So I think that the reason why people feel stressed at work is because they feel less secure than they did 26

Country-specific differences in employee vitality before. I think stress has an important impact on how people perform in their job. When people feel less secure, a part of their mind is not focusing on what they are doing every day.” Securex: “It is peculiar to see that UK has the highest scores on drinking alcohol – one at of five is drinking more than they should. What are your thoughts about this?” Robert Halton: “The consumption of beer has gone down in the past few years and the consumption of wine has gone up. There has been a trend towards drinking in clubs and bars rather than in traditional pubs, despite high taxation on drinks. Alcohol is also a lot cheaper than it used to be in the past particularly from major supermarkets which has encouraged drinking at home. A lot of younger people are drinking more and when they drink more, they drink excessively. Young people see it as a way to de-stress and as a social activity after work.” “Our workforce at the College is less typical than other professional services and the issue of alcohol is low. 65% of our people are female and 40% are part-time and for many this is a “second career” and one where work/life balance is more important. “The survey results surely also reflect that within UK we drink more champagne than the French.”

B.

Research conclusions and practical implications

International differences in Vitality: some remarkable findings by country The results of this study demonstrated that significant differences exist in vitality across countries. The Netherlands, Sweden, the US and Spain have the most vital employees, whereas Germany has the least vital employees. Belgium, the UK and France score – compared with the other countries – somewhere in between. A few core results by country, beginning with the least vital and ending with the most vital countries:  Germany has – of all countries surveyed – the lowest vitality score. German employees come out significantly less well on working ability (health), lifestyle and energy level. 19% of German employees feel physically insufficiently fit to work (compared to say 5% of Belgians). One striking factor is that they suffer most from musculoskeletal disorders (41%). They do not move enough, have poor eating habits (only 43% eat enough fruit and only 66% have breakfast every morning), they smoke the most (38% smoke 2 or more cigarettes a day) and only 58% take enough time to relax. Moreover, 36% feel themselves insufficiently active and fit (compared to only 21% in Spain, for example). In terms of stress Germany scores, compared with other countries, average: 39% feel generally stressed and 50% feel stressed at work. 

France has, along with Spain, the most stressed employees: only 38% of French employees seldom experience stress at work and 43% feel generally stressed. Also in terms of lifestyle the French score worse than in other countries: they have the least movement (only one out of three does a strenuous activity 3 times a week), they smoke quite heavily (36% smoke 2 or more cigarettes per day) and they take the least time to relax (only 54%). In terms of working capacity (health) and energy, France achieves an average score. For example, not less than 93% believe themselves to be in a good general health condition. 27

Country-specific differences in employee vitality 

In the UK there is a particular ‘problem’ with employees’ working capacity. More than one out of three (35%) think that their health would be better if they had another job, which is the second highest percentage after Spain. And 23% have physical health complaints that interfere with their jobs, again the second highest rate after Spain. In terms of stress they are average: 39% feel generally stressed and 49% have stress at work. Their lifestyle is average to good, with the striking finding that they eat the most fruit: 68% on average eat 2 servings of fruit per day. Unfortunately things are less well when it comes to UK employees’ alcohol consumption: 20% drink more alcohol than is good for them (according to the standard), coming out of the study as the ‘biggest drinkers’.



Belgian employees feel averagely stressed: 47% rarely have stress at work and 35% feel generally stressed. Also on health they score average. While 95% feel themselves physically fit to work, they still come in second place (after Germany) in terms of musculoskeletal disorders (36%). The Belgians do not come out well in terms of lifestyle: they lack movement (39% do strenuous activity 3 times a week), less than half eat sufficient fruit (49%), they breakfast the least (only 66% every day), 13% drink more alcohol than is good for them and they rank second in terms of smoking (36% smoke 2 or more cigarettes a day).



Spain has, compared to the average of other countries, a significantly worse score for stress (together with France) and working capacity. Only 42% rarely feel stressed at work and 44% feel generally stressed. No less than 43% think that their health would be better if they had another job and 29% say that they have experienced health complaints while carrying out their job. On lifestyle and energy Spanish employees score significantly better: they have the most movement (54% said they do vigorous activity for at least 20 minutes or more 3 times a week), they eat the most fruit (70% have two or more daily servings), they breakfast most (86%) and they take a reasonably large amount of time for leisure (79%).



