Employee Well-Being Evaluation and Proposal of Activities to Increase the Level of Health’s Area—The Czech Case

Abstract

Well-being and its evaluation, is currently considered one of the key trends in the practice of companies in the world and in the Czech Republic. Research in the field of well-being confirms that there is a positive correlation between a company’s well-being and the company’s performance. Satisfied and healthy employees contribute to the prosperity of the company through their higher work productivity and efficiency, and indirectly, through reduced incapacity for work and presenteeism. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the employees’ well-being of a specific company in the Czech Republic and propose activities for increasing the level of the most problematic of five areas of employees’ well-being. The authors formulated two research questions and two hypotheses. Research questions were answered on the basis of the evaluation of an online questionnaire survey among 463 production staff of the company, hypotheses were statistically confirmed. The main results of this article include the identification of the most problematic area of well-being—the area of health—as well as the proposal of specific activities to improve the level of this area, the introduction which should achieve higher level of employees work productivity. The benefits of well-being show that companies should pay attention to it.

1. Introduction

Well-being is a concept, which is related to how a person sees his or her situation in life. It can specifically refer to physical health, but it is often applied to an overall feeling of physical, emotional, and spiritual health. Well-being includes aspects such as health, feelings of competence and purpose, connection and belonging to others, optimism, and financial status. Well-being is a subjective concept, i.e., what one person experiences as a state of well-being may still result in dissatisfaction and discomfort for others. Well-being has been determined to be a factor in how well and long people live, how engaged they are, how well they perform at work, or how productive they are, and their level of financial success (Ungvarsky 2019). When people’s well-being is suffering, their performance also suffers (Vitale 2018).

Although the issue of well-being is paid attention abroad and research has been going on for several decades, in the Czech environment, this area is researched only sporadically. To the best of authors’ knowledge, there are no research studies which would deal with the evaluation of well-being in the Czech Republic’s companies. Since in the Czech environment this area has not been explored yet, a research gap has been identified. Therefore, the authors decided to set the goal of the article as the evaluating not the respondent’s life as a whole or employees’ perceived level of psychosocial health and safety of the workplace only, but the level of five areas of well-being in a particular company in the Czech Republic. Therefore, the view of well-being as a concept of five key areas (career, social, financial, health, and community), which is described below, was chosen as a starting point for authors’ research.

Key outputs of selected articles and researches related to well-being, its five areas and measurement and the goal of the article are presented in the literature review. Next the research questions and hypotheses were formulated. The goal of the article will be met by evaluating the data obtained by the online questionnaire survey (thus answering the two research questions and two hypotheses). Based on the results obtained by descriptive statistics, according to the requirements of the company’s management, also to propose specific activities in the most problematic area of well-being of employees of the company that after the introduction of these activities there will be an increase in the engagement of employees and thus also the productivity of employees’ work, which is assessed by management as insufficient. Of course the relationships through hierarchical regressions or structural equation modelling could be analyzed, causal relationships tested, but the organization wanted to find out only the level of five areas of well-being, so a kind of status quo.

2. Literature Review

“Well-being is defined as the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy. But well-being at work is a much broader concept that happiness. For people in work the level of well-being is also related to how satisfied they are with their job and how the company deals with them and treats them, especially in the area of their health care” (Armstrong and Taylor 2020, p. 565). In terms of business operation, well-being is a tool supporting and increasing employee engagement and thus the performance and competitiveness of the company (Inceoglu et al. 2018).

“Well-being is a combination of our enthusiasm for what fulfills us and what we have the opportunity to do every day, our need to establish and live quality relationships, the need for security and stability of our finances, the level of our mental and physical health and overall physical condition and our belonging to the social environment in which we live” (Prothea 2014, p. 1).

Researchers have been investigating the conditions of a well-lived life since the middle of the last century. Recently, this issue has been addressed in much more detail, in collaboration with leading economists, psychologists, sociologists, physicians, and other recognized scientific capacities (Rath and Harter 2010). Based on long-term studies and research by people from more than 150 countries, the American research and consulting Gallup Company has identified five universal, interconnected, statistically significant areas, according to which people’s lives can be distinguished into well-lived or those we tend to survive.

