Universidad del Zulia (LUZ)
Revista Venezolana de Gerencia (RVG)
Año 30 No. 111, 2025, 1648-1662
Julio-Septiembre
ISSN 1315-9984 / e-ISSN 2477-9423
Como citar: Mascareño, G. E., Lara, I. A., y Lara, J. R. (2025). Synergistic Effect of Workplace Well-Being and Business Growth on Productivity. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 30(111), 1648-1662. https://doi.org/10.52080/rvgluz.30.111.25
Synergistic effect of workplace well-being and business growth on productivity
Mascareño Beltran, Gustavo Emiliano*
Lara Manjarrez, Itzel Alejandra**
Lara Salazar, José Rosario***
Abstract
This study explored the synergistic effect of workplace well-being and business growth on the productivity of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in the trade sector in Sinaloa, Mexico. The Workplace-Business Synergy Theory (WBST) was proposed and validated, proposing that the positive interaction between workplace well-being and business growth creates a multiplicative impact on productivity. The study aimed to analyze the relationships between these variables and validate the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX) as a measurement tool. A quantitative study was conducted by administering surveys to SME employees, and the data were analyzed using Pearson correlations, linear regressions, and structural equation modeling. The results revealed a strong and significant relationship between workplace well-being and productivity (r = 0.849, p < 0.001), as well as between business growth and productivity (r = 0.756, p < 0.001). Furthermore, business growth was found to mediate the relationship between workplace well-being and productivity, supporting the WBST. The WBSX demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96) and strong confirmatory factor validity. The findings suggest that fostering workplace well-being and business growth can lead to significant productivity gains. In conclusion, the study confirms that the strategic interaction between workplace well-being and business growth generates a synergistic effect that significantly enhances productivity. This relationship, supported by robust statistical evidence, highlights the importance of considering both variables jointly to understand and improve organizational performance in SMEs.
Keywords: Workplace well-being, Business growth, Productivity, Sustainable development.
Recibido: 03.02.25 Aceptado: 29.04.25
* Master in Business and Enterprise Development M.B.A., Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Graduate Program, Faculty of Accounting and Management, Mexican. Email: 11312041.mascareno@ms.uas.edu.mx, ORCID: http://orcid.org/0009-0008-7303-9121 .
** Ph.D. in Administrative Sciences (Management), Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Graduate Program, Faculty of Accounting and Management, Mexican. Email: itzellara@fca.uas.edu.mx, ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0036-2610 .
*** Ph.D. in Administrative Sciences (Management), Coordinator of the Doctoral Program, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Faculty of Accounting and Management, Mexican. Email: joselarasalazar@uas.edu.mx, ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7174-4854 .
Efecto sinérgico del bienestar laboral y el crecimiento empresarial en la productividad
Resumen
Este estudio exploró el efecto sinérgico del bienestar laboral y el crecimiento empresarial en la productividad de las Pequeñas y Medianas Empresas (PYMEs) del sector comercial en Sinaloa, México. Se propuso y validó la Teoría de la Sinergia Empresa-Trabajo (WBST, por sus siglas en inglés). El objetivo fue analizar las relaciones entre estas variables y validar el Índice de Sinergia Empresa-Trabajo (WBSX) como herramienta de medición. Se llevó a cabo un estudio cuantitativo mediante la aplicación de encuestas a empleados de PYMEs, y los datos fueron analizados utilizando correlaciones de Pearson, regresiones lineales y modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Los resultados revelaron una relación fuerte y significativa entre el bienestar en el trabajo y la productividad (r = 0.849, p < 0.001), así como entre el crecimiento empresarial y la productividad (r = 0.756, p < 0.001). Además, se encontró que el crecimiento empresarial medió la relación entre el bienestar laboral y la productividad, respaldando la WBST. El WBSX mostró una excelente consistencia interna (alfa de Cronbach = 0.96) y una sólida validez factorial confirmatoria. En conclusión, el estudio confirma que la interacción estratégica entre el bienestar laboral y el crecimiento empresarial genera un efecto sinérgico que mejora significativamente la productividad. Esta relación, respaldada por evidencia estadística robusta, resalta la importancia de considerar ambas variables de forma conjunta para comprender y optimizar el desempeño organizacional en las PYMEs.
