Life and Work: Management Decisions and Employee Well-Being

Article Sidebar

PDF (Spanish) PDF HTML (Spanish) EPUB (Spanish)
Published: Apr 8, 2025
Updated: 2025-04-08
Versions:
2025-04-08 (3)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17163/ret.n29.2025.09
Keywords:
employment benefits, subjective well-being, life satisfaction, logit regression, decent work

Main Article Content

Enrique Kato-Vidal
Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5582-1971

Abstract

The focus on work-life balance has increased exponentially over the past two decades. Research has demonstrated that achieving this equilibrium leads to enhanced personal and professional satisfaction. Moreover, organizations benefit from improved work-life balance among employees, as it facilitates more efficient time and task allocation, thereby increasing productivity. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect of eight employee benefits on self-reported life satisfaction among workers. Logit equations were employed, utilizing data from a national well-being survey. The sample size exceeded 10 000 individuals, representing a population of over 30 million employees in Mexico. To assess the impact on well-being, the benefits were ranked from most to least frequent. The most common benefit was the mandatory year-end bonus (‘aguinaldo’), while profit sharing was the least frequent. Results indicated that employees with a higher number of benefits have a greater probability of reporting satisfaction with their current and future life. The study also reports that the positive effect of employee benefits increases when organizations complementarily implement other labor strategies, such as annual income increases and considering employee opinions. The estimates were consistent, thus providing useful evidence for managers to design organizational policies that simultaneously contribute to employee well-being and promote higher productivity in both the short and long term.

Article Details

Issue
Vol. 15 No. 29 (2025): (April-September)
Section
Miscellaneous Section
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authorship: The list of authors signing must include only those people who have contributed intellectually to the development of the work. Collaboration in the collection of data is not, by itself, a sufficient criterion of authorship. "Retos" declines any responsibility for possible conflicts arising from the authorship of the works that are published.

Copyright: The Salesian Polytechnic University preserves the copyrights of the published articles, and favors and allows their reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Ecuador license. They may be copied, used, disseminated, transmitted and publicly displayed, provided that: i) the authorship and the original source of their publication (journal, editorial and work URL) are cited; (Ii) are not used for commercial purposes; Iii) mention the existence and specifications of this license.

References

Aghion, Philippe, Ufuk Akcigit, Angus Deaton, and Alexandra Roulet. (2016). Creative Destruction and Subjective Well-Being. American Economic Review, 106 (12): 3869–97. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20150338

Arredondo, R. N., Davia, M. A., & Varela, R. (2022). Decent work in Mexico: the influence of the economic environment and openness to the outside world. Problemas del desarrollo, 53(211), 29-53. https://doi.org/10.22201/iiec.20078951e.2022.211.69886

Bellet, Clément S.; De Neve, Jan-Emmanuel & Ward, George. (2023). Does Employee Happiness Have an Impact on Productivity?. Management Science 70(3):1656-1679. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4766

Bryson, A., Forth, J., & Stokes, L. (2017). Does employees’ subjective well-being affect workplace performance?. Human Relations, 70(8), 1017-1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717693073

Cameron, A. C. & P. K. Trivedi. (2022). Binary Outcome Models. In Microeconometrics Using Stata, vol. II, Second Edition. Routledge

Ceja, E. C. (2019). Análisis de las prestaciones laborales y de seguridad social bajo un régimen formal e informal en México. Tesis. Universidad Vasco de Quiroga.

Charles-Leija, H. (2022). Análisis exploratorio de datos de Bienestar Subjetivo en México, 2013 a 2020. Panorama Económico, 18(37), 209-228. https://doi.org/10.29201/peipn.v18i37.135

Cortés Aguilar, A., García Muñoz, T. M., & Moro-Egido, A. I. (2013). Heterogeneous self-employment and satisfaction in Latin America. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 44-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.07.001

de la Torre-Ruiz, J. M., Vidal-Salazar, M. D., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2019). Employees are satisfied with their benefits, but so what? The consequences of benefit satisfaction on employees’ organizational commitment and turnover intentions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(13), 2097-2120. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1314315

Dugain, V., & Olaberriá, E. (2015). What Makes Mexicans Happy?. OECD Economic Department Working Papers, núm. 1196. https://doi.org/10.1787/18151973

Duranton, G., and Puga, D. (2020). The Economics of Urban Density. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34 (3): 3–26. DOI: 10.1257/jep.34.3.3

Fang, T., Lee, B., Timming, A. R., & Fan, D. (2019). The effects of work-life benefits on employment outcomes in Canada: A multivariate analysis. Relations industrielles/Industrial relations, 74(2), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.7202/1062086ar

Gorard, S. (2021). How to Make Sense of Statistics, SAGE.

Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12139

Hansen, B. E. (2022). Binary Choice. In Econometrics. Princeton University Press.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía -INEGI-. (2024). Cuestionario de Ocupación y Empleo. Encuesta Nacional de Empleo, INEGI. México. Disponible en https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/enoe/15ymas/

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía -INEGI-. (2021). Encuesta Nacional de Bienestar Autorreportado [ENBIARE]. INEGI, México. Disponible en https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/enbiare/2021/

Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. (2003). Beyond incentive pay: Insiders' estimates of the value of complementary human resource management practices. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1), 155-180. DOI: 10.1257/089533003321164994

Isham, A., Mair, S., & Jackson, T. (2021). Worker wellbeing and productivity in advanced economies: Re-examining the link. Ecological Economics, 184, 106989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106989

Johansson Sevä, I., Vinberg, S., Nordenmark, M., & Strandh, M. (2016). Subjective well-being among the self-employed in Europe: macroeconomy, gender and immigrant status. Small Business Economics, 46, 239-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9682-9

Kahneman, Daniel, and Alan B. Krueger. (2006). Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (1): 3–24. DOI: 10.1257/089533006776526030

Kapteyn, A., Lee, J., Tassot, C., Vonkova, H., & Zamarro, G. (2015). Dimensions of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 123, 625-660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0753-0

Kato-Vidal, E., & Hernández-Mendoza, P. (2024). Subcontracting retreat: early estimates using administrative data. Revista de economía mundial, (66), 25-42.

Layard, R., & De Neve, J. E. (2023). Wellbeing: Science and Policy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009298957

Maestas, N., Mullen, K. J., Powell, D., Von Wachter, T., & Wenger, J. B. (2023). The value of working conditions in the United States and implications for the structure of wages. American Economic Review, 113(7), 2007-2047. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20190846

Medina-Garrido, J. A., Biedma-Ferrer, J. M., & Ramos-Rodríguez, A. R. (2017). Relationship between work-family balance, employee well-being and job performance. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 30(1), 40-58. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-08-2015-0202

Mize, T. D. (2019). Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociological Science, 6, 81-117. DOI: 10.15195/v6.a4

Murtin, F., & Siegerink, V. (2023). Valuing business impacts in the areas of wage inequality and employee well-being. OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities, núm. 15, OECD Publishing, Paris https://doi.org/10.1787/740deb2f-en

Nasamu, E., Connolly, S., Bryan, M., & Bryce, A. (2021). Evaluating the costs and benefits of workplace wellbeing initiatives. In P. Brough, K. Daniels, & E. Gardiner (Eds.), Handbook on Management and Employment Practices (Handbook Series in Occupational Health Sciences). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24936-6_38-1

OECD (2013). Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264191655-en.

Senik, C. (2005). Income distribution and well-being: what can we learn from subjective data?. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(1), 43-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00238.x

Shaw, K. (2009). Insider econometrics: A roadmap with stops along the way. Labour Economics, 16, 607-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2009.09.001

Sirgy, M. J., Yu, G. B., Lee, D. J., Joshanloo, M., Bosnjak, M., Jiao, J., ... & Grzeskowiak, S. (2021). The dual model of materialism: Success versus happiness materialism on present and future life satisfaction. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16, 201-220.

VanderWeele, T. J., Trudel-Fitzgerald, C., Allin, P., Farrelly, C., Fletcher, G., Frederick, D. E., ... & Kubzansky, L. D. (2020). Current recommendations on the selection of measures for well-being. Preventive Medicine, 133, 106004.

Ward, G. (2022). Happiness at Work: Essays on subjective wellbeing in the workplace and labor market (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/144621