Rath and Harter (2010) distinguish five essential areas of well-being: Career, social, financial, health, and community. Each individual area is assessed in terms of whether individuals in it are thriving and therefore have strong and constant well-being in the area, or struggling and have average or unstable well-being in the area, or whether they are suffering and have low and volatile well-being in the area. As we know from our own experience, our health will not improve in isolation, nor the meaning of our lives, our social contacts, our financial stability, nor the feeling of pride in the place where we live. All these areas interact with each other, affect each other and therefore affect our overall well-being (Prothea 2014; Rath and Harter 2014).

The first area of career is concerned with how we spend our time, and if we like what we do every day. In life, we need to do something meaningful that fulfills us, preferably every day. It does not matter if it is an area of work, school, family, or our hobbies; the important thing is that we see meaning in the activity and we are motivated to achieve our goals (Prothea 2014; Rath and Harter 2010). McKnight and Kashdan (2009) understand purpose as a cognitive process that defines life goals and provides personal meaning. They stress that devoting effort and making progress toward life goals provides a significant, renewable source of engagement and meaning.

The second social area, concerns with whether we have strong relationships and love in our lives. The quality of our relationships is extremely important for our health and overall well-being. We need to spend at least six hours interacting with each other every day to reduce stress and increase our well-being (Prothea 2014; Rath and Harter 2010). Social relations are one of the basic sociological categories. They are formed both as interpersonal relationships and as relationships between social groups. According to Baumeister et al. (2007) they are phenomenon that is characterized by great multiplicity; they are differentiated according to their economic, political, legal, and cultural content, they are created in situations of cooperation, cohesion, but also conflict and struggle.

The third area, financial area, represents how effectively we manage our economic lives to reduce stress and increase security. This includes managing our own economic situation, financial stability, and having enough money to allow us to do what we want every day (Prothea 2014; Rath and Harter 2010). Joo and Garman (1998) stated that financial well-being is the basic concept of financial health that can be measured through the level of tangible and nontangible aspects of financial security, the perception of financial stability, and the actual amount of financial resources.

The fourth area of health deals with whether we are in good health and have enough energy to do what we want on a daily basis. Overall mental and physical health and the amount of energy allow us to perform tasks on a daily basis. Thanks to regular physical activity and a healthy diet, we can reduce fatigue and be happier (Prothea 2014; Rath and Harter 2010). There is a two-way relationship between well-being and health: Health influences well-being and well-being itself influences health (Department of Health 2020). Sfeatcu et al. (2014) support this view. They argue that well-being is in relation to health and vice versa, it is a determinant of health, but also a result of it.

The fifth area of community is concern with how we engage in the area in which we live. It is about our belonging and involvement in life in the environment in which we live. Donations, volunteering, and educating others or caring for them all fulfill us with positive emotions and satisfy the need for belonging (Prothea 2014; Rath and Harter 2010). The notion of community is widely understood as something more than the sum of the parts, but reflects the ways in which people feel and are well together (Atkinson et al. 2020). These researchers point out that most frameworks for the term community well-being are based on the thesis that the primary interest is in how community aspects of life impact on individual subjective well-being.

When it comes to the work environment, as Inceoglu et al. (2018, p. 173) has stated “management behavior has a significant impact on employee behavior, work productivity and well-being”. However, extant theory and research on management behavior has predominantly focused on employee work productivity, treating employee well-being (typically measured as a job satisfaction) as a secondary outcome variable related to performance, rather than as an important outcome in and of itself. According to Hager (2018), “management should be understood as providing resistance resources for employees. “Executives will only succeed if they are capable to encourage and inspire their staff to the engagement which will then lead to adequate work productivity” (Hager 2018, p. 76). If executives do not have this managerial ability, they can learn it and then develop it, for example, through coaching (Frankovský et al. 2019, p. 2439). According to Jena et al. (2018) engaged employees have a positive attitude to work maintain good interpersonal relationship and exhibit high level of work productivity. According to Benitez et al. (2019), results showed that work groups with more positive distribution of well-being profiles, that is, with a greater proportion of employees with high levels of job satisfaction combined with low levels of burnout (emotional exhaustion and cynicism) and higher work productivity, significantly outperformed work groups with a less favorable internal distribution of well-being profiles. Celma et al. (2018) analyze the effectiveness of several factors, which influence employees’ well-being at work—job stress, job satisfaction, and trust in management. Practices which have been proved to be effective for enhancing the level of employee well-being are: Permanent and full-time contracts, employee health care, non-discrimination and non-harassment at work, good physical working conditions, and internal information and communication.