Palabras clave: bienestar laboral; crecimiento empresarial; productividad, desarrollo sostenible.
1. Introduction
Workplace well-being and business growth are critical factors influencing organizational productivity. In today’s highly competitive and rapidly evolving market landscape, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face the challenge of achieving sustainable growth while maintaining high levels of employee satisfaction (Oleas & Sánchez, 2024).
From a scientific perspective, previous studies have examined workplace well-being and business growth as independent variables affecting productivity. However, there is a gap in the literature regarding the synergistic interaction between these two factors and how it can enhance business performance. Some researchers argue that rapid growth may compromise workplace well-being due to increased organizational pressure and structural changes, while others suggest that prioritizing well-being could limit a company's ability to expand (Hinojoza-Montañez, 2023).
This study explores how workplace well-being and business growth interact synergistically to positively influence productivity. The relevance of this research lies in its contribution to the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8.5, which promotes full and productive employment and decent work for all. Moreover, within the context of SMEs in Sinaloa, Mexico, this study provides valuable insights for companies striving to expand without sacrificing employee well-being (International Labour Office, 2015).
To test this hypothesis, the Workplace-Business Synergy Theory (WBST) is proposed, grounded in the development and validation of the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX) as a comprehensive measure of occupational well-being.
This article is structured as follows: first, a theoretical perspective on workplace well-being and business growth is presented, including the development of the proposed Workplace-Business Synergy Theory (WBST). Next, the methodology section outlines the procedures used to validate the index and analyze the synergistic effect. The results are then presented and discussed in relation to the proposed hypotheses. Finally, the article concludes with the main findings and their implications, as well as suggestions for future research.
2. Workplace Well-Being and business growth: a theoretical perspective
This section delves into existing theories on workplace well-being, business growth, and productivity, integrating this knowledge to develop the Workplace-Business Synergy Theory (WBST). This theory aims to explain how the interaction between workplace well-being and business growth generates a synergistic effect that enhances productivity in SMEs, particularly in emerging economies.
2.1. Workplace well-being
Workplace well-being is understood as a multidimensional construct that encompasses the physical, psychological, and social conditions within the work environment that influence employees’ overall quality of life (Warr, 1990). This concept goes beyond the mere prevention of occupational risks, aligning with the definition of health established by the World Health Organization (1986), which describes it as a complete state of physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease. From this perspective, workplace well-being implies that organizations must create conditions that are not only safe, but also supportive of motivation, emotional balance, and professional growth.
Within the framework of workplace well-being, job satisfaction emerges as a central component. Defined by Locke (1976), as a positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or work experiences, it has been consistently linked to greater motivation and employee engagement.
Various theories have addressed workplace well-being. Maslow (1942) Hierarchy of Needs Theory proposes that organizations should consider human needs to promote employee well-being. Similarly, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959) distinguishes between hygiene factors and motivational factors that influence job satisfaction. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) suggests that the balance between job demands, and available resources affects work-related stress and employee engagement.
Empirical research supports a positive relationship between workplace well-being and productivity. (Harter et al., 2003, p. 200) found that high levels of job satisfaction and employee engagement are associated with better financial and quality outcomes. Likewise, Judge and Thoresen (2001) conducted a meta-analysis, revealing a significant correlation between job satisfaction and job performance. Additionally, Rhoades and Eisenberger et al., (2001) highlighted that perceived organizational support enhances motivation and reduces turnover, thereby improving productivity.
