No abstract

Leadership support has been identified as an essential component of successful workplace health promotion (WHP) programs. However, there is little research in this area and even less theoretical conceptualization on ways in which leadership support for WHP is related to improved employee wellbeing. In this paper, we developed and tested a model of leadership support for WHP and employee wellbeing outcomes using employer and employee data gathered from 71 South African organizations. A theoretical model based on social exchange theory was developed. It was hypothesized that perceptions of company commitment to health promotion mediates the relationship between leadership support, the provision of WHP facilities and employee wellbeing. A hierarchical structural equation modeling technique was used to test the model. We determined that leaders' support for WHP was important insofar as they also provided health promotion facilities to their employees. No direct relationship was found between leadership support alone and employee wellbeing.

Multiple claims and some empirical findings suggest that 'green' buildings should be healthier (psychologically and physically) and promote greater productivity than conventional buildings. The empirical evidence in this regard over the last decade or so has been inconclusive suggesting either that the studies are flawed or that there are specific aspects of green buildings that promote wellbeing and productivity and others that do not. This study looks at a longitudinal comparison of two groups; a group that moved into South Africa's first GreenStar-accredited building and a group that did not. Measures were taken before the move and six months later. Results demonstrated that the 'green' building did not produce significantly better physical or psychological wellbeing, or higher perceived productivity. These results are discussed in relation to suggestions for what design features to focus on that may produce significant results.

BACKGROUND: Based on improvements in indoor environmental quality claims are that 'green' buildings are healthier and promote greater productivity than conventional buildings. However, the empirical evidence over the last decade has been inconclusive, usually with flawed study designs. OBJECTIVE: This study explored whether a 'green' building leads to a healthier, more productive work environment. METHODS: A one-year, longitudinal comparison of two groups of employees of a large commercial bank; a group that moved into a GreenStar-accredited building and a group that stayed in a conventional building, was conducted. Measures of psychological wellbeing, physical wellbeing, productivity, and perceptions of the physical environment were taken before the move, six months later, and one year later. RESULTS: Results indicate that the 'green' building group had significantly increased self-reported productivity and physical wellbeing. The perceptions of the physical work environment indicate that respondents in the 'green' building group experienced significant air quality improvements (specifically, reduced stale air, better ventilation, improved air movement, reduced humidity, and conditions that were not too drafty) but perceived the lighting conditions as dimmer. CONCLUSION: Despite positive findings 'green' building rating tools require amendment to focus on those qualities that actually lead to improved wellbeing and productivity.

No abstract