Contrary to what one might expect (based on the stereotype of ‘Americans live unhealthily’), the US scores significantly better on lifestyle. In particular they have the second highest score in terms of movement (48% doing a strenuous activity 3 times a week), (only 21% smoke more than the norm) and they take plenty of time for leisure (74%). On stress, working capacity and energy the US scores average compared with other countries.



In Sweden we encounter a significantly healthier lifestyle and a higher work capacity. Only 27% smoke 2 or more cigarettes per day, only 6% drink more than is good for them (the lowest rate) and as many as 82% eat breakfast each morning. On stress and energy they score averagely.



Among Dutch employees (who obtain the highest vitality scores) there is significantly less stress: 53% say that they rarely experience stress at work and only 17% say that they experience stress in general (which is not only the lowest rate, but also markedly different from the other countries). Dutch employees have also a significantly higher working capacity. For example: only 16% think that their health would improve if they took another job and only 16% stated that their work has suffered from their physical health problems. On lifestyle and energy the Dutch score somewhat average. Yet two points of note: they drink (after the UK) the most alcohol (18% drinking more 28

Country-specific differences in employee vitality than is healthy according to the standard) and they eat too little fruit (43% eat enough fruit, which is one of the lowest percentages). Socio-demographic differences in Vitality In this white paper, we also analyzed socio-demographic differences in Vitality, and whether these differences were country-dependent. More specifically, differences were analyzed according to gender, age, seniority, management, education, size of company, labour regime and sector. The results showed that all socio-demographic variables significantly influenced Vitality. Furthermore, only the influences of age, seniority and education were to some extent country-dependent. The following socio-demographic groups came out negatively (compared with the average of the other groups within the same socio-demographic variable):21  Women, employees between 25 and 39 years, employees with a high level of education and full-time employees feel significantly more stressed.  Men, under 25 years, employees with a low and medium level of education, full-time employees and employees in commercial and industrial sectors score worse on lifestyle.  Employees with 21 years or more of seniority, between 50-54 years, non-managers and employees with a low level of education feel less energetic. Own health and lifestyle are estimated too positively A striking result is that employees in all countries surveyed are very positive when asked to assess their overall health. Between 83% and 93% of employees (depending on country) report good general health. However, if we then turn to other survey items which probe for health complaints, we find a significant proportion of respondents reporting physical and mental health problems; complaints that do or do not prevent them from doing their work properly. For example, between 16% and 29% (depending on country) speak of physical health problems that get in the way of their job and between 22% and 41% (depending on country) experience problems with the motor system. This shows that quite a lot of people seem to relativize their complaints when assessing their overall health. They would appear to assess themselves healthier than they really are. Thus when it comes to lifestyle we see that many do not realize that, based on particular factors (e.g. poor diet, lack of exercise, etc.) they actually belong to the risk groups for, for example, diabetes or cardiovascular disease. A significant proportion of the respondents estimated their general health very positively, while maintaining a poor lifestyle (smoking, drinking, unhealthy eating, lack of exercise). For example: between 14% and 34% (depending on country) eat no breakfast each morning and between 21% and 38% (country dependent) smoke 2 or more cigarettes per day. An almost identical result was also revealed by the 2008 Lifestyle Barometer: “Nearly sixty percent of the Dutch population lives in an unhealthy way, thereby running an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and/or renal failure. Many people assess their own health and lifestyle too positively. People also underestimate the danger of an unhealthy lifestyle. This comes out of the first National Lifestyle Barometer organised by the Diabetes Fund, the Heart Foundation and the Kidney Foundation.” Employees should therefore in the first instance be helped with becoming aware of their health. Actions to promote employee health (e.g. stress policy, lifestyle programmes) can 21

When we say, for example, that employees under 25 score worse, then we mean that they score significantly worse than the average for the other age categories together.