Since well-being is subjective and cannot be measured by any certain given procedures, it is often measured by either asking people to self-report how they feel about different aspects of their lives, or by observation of them for behavior that indicates aspects of well-being. For example, a company that is trying to improve the well-being of its employees can measure how productive the employees are, before the increase in their level of well-being in comparison with the state after it, which can occur after the introduction of a new activity, such as a contribution to cover the costs of physical activities of employees outside the workplace or other. Another way to measure could be to conduct an employee survey before and after the changes and survey the employees on what difference they feel between their past and current situation (Ungvarsky 2019).

Another tool that can be used as a measure of the well-being is “The Satisfaction with Life Scale” (SLWS). This is the most widespread, well known and validated instrument; however, it was developed to assess satisfaction with the respondent’s life as a whole. The scale does not assess satisfaction with life domains such as health or finances but allows subjects to integrate and weight these domains in whatever way they choose (Pavot and Diener 1993).

People want to work for employers and in teams which genuinely care about their well-being. People want to work for managers who support them—meaning not only as “workers” but as people who are, yes, human (Vitale 2018). Research demonstrates that companies which help their people improve or manage their well-being, of course, not in all five essential areas at once, but gradually first in one, usually in the most problematic area, then in the other, etc.; see much higher engagement of their employees, their higher work productivity, decreased levels of absenteeism, better customer loyalty, greater profitability, and last but not least, lower rates of employee turnover. Bearing all this in mind, it is evident that a corporate focus on employee well-being is crucial, and should be part of the personnel strategies of all companies (Buta International 2017).

The very interesting concept that can be mentioned in the connection with the well-being and working environment is psychosocial safety climate (PSC), (Xie et al. 2020). The PSC concept, first proposed by Dollard and Bakker (2010), is defined as employees’ shared perception of whether their organization values psychological health and safety-related policies, procedures, and behavioral practices. Dollard and Neser (2013) propose that PSC reflects the extent of management concern for the workers’ psychological health and is critical in determining national health and productivity differences. As an active organizational resource in the workplace, PSC can help senior managers to provide employees with other working resources to alleviate pressures in the work environment and promote the level of work input, thus increasing the effectiveness of the project and reducing psychological harm in the organization (Hall et al. 2010; Dollard and Bakker 2010; Bakker and Demerouti 2007). We can summarize that well-being is associated with numerous family-, work-, health-, or social-related items. Simply put, well-being includes aspects such as health, feelings of competence and purpose, connection to others, optimism, and financial status. It is important because people with a good sense of well-being tend to be happier and experience greater satisfaction with their situation and better motivation to continue doing well. Conversely, having a poor sense of well-being can limit a person’s ability to thrive and be productive (Ungvarsky 2019). Therefore, it is important to deal with measuring the level of well-being and if any of the area of well-being is insufficient, some activities need to be implemented to improve this area.

In the research, the authors focused mainly on evaluating the level of five areas of employees’ well-being in a specific company in the Czech Republic; specifically, it was a company that operates in the automotive industry and supplies the Czech market with a wide range of spare parts for cars, commercial vehicles and trucks. The company’s staff consists of production employees who use a wide range of tools, machines and technologies for their manual work, as well as specialists who participate in design, innovation and product development, and last but not least management, whose task is to manage the company so that the goals, given to the owner of the company, are met. This company was chosen because the authors of the article were approached by the company’s management to contribute their research to solving the productivity of production employees, the insufficient level of which may contribute to the problem of well-being. After finding out which of the five areas is the most problematic, the authors will present activities to increase the level of this area so as to increase overall well-being and by that also the productivity of employees of the given company. In this context, the authors formulated two research questions and two hypotheses:

(1) Will the health area outcome of the company under study be consistent with Gallup research results? The formulation of this research question is based on the statement that at least 53% of employees should be thriving in the area of health (Gallup 2020). The most important area that determines all remaining areas and overall well-being is, according to Gallup Company, the area of health and vice versa, and therefore its appropriate level should be ensured (Gallup 2020). Employees who have a better sense of well-being are more likely to show physical health, while those with a poor sense of well-being are much more likely to struggle with illnesses and/or with behaviors that might cause illness—smoking, drinking, addictive substances abuse, or overeating. People who feel healthy and have better sense of well-being are also more likely to be gainfully employed and to interact with their community in other ways, such as volunteering, and caring for others. and engaging in civic activities, i.e., voting (Ungvarsky 2019). Regarding the above statement that at least 53% of employees should be thriving in the area of health (Gallup 2020) two hypotheses were formulated—H1: More than 1/3 (i.e., 34%) of employees will thrive in the health area and H2: Less than 1/2 (i.e., 49%) of employees will thrive in the health area.