2.2. Business Growth
Is a key objective for SMEs, yet it presents challenges that can impact organizational dynamics and workplace well-being (Penrose, 1959). Business growth entails expanding the size and scope of a company through market expansion, product diversification, and enhanced internal capabilities (Delmar et al., 2003). The Greiner Growth Model (1998) proposes that businesses undergo evolutionary and revolutionary phases, encountering crises that necessitate structural and leadership adjustments. Similarly, Adizes’ Organizational Life Cycle Theory (1979) outlines stages from inception to decline, identifying specific challenges that influence strategy and management in each phase.
The Resource-Based View (RBV) Theory (Barney, 1991) suggests that businesses achieve growth by developing and leveraging valuable, rare, and inimitable resources, including human capital.
2.3. Synergy and the WBST Framework
The concept of synergy, as defined by Ansoff 1(965), implies that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In this context, the interaction between workplace well-being and business growth may generate superior organizational outcomes. Gelade & Ivery (2003) found that HR practices promoting workplace well-being correlate with higher performance in growing firms. Likewise, Agha et al. (2011), suggest that employee satisfaction enhances organizational adaptability and growth capacity.
Addressing this gap, the Workplace-Business Synergy Theory (WBST) is introduced to explain how the interaction between workplace well-being and business growth creates a synergistic effect on productivity. This theory posits that organizations investing in employee well-being during growth phases can not only mitigate work-related stress but also enhance productivity.
Business growth offers opportunities to improve workplace well-being, such as career advancement, salary increases, and employee recognition. Based on the Workplace-Business Synergy Theory (WBST), the following research hypotheses were formulated to examine the relationships among the key variables in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs):
H1: There is a positive relationship between workplace well-being and productivity in SMEs.
H2: There is a positive relationship between business growth and productivity in SMEs.
H3: Workplace well-being moderates the relationship between business growth and productivity, amplifying its effect.
The WBST conceptual model integrates these key variables, identifying workplace well-being and business growth as independent variables, while productivity serves as the dependent variable. It is proposed that workplace well-being moderates the relationship between business growth and productivity.
Theoretical Foundations of WBST builds upon Blau´s (1964), Social Exchange Theory, which posits that employees who perceive organizational support and well-being reciprocate with increased commitment and effort, improving productivity. Additionally, Hobfoll (1989), Conservation of Resources Theory suggests that workplace well-being provides employees with the necessary resources to navigate organizational growth, thereby reducing stress and increasing efficiency. Furthermore, Barney (1991), Resource-Based View (RBV) Theory aligns with WBST by emphasizing that motivated and satisfied human capital contributes significantly to business growth and performance.
WBST contributes to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8.5, which seeks to promote full and productive employment and decent work for all (United Nations, 2015). By fostering workplace well-being and sustainable business growth, organizations can enhance productivity while contributing to economic and social development.
3. Methodology aspects
The following section will detail the methodological process used to explore the synergistic effect of labor welfare and business growth on the productivity of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the commercial sector in Sinaloa, Mexico.
3.1 Research approach and data treatment
This study adopted a quantitative, cross-sectional design to analyze the synergistic effect of workplace well-being and business growth on the productivity of SMEs in Sinaloa, Mexico. A random sample of 417 employees from over 50 growth-stage companies in the commerce sector was selected using stratified sampling based on company size and location. Eligible firms employed between 10 and 250 people and reported at least a 10% sales increase over the past three years. Participants were adults actively working at the time of the study.
Data was collected using the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX), a self-administered instrument that measures perceptions of workplace well-being, business growth, and productivity on a five-point Likert scale. The instrument, validated in a pilot study (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96), was distributed digitally via local business chambers. Anonymity and informed consent were ensured throughout the process.
Statistical analysis was conducted entirely in Python, employing libraries such as pandas, NumPy, SciPy, and statsmodels for data processing, and seaborn for visualizations. Techniques included reliability analysis, Pearson’s correlations, linear regressions, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, structural equation modeling (SEM), and the Sobel test for mediation effects. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used.