29

Country-specific differences in employee vitality produce results only when employees understand what is good and bad for their health, what is healthy and unhealthy behaviour, etc.22 The importance of a stress policy for increasing performance The results of the survey clearly show stress to be a major problem in every country. The ‘stress’ KPI has a negative perception score in every country. Between 38% and 53% (depending on country) rarely suffer from stress at work and between 17% and 44% (depending on country) experience stress in general. Moreover, stress has a high relative impact on employee performance. This means that employee performance will increase if one works on perceptions of stress in the organisation. Formulating a clear vision of stress, introducing a proactive stress policy and developing a stress action plan are crucial in this.23 Organise for example training courses to help your employees cope with stress. Besides recognizing situations and symptoms of stress, your employees can also learn techniques to keep their stress under control, and executives how to deal appropriately with difficult conflict situations. You can, for example, organise an ‘in balance’ day for your employees, in which you present and practice a variety of methods, with a beneficial impact on personal wellbeing. Stress measurement (which also maps the causes of stress) is crucial. Such a stress study identifies which work and organisation features your employees experience as the most stress-stimulating, from which concrete actions points can be distilled.24 You need also to bear in mind that certain groups are particularly susceptible to stress. The results in this study showed that women, employees between 25 and 39 years, highly-educated and full-time employees feel significantly more stressed. Securex: “If you look at Vitality as a general concept, so including stress etcetera, is there something that you would like to focus on in your organisation or need to focus on?” Robert Halton (Board Member People at College of Law in the UK): “Well-being has been for a long time been about “insurances” in organisations, which mostly focus on the provision of healthcare. But actually, reducing sickness days has not been on the agenda for some time and this definitely requires a change in approach. Organisations need to focus more on “how well” their employees are. The organisational focus on this matter, however, has been diverted by the recession. When times are good and there is hard competition for talent, organisations start focusing on how to keep their staff; how do I motivate my staff becomes a key question? Moreover when times get tough, organisations focus on survival and focus on the well-being of their people often suffers. At the College we have just launched an “Employee Assistance Programme” which gives our people external support should they feel that they need it.” The value of lifestyle programmes Many employees do not meet the criteria of a healthy lifestyle: they move and/or relax too little, eat unhealthily, and smoke or drink more than is good for them. Even if lifestyle (according to our results) seems to have the least impact on employee performance (compared with stress, energy and working capacity), its importance should not be underestimated.

22

Securex can, for example, organise a ‘work stress’ awareness enhancement afternoon in your organisation, with answers to a whole range of stress-related questions, so that your employees and executives can learn precisely what work stress is all about (e.g. possible causes and results, how to recognize stress oneself, etc.). 23 See also our white paper “Work & Stress – Benchmark Belgium 2009”, which can be downloaded from www.zebrazone.eu. 24 More information about undertaking a stress assessment, or an ‘in-balance’ day, is available on request (see contact details on the back flap of this white paper).

30

Country-specific differences in employee vitality Lifestyle still has a medium (thus important) relative impact on performance. It also indirectly impacts performance through better health (working capacity) and increased energy. The generally accepted standard is that a person needs at least 30 minutes a day of light movement or 20 minutes of more strenuous exercise three times a week. These are minimum requirements to remain in good condition. Careful: we are not talking here just about strenuous activities. Many forms of movement can be integrated into our daily activities. An employer can encourage the use of stairs, organise internal sports competitions, or organise lunch hour walks, hang up posters encouraging movement, provide showers to enable people to cycle to work or jog during lunchtimes, introduce sports cheques, etc. Securex: “Are specific measures taken to promote and/or bring about a healthier lifestyle?” Cathy Vanden Broeck (Corporate Associate Relations Manager at Delhaize Group in Belgium): “We are developing programmes to support employees who wish to quit smoking.” We also encourage and guide (both in Belgium and the USA) our employees to adopt healthy nutrition like, for example, eating five servings of fruits and vegetables per day. This is done in close collaboration with our business concepts. We also participate in and support sports events, etc.” For a healthy diet the standard recommendations are eating at least two pieces of fruit a day and breakfasting every morning. Our results clearly show that many employees fail to comply with these standards. Employers can, for example, make fruit available via a basket of fruit or as a dessert in the cafeteria, hang up posters that emphasize the importance of fruit (and other healthy food), and work on a balanced nutritional policy, etc. Finally, we would stress here the importance of proper alcohol and drugs policy.25 The four pillars of this are: 1) procedures for problematic use, 2) treatment, 3) regulation 4) information and education. Policy should be directed at the prevention, early identification and rectification of functional problems. Although it would seem that an employer does not have that much influence on people’s lifestyles – this falling rather within the employee’s private sphere – a whole range of measures can still be taken to promote a healthy lifestyle. A healthy lifestyle can lead in turn to fewer health complaints, higher working capacity, less stress and more energy, and thereby increase employee performance. Improving Work and Organisation features The results showed that 34% of the variance in Performance could be explained by the KPIs of Vitality (Stress, Working capacity, Life style and Energy). The rest of the variance in Performance is explained for a large part by all kinds of Work and Organisational features (W&O features), like empowerment, values & culture, change management, management, career, etc. It is precisely these variables that an organisation needs to work on first in order to increase its employees’ Vitality, Performance and Excellence (see also the VPE model in the methods section). Further information on measuring these features and their impact on Vitality, Performance and/or Excellence in your organisation can be obtained from the contact persons on the back flap of this white paper. 25

See also our white paper “Alcohol use of Belgian employees” (available in French and Dutch only), which can be downloaded from www.zebrazone.eu.