(2) Will the results of the company under study be in line with the results of Gallup research (2020), which claims that more than 65% of employees are thriving in at least one from five areas? The formulation of this research question is based on the results of a Gallup Company survey again, which states that at least 66% of people prosper in at least one of the five areas of well-being (Gallup 2020). Some of the aspects of well-being include a person’s energy level, his composure and calmness, engagement and connection with others, self-worth and self-esteem, feelings of competence and effectiveness, hopefulness for the future, and overall feelings of having purpose and happiness. The feeling that one’s aspects of life are in balance, also plays a role in well-being. It is very unlikely that a person will always have a sense of well-being in all these aspects and all the time. Nevertheless, working on the aspects that fall short will increase a person’s overall sense of well-being (Ungvarsky 2019).

3. Methods and Data

A survey was conducted to evaluate five essential elements of employees’ well-being in a specific company in the Czech Republic—the area of career, social, financial, health, and community.

Primary data were collected in June, 2020 through a quantitative survey based on a structured questionnaire (see below). This method was chosen for its advantages over the other options for addressing respondents. The advantages of this method are the ability to address a large number of respondents and, at the same time, address those who are not willing to provide a personal interview, as well as the elimination of the relationship between respondent and researcher, which may allow obtaining a relatively exact and objective opinion. However, the questions must be precise and comprehensible, so that they are clearly understood and do not require further explanation. Other advantages include, for example, low costs, high return, speed of answers, versatility, and greater sincerity of respondents than, for example, in personal interviews. On the contrary, the risks of this method include the fact that not everyone is connected to the Internet and also the susceptibility to technological problems (Nový and Surynek 2006).

The formulation of individual questions was verified by the Focus Group qualitative research method with the participation of 26 experts from practice (18 HR professionals and 8 first line managers), which lasted 4 h. These experts were chosen because they have competencies and experience in the field of personnel management and people management, are in contact with executives and were able to contribute with an expert view of the questionnaire. Focus Group members were interviewed whether the chosen method of online questionnaire survey is appropriate, they went through the questions of the questionnaire, whether the questions are well formulated, whether they understand the questions and whether the offered answering options are appropriate. Based on the outputs of the Focus Group, from the total of 50 questions, the wording was adjusted for two questions, so that the questions were clearer for the respondents and did not allow for their ambiguous understanding. The result of the Focus Group meeting was to finalize the questionnaire, which consisted of 5 main areas and 15 items, and which was validated by members of Focus Group—the experts commented on the extent to which individual questions and proposed answers describe the individual areas. The content validity was also evaluated using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR). CVR = [(E–(N/2))/(N/2)], where N—total number of experts and E—the number of experts who rated the object as essential. The content validity ratio (CVR) ranged between 0.85 and 1.00 for each area, ranging from 0.75 to 1.00 for each item. Therefore, the questionnaire is considered valid from a quantitative point of view in terms of the content. The final online questionnaire was then used to survey five essentials areas of employee’s well-being in a selected company.

In the cover letter, the respondents were informed of the purpose of the questionnaire survey, they were asked to complete the questionnaire, and were also provided the information of the possibility of receiving the final results of the survey. The questionnaire was based on a questionnaire from a leader in the field of well-being research, Gallup Company. This questionnaire is not publicly available, but can be purchased; for this reason, the exact wording of the whole questionnaire is not part of this article. The questionnaire included two identification questions (gender and age) and 50 questions concerning the subject of the survey (ten questions for each of the five areas, while some questions of the questionnaire were adjusted to reflect the specifics of the Czech Republic), where respondents chose only one option on a Likert scale 1 to 5 (1 strongly disagree, 2-3-4-5 strongly agree), or option from answers yes or no. Issues covered by the first area related to career, by the second area related to social, by the third area related to financial, by the fourth area related to health, and by the fifth area related to community. For example, for health, the questions were: (1) Do you have any health problems that prevent you from doing something that people your age can normally do? (2) My physical health is almost perfect. (3) When it comes to my physical appearance, I always feel good. (4) I often feel sad or depressed. (5) A doctor would say that I do my best for my health. (6) I have too much stress in my life. (7) I experience a lot of pain most days. (8) I exercise regularly to improve my health. (9) I eat a very healthy diet. (10) In the last week, I had a lot of energy every day. If in a specific area, e.g., health, employees scored 0–3 points, then they are suffering in this area, if they reached 4–6 points, then they are struggling in this area and if they achieved 7–10 points, then they are thriving in this area. Data obtained on the basis of Likert scaling were processed on the assumption that the individual items are evaluated on an ordinal scale and the scale as a whole on an interval scale (Chytrý and Kroufek 2017).