This methodological approach combined statistical rigor and reproducibility to explore the dynamics between workplace well-being, business growth, and productivity in Mexican SMEs.
3.2 Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX)
The Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX) is an assessment instrument designed to measure employees’ perceptions across three key dimensions: Workplace Well-Being, Business Growth, and Productivity. Each dimension consists of several items that evaluate specific aspects, supported by theories and relevant literature in the fields of administration, organizational psychology, and human resource management.
The Workplace Well-Being dimension focuses on work environment, available resources, equity, and opportunities for professional development and growth. Together, these items provide a comprehensive perspective on workplace well-being, encompassing health and safety, fair treatment, and opportunities for professional advancement.
The second dimension, Business Growth, assesses employees’ perceptions of the company’s development and its impact on job stability and opportunities within the organization. The items in this dimension capture employees’ perceptions of company stability, expansion, and their broader social and environmental commitments.
Finally, the Productivity dimension evaluates employees’ perceptions of their work performance and how workplace well-being influences productivity. A key item in this category is “I feel productive in my work most of the time”, which is based on Schunk (1991), concept of self-efficacy, asserting that employees’ perception of productivity is linked to their self-efficacy and goal achievement. Another significant item, “I consider that workplace well-being influences my productivity”, is supported by the research of Bakker & Demerouti (2007), who demonstrated that better workplace well-being is closely associated with higher productivity levels. This dimension provides insight into how work environment, recognition, and access to resources influence employees’ self-perception of productivity and actual performance.
The WBSX serves as a comprehensive tool that enables organizations to gain valuable insights into the factors affecting employee well-being, perceptions of business growth, and their impact on productivity. The instrument is rooted in a robust body of scientific literature, allowing it to effectively capture the synergy between workplace well-being, organizational growth, and productivity levels within a company.
The theoretical model proposed in this study is based on the interrelationship between three latent factors: Workplace Well-Being, Business Growth, and Productivity. Each of these factors comprises multiple items that capture different dimensions of work and business experience, as illustrated in Diagram 1.
Diagram 1
Proposed Relationship Model Between Workplace Well-Being, Business Growth, and Productivity in the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX)
Note: This model represents the theoretical framework of the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX), developed by the authors as part of the theory proposed in this study. Source. Data derived from the study conducted by the authors (2025).
The Workplace Well-Being factor consists of seven items (IT1, IT2, IT3, IT5, IT7, IT8, IT20)1, which evaluate key aspects such as job satisfaction, job stability, and perception of labor rights. This model proposes that higher workplace well-being positively influences employee motivation and engagement, ultimately leading to higher productivity.
The Business Growth factor includes four items (IT4, IT18, IT21, IT24)2, that assess employees’ perceptions of the company’s expansion and development. Business growth is conceptualized not only as an indicator of financial success but also as a determinant of employee well-being, as it can provide greater opportunities for professional development.
The Productivity factor is composed of five items (IT25, IT26, IT27, IT28, IT31)3, which measure the effectiveness and efficiency of employees’ work performance. The model suggests that higher productivity is linked to a positive work environment and sustainable business growth.
The accompanying diagram illustrates the proposed relationships between these latent factors, emphasizing how workplace well-being can drive business growth, which, in turn, enhances productivity. The validation of this model through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and other statistical tests provided a deeper understanding of the dynamics between these variables within the organizational context.
4. Workplace well-being, business growth, and productivity relationship from a synergistic perspective
The reliability of the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX) was established through the calculation of Cronbach’s alpha, which yielded a coefficient of 0.96. This result exceeds the widely accepted threshold of 0.90 for robust internal consistency, confirming that the items effectively capture the multidimensional construct of workplace well-being, business growth, and productivity in a coherent and reliable manner.