31

Country-specific differences in employee vitality

VII. REFERENCES Boles, M., Pelletier, B., & Lynch, W., (2004). The relationship between health risks and work productivity. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 46, 737-745. Bowne, D. W., Russel, M.L., Morgan, M.A., Optenberg, S., & Clarke, A. (1986). Reduced disability and health care costs in an industrial fitness program. Journal of occupational medicine, 26, 809-816. De Croon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., Blonk, R. W. B., Broersen, J. P. J., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2004). Stressful work, psychological job strain, and turnover: A 2-year prospective cohort study of truck drivers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 442-454. Goetzel, R. Z., Jacobson, B. H., Aldana, S. G., Vardell, K., & Yee, L. (1998). Health care costs of worksite health promotion participants and non-participants. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 40, 341-346. Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488. Leigh, J.P., Richardson, N., Beck, R., Ker, C., Harrington, H., Parcell, C. L., & Fries, J. F. (1992). Randomized controlled study of a retiree health promotion program: The Bank of America study. Archives of internal medicine, 152, 1201-1206. Loeppke, R. (2003). The business impact of health on health-related productivity. American occupational health conference. May 4. Mohler, C., Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. (2003). Emotional exhaustion, work relationships and health effects on organisational outcomes. Presented at the 19th annual conference of the Society of industrial and organisational psychology, Chicago, Illinois. Ozminkowski, R.J., Ling, D., Goetzel, R.Z., Bruno, J.A., Rutter, K.R., Isaac, F., & Wang, S. (2002). Long term impact of Johnson & Johnson’s Health & Wellness Program on health care utilization and expenditures. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 44, 21-29. Rosenfeld, O., Tenenbaum, G., Ruskin, H., & Halfon, S. (1989). The effect of physical training on objective and subjective measures of productivity and efficiency in industry. Ergonomics, 32, 1019-1028. Securex (2009). Absenteïsme in België 2008. Securex (2008). Het personeelsverloop in België 2007. Securex (2009). Het personeelsverloop in België 2008. Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Study 1 in Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E., (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success? Psychological bulletin, 131, 803-855. 32

Abstract Research has sufficiently shown that it is of high importance for an organisation to measure and to enhance employee vitality, as vital employees can contribute positively to the bottom line of the organisation. In this white paper, we investigated country-specific differences in employee vitality, comprising employee stress, working capacity, life style and energy. The sample was composed of 3017 employees from 8 different countries: Belgium, France, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the US, representative for the population in each country. The results of this study demonstrated that, in general, significant differences exist in vitality across countries. The Netherlands, Sweden, the US and Spain have the most vital employees, whereas Germany has the least vital employees. Belgium, the UK and France score somewhere in between. We also analyzed socio-demographic differences in Vitality. Furthermore, relative impact analyses show that employers – in order to enhance employee performance – should try to raise the energy levels and try to decrease the stress levels of their employees. This white paper contains practical implications of the results and quotes from HR directors, working in top multinational organisations, who were asked to give their opinion on international differences in vitality and its applications

Contact us Interested to perform a similar analysis specific for your sector or type of organisation? Triggered to develop an action plan focusing on increasing the vitality of your employees? These questions and more can be answered by our specialised team. In case of interest in more information or a personal contact; don’t hesitate to contact us: HR Research & Measurement +32 2 729 94 04 [email protected] Aniana Taelman Business Unit Director HR Research & Measurement +32 485 66 08 05 [email protected]

Jeroen Tondeleir Sales Manager +32 473 85 02 05 [email protected]

Do you want to know more about this study or would you like to analyse some variables in more detail? Contact: Helga Peeters HR Research Expert +32 477 63 64 28 [email protected] Visit our websites: www.securex.eu www.zebrazone.eu You may also subscribe to our newsletter. As such, you will automatically receive the Securex white papers. For this, go to: www.zebrazone.eu and click on newsletter.