The population consisted of all (512) production staff of a selected company. Of the total of 512 questionnaires sent, 463 questionnaires were returned, with a return rate of 90.3%. The high return was reinforced by the fact that the top management, which was very interested in the return of the questionnaires and thus the high explanatory power of the interview, explained to employees in two personal meetings the importance of participating in this survey. So, the sample included 463 employees; for detailed structure of respondents, see

Table 1. Structure of respondents’ sample.

	Gender		Total Male and Female
Age	Male	Female
up to 25	32	28	60
25–38	70	39	109
39–55	103	72	175
56–74	62	57	119
	267	196
Total	263		463

Source: Own elaboration based on data from IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 (2020). (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA)

.

In the first phase of processing the obtained data through IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0, the authors focused on evaluating the employees’ well-being in selected areas based on identification question related to age; in the second phase the authors focused on evaluating the employees’ well-being in selected areas based on identification question related to gender.

4. Results and Discussion

In accordance with the objective of the article, the results are structured into five essentials areas of well-being—career, social, financial, health, and community. Because a questionnaire based on the Gallup Company questionnaire was used for the research, which it uses as identification data only gender and age, the individual areas of well-being were achieved by employees of the selected company evaluated according these two characteristics. The evaluation according to age is shown in

Table 2. Evaluation of individual areas of well-being according to the to the employees’ age.

Total Male and Female		Career	Social	Financial	Health	Community
Age	Number
Up to 25	60	struggling	thriving	suffering	thriving	struggling
25–38	109	thriving	struggling	struggling	thriving	struggling
39–55	175	thriving	struggling	thriving	suffering	thriving
56–74	119	struggling	struggling	thriving	suffering	thriving
Total	463	Overall evaluation of areas
		10	9	9	8	10

Source: Own elaboration based on data from IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 (2020). (IBM, Chicago, USA)

. The overall evaluation of each area could reach a maximum of 12 points, a minimum of 4 points (thriving in the area is rated by 3 points, struggling by 2 points and suffering by 1 point).

For statistical verification of assumptions in thriving in the area of health, a test was done, when n—number of respondent; m—number of respondents thriving in the area of health; p₀—relative frequency; level of significance: α = 0.05, when normal distribution value: uα = 1.96; u—test criterion for relative frequency test; H₀: p = p₀ assumption is no different from the reality; H1: p ≠ p₀ assumption is different from the reality.

$$u=\frac{\frac{m}{n}-p_0}{\sqrt{\frac{p_0\left(1-p_0\right)}{n}}}$$

(1)

|u| < u_0.05.

Hypothesis 1 (H1):

More than 1/3 (i.e., 34%) of employees of the selected company are thriving in the area of health.

$$u=\frac{\frac{169}{436}-0.34}{\sqrt{\frac{0.34\times 0.66}{463}}}=1.136,$$

(2)

|1.136| < 1.96.

It can be statistically confirmed that more than 34% of the employees of the selected company are thriving in the health area.

Hypothesis 2 (H2):

Less than ½ (i.e., 49%) of employees of the selected company are thriving in the health area.

$$u=\frac{\frac{169}{436}-0.49}{\sqrt{\frac{0.49\times 0.51}{463}}}=-4.4081,$$

(3)

|4.4081| > 1.96.

It can be statistically confirmed that, less than ½ (49%) of employees of the selected company are thriving in the health area.

The evaluation of individual areas of well-being achieved by respondents of the selected company by gender is shown in

Table 3. Evaluation of individual areas of well-being according to the to the employees’ gender.

All Age Groups		Career	Social	Financial	Health	Community
Gender	Number
Men	211	thriving	struggling	thriving	struggling	struggling
Women	252	thriving	thriving	struggling	struggling	thriving
Total	463	Overall evaluation of areas
		6	5	5	4	5

Source: Own elaboration based on data from IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 (2020). (IBM, Chicago, USA)

. The overall evaluation of each of the areas could reach a maximum of 6 points, at least 2 points (thriving in the area is rated by 3 points, struggling by 2 points and suffering by 1 point).