Table 1
Reliability Analysis of the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX)
|
Item |
Alfa de Cronbach |
Description |
|
Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX) |
0.96 |
Internal consistency of items related to workplace well-being, business growth, and productivity. |
Note: This table presents the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient calculated for the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX), yielding a value of 0.96, which indicates excellent internal consistency. Source. Data derived from the study conducted by the authors (2025).
Correlation analyses revealed strong and statistically significant associations among the three latent variables. For instance, IT23 (“In general, I am satisfied working in this company”) exhibited a high correlation with IT31 (“The recognition I receive for my work motivates my productivity”) (r = 0.69), indicating a powerful link between job satisfaction and recognition-driven productivity. Furthermore, moderate associations were observed between IT8 (“I can maintain a healthy work-life balance”) and multiple productivity-related items (r = 0.42–0.52), underscoring the relevance of work-life balance in shaping performance.
Items pertaining to business growth, such as IT1 (“The growth of the company has generated more employment opportunities”), also demonstrated positive correlations with productivity indicators like IT25 (“I feel productive in my job most of the time”), suggesting that perceptions of organizational expansion can bolster individual productivity. These relationships are visually illustrated in the heatmap presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Mapa de Calor de Cargas Factoriales del AFE (IGCO) en Escala de Grises
Note: This heatmap presents the correlations between the items of the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX) across its three main variables: Business Growth, Workplace Well-Being, and Productivity. Correlation values are represented on a grayscale color scale, where lighter shades indicate lower correlations, and darker shades represent higher correlations. This figure was generated using data collected during the study, providing a visual representation of the consistency and relationships between the items and the sections of the index. Source. Data derived from the study conducted by the authors (2025).
To validate the factorial structure of the WBSX, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure yielded an outstanding value of 0.922, indicating high sampling adequacy, while Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was statistically significant (p < 0.001), confirming the suitability of the data for factor analysis. The extraction process revealed two primary factors, cumulatively explaining 51.9% of the total variance. Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) corroborated these findings: items such as IT2, IT3 (Workplace Well-Being), IT21, IT24 (Business Growth), and IT28, IT31 (Productivity) exhibited factor loadings above 1.0, indicating strong alignment with their respective theoretical constructs. Table 3 presents detailed loadings, standard errors, and significance values.
Table 3
Factor Loadings of the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX) Items
|
Item |
Relationship |
Factor |
Estimate |
Std. Err. |
z-value |
p-value |
|
IT1 |
~ |
Workplace Well-Being |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
IT2 |
~ |
Workplace Well-Being |
1.21029 |
0.07964 |
15.19619 |
0 |
|
IT3 |
~ |
Workplace Well-Being |
1.32739 |
0.09417 |
14.09529 |
0 |
|
IT5 |
~ |
Workplace Well-Being |
0.8862 |
0.07779 |
11.39274 |
0 |
|
IT7 |
~ |
Workplace Well-Being |
1.32287 |
0.11825 |
11.18707 |
0 |
|
IT8 |
~ |
Workplace Well-Being |
0.72281 |
0.07421 |
9.740619 |
0 |
|
IT20 |
~ |
Workplace Well-Being |
0.85866 |
0.077 |
11.15087 |
0 |
|
IT4 |
~ |
Business Growth |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
IT18 |
~ |
Business Growth |
0.81262 |
0.06187 |
13.13423 |
0 |
|
IT21 |
~ |
Business Growth |
1.07837 |
0.07469 |
14.43867 |
0 |
|
IT24 |
~ |
Business Growth |
1.20172 |
0.07109 |
16.90363 |
0 |
|
IT25 |
~ |
Productivity |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
IT26 |
~ |
Productivity |
0.67503 |
0.06377 |
10.58552 |
0 |
|
IT27 |
~ |
Productivity |
0.69845 |
0.0652 |
10.71329 |
0 |
|
IT28 |
~ |
Productivity |
1.40152 |
0.09905 |
14.14924 |
0 |
|
IT31 |
~ |
Productivity |
1.39154 |
0.10903 |
12.76301 |
0 |
Note: This table presents the factor loadings of the items in the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX), showing their relationships with the latent factors Workplace Well-Being, Business Gowth, and Productivity. The table includes standardized estimates, standard errors, z-values, and p-values, demonstrating the strength and significance of each item’s contribution to its respective factor. Factor loadings greater than 0.70 indicate a strong association with the underlying construct, supporting the validity of the measurement model. Source. Data derived from the study conducted by the authors (2025).
