Open AccessAn Evaluation Of Workplace Wellness Programs: A Perspective From Rural Organizations
Author(s) -
Ken Zula,
Karen K. Yarrish,
Sonji Lee
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of applied business research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.149
H-Index - 22
eISSN - 2157-8834
pISSN - 0892-7626
DOI - 10.19030/jabr.v29i3.7772
Subject(s) - employee resource groups , absenteeism , business , metropolitan area , human resources , employee engagement , incentive , marketing , employee research , productivity , human resource management , order (exchange) , employee benefits , rural area , attendance , job satisfaction , return on investment , employee morale , public relations , economic growth , management , work (physics) , production (economics) , medicine , finance , economics , mechanical engineering , pathology , political science , engineering , macroeconomics , microeconomics
This paper describes a study to determine the prevalence and characteristics of employee wellness programming amongst rural organizations and/or employers. A sample of convenience (n = 200) from a local human resource management association was surveyed via e-mail with an internet based questionnaire containing 20 items regarding employee wellness programming, activities, effectiveness, and measurement. The results indicated that the primary responsibility for employee wellness programming rests with the human resource department (63.6%). Most rural organizations employee wellness program are implemented to improve employee health, improve employee productivity, and to reduce absenteeism. The findings indicate human resource professionals in rural organizations are struggling to determine effective measures for employee wellness programs despite significant investments of money. Rural, unlike urban or metropolitan, based organizations are not offering substantial incentives to employees in order to increase participation, and are continuing to offer traditional employee wellness activities such as smoking cessation, and vaccinations. These employers are not measuring effectiveness (53%) and not realizing substantial cost savings (63.2%) for the return on investment.