From the survey analysis results and statistical verification of assumptions of the thriving in the area of health we achieved the answer to the first research question (1) Will the health area outcome of the company under study be consistent with Gallup research results? that is from the perspective of age only 169 (36.5%) of employees are thriving in the health area, which is a negative output. Age groups 39–55 and 56–74 are even suffering in this area. Looking from a gender perspective, both men and women are struggling in this area, neither gender is thriving. Therefore, it can be stated that the results in the area of health do not correspond to the worldwide survey executed by Gallup Company, where at least 53% of employees should be thriving in the area of health (Gallup 2020). The second research question, which was (2) Will the results of the company under study be in line with the results of Gallup research (2020), which claims that more than 65% of employees are thriving in at least one from five areas? was confirmed. When looking at the age of all 463 employees (100%), all of them are thriving at least in one area; employees up to the age of 25 are thriving in the areas of social and health, employees aged 25–38 are thriving in the areas career and health, employees aged 39–55 are thriving in the areas career, financial and community and employees aged 57–74 are thriving in the areas financial and community. Looking at it from the gender view, all 463 employees (100%) are thriving at least in one area; men are thriving in the areas career and financial, women are thriving in the areas career, social, and community. Therefore, it can be stated that the results correspond to the worldwide survey executed by Gallup Company, where at least 66% of employees prosper in at least one of the five areas of well-being (Gallup 2020).

From the results of the survey (see Table 2.) from the point of view of the age of employees, it is clear that individual age groups in individual areas of well-being are thriving, suffering, or struggling, as can be assumed based on the knowledge of authors dealing with the behavior of different generations from the point of view of age (Delcampo et al. 2011; Štefko et al. 2019) and authors’ expectations based on their own experience, with the exception of the health area. For example, employees under the age of 25 are thriving in social area which can be explained by the fact that they do not yet have family commitments and related financial commitments, they have more room to address social relationships in their relationship networks. On the contrary they suffer in the financial area, but this is understandable as they are just beginning their working careers. They thrive in the area of health, which is predictable given their age. Employees aged 25–38 thrive in the area of career, as they have already made some progress in their careers and reached a certain position. They also thrive in the health area, which is, again, understandable given their age. The best are employees aged 39–55, who thrive in the area of career—they are in the most productive phase of their working career, in the area of finance, which is closely related to the area of career, and in the area of society, because they are already mature and aware of the need to get involved in the area in which they live, they also have more time for these activities due to the family situation and, in the case of donations, also financial resources. However, they suffer in the area of health, which is a negative result of the survey; they should struggle the hardest in this area. Employees aged 56–74 thrive in the area of finance, as they have already reached the peak of their careers and the financial reward of their work and in the area of society, which can be explained in the same way as in the age group 39–55 years. Employees aged 56–74 suffer in the area of health, which is not a very positive result. Apparently, given the age range of respondents, it cannot be assumed that they would thrive in the area of health, but suffer in it, rather they should struggle with it the worst.

From the results of the survey (see Table 3) from the perspective of employees’ gender, it is clear that individual gender in individual areas of well-being are again thriving, suffering, or struggling, as can be assumed based on the knowledge of authors dealing with the behavior of different generations from a gender perspective (Delcampo et al. 2011; Štefko et al. 2019) and authors’ expectations based on their own experience. For example, for women, thriving in a career area usually means satisfaction in the family, unlike men, for whom thriving in a career area usually means job satisfaction. In the field of social area men are struggling and women are thriving, which is understandable, because women are more focused on social relationships, communication, and interest in others. In the financial area, men are thriving and women are suffering, which is related to career area, where men devote much more time to the career and thus work which is usually more financially rewarding. Similarly, in the community area, where women are more interested in what is happening in the area in which they live, they are involved in volunteering, charity, etc. In the health area, since all age groups are included in the groups of respondents by gender, the fact that employees of both genders are struggling corresponds to reality.

The health area emerged as the worst evaluated on the basis of age and gender of employees in the researched company (the overall score in the field of health reached the lowest score in both cases), when ages 39–55 and 56–74 at this area are suffering.

Chronic stress has an undeniable influence on the origin and action of negative factors in mental and physical health. McEwen and Stellar (1993) represent the physiological consequences of chronic exposure which results from repeated or prolonged chronic stress in their model Allostatic load as “the wear and tear on the body”. Allostatic load is related to the amount of health-promoting and health-damaging behaviors, for example cigarette smoking, consumption of alcohol, poor diet, and physical inactivity (McEwen 1998).