The structural covariances between the latent constructs were statistically significant and meaningful: 0.549 between Workplace Well-Being and Business Growth, 0.418 between Productivity and Workplace Well-Being, and 0.495 between Productivity and Business Growth (Table 4). These relationships reinforce the theoretical proposition of synergy and mutual reinforcement among the constructs. Moreover, the variance estimates (Table 5) for each item were significant (p < 0.001), affirming their contribution to the stability and discriminant validity of the instrument.
Table 4
Covariances Between Latent Factors in the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX)
|
Factor 1 |
Factor 2 |
Estimate |
Std. Err. |
z-value |
p-value |
|
Workplace Well-Being |
Workplace Well-Being |
0.55073 |
0.0741 |
7.42917 |
0 |
|
Business Growth |
Business Growth |
0.68386 |
0.0862 |
7.93633 |
0 |
|
Business Growth |
Workplace Well-Being |
0.54869 |
0.0594 |
9.24355 |
0 |
|
Productivity |
Productivity |
0.37412 |
0.0489 |
7.64698 |
0 |
|
Productivity |
Workplace Well-Being |
0.41764 |
0.0454 |
9.20912 |
0 |
|
Productivity |
Business Growth |
0.4948 |
0.0514 |
9.63103 |
0 |
Note: This table presents the covariances between the latent factors of the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX), including Workplace Well-Being, Business Growth, and Productivity. The estimates reflect the degree of association between these constructs, with higher values indicating stronger relationships. The table also includes standard errors, z-values, and p-values, ensuring statistical significance. All reported covariances are statistically significant (p < 0.001), supporting the interconnected nature of the three dimensions in the proposed theoretical model. Source. Data derived from the study conducted by the authors (2025).
Table 5
Variance of the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX) Items
|
Item |
Estimate |
Std. Err. |
z-value |
p-value |
|
IT1 |
0.69026 |
0.05176 |
13.335 |
0 |
|
IT18 |
0.51902 |
0.03879 |
13.381 |
0 |
|
IT2 |
0.27716 |
0.02691 |
10.299 |
0 |
|
IT20 |
0.71976 |
0.05269 |
13.662 |
0 |
|
IT21 |
0.60654 |
0.04729 |
12.825 |
0 |
|
IT24 |
0.24262 |
0.02699 |
8.9899 |
0 |
|
IT25 |
0.43279 |
0.03267 |
13.247 |
0 |
|
IT26 |
0.38513 |
0.02776 |
13.876 |
0 |
|
IT27 |
0.39741 |
0.02869 |
13.853 |
0 |
|
IT28 |
0.54427 |
0.04388 |
12.403 |
0 |
|
IT3 |
0.60289 |
0.04949 |
12.182 |
0 |
|
IT31 |
0.85746 |
0.06458 |
13.278 |
0 |
|
IT4 |
0.72092 |
0.05427 |
13.283 |
0 |
|
IT5 |
0.71093 |
0.05227 |
13.6 |
0 |
|
IT7 |
1.68926 |
0.12373 |
13.653 |
0 |
|
IT8 |
0.78397 |
0.05626 |
13.935 |
0 |
Note: This table presents the variance estimates for the items in the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX), providing insights into the stability and reliability of the measurement model. The variance values indicate the extent to which each item varies within its respective factors, with higher values suggesting greater dispersion. The table includes standard errors, z-values, and p-values, confirming the statistical significance of the variance estimates (p < 0.001). These results contribute to the validation of the model, ensuring that the items effectively capture the constructions of Workplace Well-Being, Business Growth, and Productivity. Source. Data derived from the study conducted by the authors (2025).