Allostatic load can be reduced by structural (e.g., social environment, community, social support, cleaner and safer environments) and behavioral factors (physical health, lifestyle, avoiding alcohol or drug consumption and participating in physical activity etc.) (Schenk et al. 2017). Those protective factors include parental bonding, education, social support, healthy workplaces, a sense of meaning towards life and choices being made (Juster et al. 2010), and positive feelings in general (Schenk et al. 2017). Allostatic load differs by sex and age, and the social status of an individual. Reducing societal polarization, material deprivation, and psychological demands on health helps to manage allostatic load (Kristenson et al. 2004).

Even in these areas, help from the employer would be very important (e.g., providing psychological counseling, professional courses to increase qualifications, motivation to quit smoking, organizing physical activities for their employees).

According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), stress is a two-way process: It involves the production of stressors by the environment, and the response of an individual subjected to these stressors. This conception regarding stress led to the theory of cognitive appraisal. Here, too, there is room for employers, both in primary and secondary appraisal, to help their employees: The threatening tendency of the stress to the individual, and the assessment of resources required to minimize, tolerate, or eradicate the stressor (e.g., eliminating the monotony of work, ensuring a suitable working environment, psychological counseling, teambuilding, and extended leave).

A stress can be understood as an object of the mind or of thought as Hobfoll (1989) said. In his Conservation of Resources Theory (COR), the motivation that drives humans to both maintain their current resources and to pursue new resources is described. Job and COR have been studied through a meta-analyses conducted by Park et al. (2009). This study tested COR using all constructs involved in job control and burnout which included constructs of autonomy, authority, skill discretion, and decision latitude. Results indicate that the construct of job control, or the ability that one has to choose their actions from multiple options at their job, is related to depersonalization and personal accomplishment. This study stated that COR is related to burnout.

From a pathophysiological point of view, the burnout syndrome is the result of chronic stress and has all its attributes (Freudenberger and Richelson 1980). The first described symptoms focused significantly more on somatic feelings and difficulties, which came to the fore, and as is customary in all regions, among complaints of deteriorating general condition, they are presented earlier than symptoms of mental and interpersonal disorders. External stressful conditions are considered to be high requirements with low competencies, high commitment associated with low returns, monotonous work, low level of social support, and lack of time. It is possible for employers to reduce the long-term effects of these factors through their measures.

The authors summarize the activities mentioned above to address this negative situation, to the company management based on their request, their practical realization could, after a certain period of application, contribute to the improvement of the situation in the area of health and thus help the growth of employees work productivity. The following activities for the improvement of the area of health were proposed by the authors:

• Health screening (blood pressure, cholesterol level, sugar level).
• Online medical advice.
• Physiotherapy at workplace.
• Health massages at workplace.
• Above-standard health care for employees paid by the employer.
• Advice on healthy eating.
• Personalized healthy living programs.
• Healthy canteen and eatery options.
• Free fresh fruit at workplace.
• Refreshments at the workplace, including soft drinks.
• Drinking water at workplace.
• Contribution to medical devices, vitamins and medicines for employees.
• Gym, fitness room at the workplace (with appropriate sanitary equipment).
• Contribution to cover the costs of physical activities of employees outside the workplace.
• Organizing sports events for employees.
• Promotion of walking in the workplace (competitions using pedometers).
• Relaxation, exercise and rest areas or relaxation zones at workplace.
• Short stretching lessons led by a lecturer in the workplace.
• Providing bicycles for moving within short distances at large workplaces.
• Support for commuting to work by bike (bicycle storage, showers, etc.).
• Positioning tables and stations (for correct sitting at the computer, standing work).
• Proper workplace ergonomics.
• Stress management and stress reduction courses.
• Relaxation courses at the workplace.
• Psychological counseling for employees.
• Stop smoking support.
• Advices on alcohol and drug misuse.
• Vaccination of employees against influenza.
• Accident insurance for employees with an employer’s contribution.
• Group accident insurance for employees.
• Group health insurance for employees, etc.

5. Conclusions

This article evaluates the level of five areas of well-being in a specific company in the Czech Republic. The theoretical basis of this article is based on the foreign sources, because Czech literature dealing with this issue is very limited.

The research methodology was based on a positivist-objectivist approach, where authors used a questionnaire survey as the main quantitative method and qualitative research method, the Focus Group as the verification method.

The first step in solving the scientific problem was thorough a vast literature review, which resulted in the purpose of the article, that was to evaluate the level of well-being in the selected company based on the questionnaire of the Gallup Company, which has been modified to fit the conditions of the Czech Republic. The stated goal resulted in the formulation of two research questions and two hypotheses. Subsequently, in June 2020, a survey was conducted in the form of an online questionnaire survey based on a structured questionnaire (verified by the Focus Group method). The population included 512 employees of specific company, where the return was 90.3% (a total of 463 questionnaires were returned). The hypotheses were statistically confirmed. The results of the survey were processed and evaluated using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 software. Subsequently, during the discussion the results of the survey were analyzed and commented.

Elaborating the results of the questionnaire survey using descriptive statistics and statistical confirmation of hypotheses answered the two formulated research question in the following way. The research question (1) Will the health area outcome of the company under study be consistent with Gallup research results? was answered as following: From the view of age, only 169 (36.5%) of employees in the researched company are thriving in the health area; from the view of gender, both men and women are suffering in this area, not even one gender is thriving. The research question (2) Will the results of the company under study be in line with the results of Gallup research (2020), which claims that more than 65% of employees are thriving in at least one from five areas? was confirmed. From the view of age and gender, all 463 employees (100%) are thriving at least in one area. The answers to all questions with the exception of the area of health are in line with the expertise and authors’ expectations based on their own experience.

Based on the output of data processing and statistical confirmation of hypotheses, which showed that the health area reaches an insufficient level, activities to improve the level of this area were proposed. The company’s management decides which of the recommended activities it will apply and in what time horizon. If this area of employee well-being is to be improved, the company’s management should not delay the application of selected activities.

Before starting to apply the selected activities, the employee’s work productivity must be measured in the given company, e.g., by measuring the TFP—total factor productivity in conjunction with the EVA analysis. The identified level of their work productivity will then be compared with the level of work productivity, which will be determined after two years of application of selected activities in the company. By comparing both outputs, it will be possible to verify the correctness of selected and implemented activities to improve the health area and thus employee’s overall well-being (with a positive impact on their work performance).

Of course, the health of employees is not only associated with the environment of the organization, which would largely manage or correct their health. The predominant responsibility for the level of their health lies with the employees themselves: It is up to them how they take care of their health. However, the organization can offer employees a range of activities that can positively affect the health of its employees and thus contribute to its better level, which in turn leads to benefits for both employees and the organization.

From a practical implications point of view, the article should help stimulate the interest of companies in the well-being of their employees, as it is also in the interest of the company itself to deal with well-being, which, according to a survey by Deloitte Trends in human capital in the Czech Republic and the world, in which in 2018 participated more than 11,000 respondents, business and leaders in the field of human resources from 124 countries (74 respondents in the Czech Republic), well-being, i.e., personal well-being, is one of the most important trends that will affect the world of work in the coming period (Delloite 2018). In addition, the importance of well-being can be seen in the results of research entitled FTSE 100 Public Reporting on Employee Wellness & Engagement conducted by BUPA UK among 100 companies, which employ a total of 6.3 million employees worldwide, which shows that there is clearly positive correlation between the degree of organizational well-being and the financial performance of the organization (My Refresh 2018). Not only these existing positives of well-being are based on the need for personal well-being of employees that companies should pay attention to.

From a theoretical contribution point of view, the article should contribute to the discussion about employee’s well-being, which is, so far, neglected in the Czech environment, not only Czech literature dealing with this issue is very limited, but even real practice in this area is insufficient.

Generalizing the findings of this article must be taken with care, as the findings are based only on one company in the Czech Republic operating in one specific area—automotive industry.

The limiting conditions of the survey can be seen in fact that the research was executed only in one company and neither the age groups of the employees nor the gender were taken into account when formulating the activities, but that the activities were formulated in aggregate for all employees. However, this situation was based on the decision of the company’s management, which considered the introduction of activities differentiated according to the age and gender of employees to be too complicated. Other limitations are that the relationships between individual areas were not analyzed, causal relationships were not tested and independent variables were not analyzed all together with the dependent variable. The limitations of this survey provides avenues for further research.

The authors see another direction of possible research in that activities should be designed not only for the health area, but also financial area, structured according to age and gender. The relationships between individual areas could be analyzed through hierarchical regression or structural equation modelling. The causal relationships could be tested in order to validate the findings. Also, independent variables could be analyzed all together with the dependent variable.