Regarding hypothesis testing, H1 posited a positive and significant relationship between workplace well-being and productivity. The Pearson correlation (r = 0.849, p < 0.001) and linear regression (R² = 0.721) confirmed this strong and predictive relationship. Similarly, H2, which examined the link between business growth and productivity, was supported by a correlation coefficient of r = 0.756 (p < 0.001) and a regression R² of 0.571.
To test H3, which hypothesized that business growth mediates the relationship between workplace well-being and productivity, a path analysis was conducted. The standardized path coefficients were all significant: from well-being to business growth (coef. = 1.026, p < 0.001), from business growth to productivity (coef. = 0.130, p < 0.001), and from well-being to productivity (coef. = 0.646, p < 0.001). The Sobel test confirmed this mediating effect (indirect effect = 0.5713, z = 18.40, p < 0.001), establishing business growth as a significant transmission mechanism for enhancing productivity through employee well-being.
Complementing these analyses, a multiple linear regression explored the joint and interactive effects of workplace well-being and business growth. The model yielded an R² of 0.660. While both workplace well-being (coef. = 0.2629, p = 0.054) and business growth (coef. = 0.2286, p = 0.046) demonstrated significant contributions, the interaction term (coef. = 0.0331, p = 0.266) was not statistically significant. This suggests that while both predictors independently contribute to productivity, their interaction may not amplify the effect under the current model structure. Diagnostic tests confirmed the model’s validity: the Durbin-Watson statistic (2.081) indicated no autocorrelation, and the Jarque-Bera test (p = 0.027) showed slight but acceptable deviation from normality.
The WBSX fills a critical gap in the literature by integrating workplace well-being, business growth, and productivity into a unified measurement model. Unlike widely used instruments such as the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1997), the Gallup Workplace Well-Being Index (Harter et al., 2003), or the Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2002), which assess these dimensions separately, the WBSX captures their interdependence. Its validation in the context of SMEs adds empirical depth to existing organizational theories.
The findings also reinforce existing models, such as the Job Demands-Resources Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), and Human Capital Theory (Becker, 1993), by showing that employee well-being not only influences performance directly but also indirectly through business growth. This mediation effect highlights the importance of aligning organizational development strategies with human-centric approaches. For instance, the correlation between IT23 (overall satisfaction) and IT31 (motivation via recognition) resonates with Herzberg’s theory, emphasizing intrinsic motivators like recognition and achievement as drivers of performance.
In sum, this study demonstrates that fostering workplace well-being and enabling business growth can generate significant and measurable gains in productivity. Organizations particularly SMEs can leverage these insights to design integrated strategies that go beyond traditional HR policies and address systemic, growth-oriented improvements. Future research should further investigate the longitudinal dynamics of this synergy and explore its applicability in other sectors or cultural contexts to solidify the generalizability of the Workplace-Business Synergy Theory.
5. Conclusions
This study explored the synergistic effect of workplace well-being and business growth on the productivity of SMEs in the trade sector in Sinaloa, Mexico, validating the Workplace-Business Synergy Theory (WBST).
The first objective was to analyze the relationship between workplace well-being and productivity (H1). The results confirm a positive and significant relationship between these variables, indicating that employees who experience greater workplace well-being tend to be more productive.
The second objective focused on examining the relationship between business growth and productivity (H2). The findings reveal that employees’ perception of business growth is also positively related to productivity, suggesting that opportunities for company development and expansion influence job performance.
The third objective sought to determine whether workplace well-being positively moderates the relationship between business growth and productivity (H3). Although the analyses indicate that business growth mediates the relationship between workplace well-being and productivity, the direct interaction between workplace well-being and business growth was not significant in the multiple linear regression model. Therefore, this objective was partially met, suggesting that business growth acts more as a mediator than as a moderator in this relationship.
The validation of the Workplace-Business Synergy Index (WBSX) was successful, obtaining Cronbach’s alpha of 0.96, demonstrating its reliability and internal consistency. The exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses support the structure of the instrument, confirming that it effectively measures workplace well-being, business growth, and productivity.
These findings not only validate the theoretical model of the Workplace-Business Synergy Theory (WBST) but also offer practical guidance for organizational decision-makers. The strong connections identified between workplace well-being, business growth, and productivity suggest that companies particularly SMEs can enhance performance by adopting integrated strategies that simultaneously address employee satisfaction and organizational development. By understanding how well-being initiatives indirectly foster productivity through perceived business growth, managers can implement targeted policies that align human capital development with sustainable growth goals.
We propose that future research incorporates additional variables such as leadership style, organizational culture, and socioeconomic factors that may influence these relationships. Additionally, longitudinal studies would allow researchers to analyze how these relationships evolve over time and establish stronger causal links.
Despite its limitations, this study provides substantial evidence supporting the interconnection between workplace well-being, business growth, and productivity, largely validating Workplace-Business Synergy Theory (WBST). Organizations can benefit from implementing strategies that promote workplace well-being and facilitate business growth, which in turn may enhance productivity and competitiveness in the market.
Finally, this study contributes to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8.5, which seeks to promote full and productive employment and decent work for all. By fostering work environments that integrate workplace well-being with business growth strategies, organizations not only enhance their performance, but also contribute to sustainable development and societal well-being.
References
Adizes. (1979). Organizational passages: Diagnosing and treating lifecycle problems of organizations.
Agha, S., Alrubaiee, L., & Jamhour, M. (2011). Effect of Core Competence on Competitive Advantage and Organizational Performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(1), 192. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n1p192
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. McGraw-Hill. https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=L4VEAAAAIAAJ
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Becker, G. S. (1993). Human Capital. University of Chicago Press.
Blau, P. M. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge.
Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. B. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 189-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00080-0
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42
Gelade, G. A., & Ivery, M. (2003). The impact of human resource management and work climate on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 383-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00155.x
Greiner, L. E. (1998). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Prentice Hall.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. En C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. (pp. 205-224). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10594-009
Herzberg, F., Mausner, Snyderman, & Wiley, J. (1959). The Motivation to work. Relations industrielles, 15(2), 275. https://doi.org/10.7202/1022040ar
Hinojoza-Montañez, S. D. (2023). Bienestar laboral y gestión del talento humano en pymes de Colombia: analisis bibliometrico. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373899659_BIENESTAR_LABORAL_Y_GESTION_DEL_TALENTO_HUMANO_EN_PYMES_DE_COLOMBIA_ANALISIS_BIBLIOMETRICO
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of Resources. American Psychologist.
International Labour Office (Ed.). (2015). Small and medium-sized enterprises and decent and productive employment creation. International Labour Conference, Geneva. International Labour Office.
Judge, T. A., & Thoresen, C. J. (2001). The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review.
Locke, E. A. (1976) The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. In: Dunnette, M.D., Ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 1297-1343. https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers?ReferenceID=1639511
Maslow, A. H. (1942). A Theory of Human Motivation.
Oleas, J. P. P., y Sánchez, F. M. (2024). Análisis del Bienestar Laboral, la Productividad y la Retención del Talento Humano en las Pequeñas y Medianas Empresas (PYMES):. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar G-nerando, 5(1), https://doi.org/10.60100/rcmg.v5i1.231
World Health Organization. (1986). First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 21 November 1986. https://www.who.int/teams/health-promotion/enhanced-wellbeing/first-global-conference
Penrose, C. P. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-theory-of-the-growth-of-the-firm-9780199573844?cc=us&lang=en&#
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Lez-Roma, V. G., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133
Spector, P. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231549
Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(3), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00521.x