Restorativeness: a strategic leverage to mitigate the effects of stress in relation to performance

This study investigates the relation between work related stress and work demand (WD) and perceived performance (PP), considering the role of perceived restorativeness of the work environment (PRW). Work-related stress can be defined as the response workers may have when they feel unable to cope with the demands and pressures that come with their job because these are perceived greater than their resources. A dimension of work-related stress is work demand (WD), which refers to an excessive workload. The literature has shown that work-related stress causes negative effects such as emotional exhaustion and a lower perceived performance. Ulrich's Supportive Design Theory (1991) states that a restorative hospital environment (e.g., with plants, flowers, windows overlooking parks or gardens) promotes well-being in patients and caregivers. Based on the Job Demand-Resources Model. We hypothesized that restorative characteristics in workplaces are resources able to moderate the negative effect of WD on PP. The study was conducted on a sample of 84 workers operating in an Italian mental health institution. A self-report questionnaire was filled out by 84 healthcare workers. Most of the participants were women (57.7%) and the majority of them (52.6%) were in the age range 36 to 55 years. Workplace perceived restorativeness was measured with the perceived restorativeness at work (REST@WORK) scale (Brondino et al., 2023). Work demand was measured with a subscale of Health and Safety Executive scale (HSE-25, Balducci et al., 2015). Perceived performance was measured with a single self-report item with which workers indicated their perceived performance in the past year on a scale of 0 to 100. At first we assessed the goodness of the reliability of the used measurement instrument (REST@WORK: ω was acceptable, ranging from 0.76 to 0.67; WD: ω = 0.71). A correlation analysis was preliminarily conducted showing that WD is negatively related with PP (r = -0.21, p = .026). Then a multiple regression analysis was conducted to test out our hypothesis. WD was found to not be a significant predictor of PP (b = -0.49, p = .814). Nevertheless, the results also showed that PRW significantly moderated the relationship between WD and PP (b = 3.44, p = .005). The simple slope analyses revealed that at low level of workplace perceived restorativeness WD predicted perceived performance (b = -6,07, p = .022). However, WD is not a significant predictor of the perceived performance when workplace perceived restorativeness is average (b = -0.49, p = .821) or high (b = 5.09, p < .120). This preliminary study only partially supports our hypothesis. In fact, at low level of PRW the WD negatively predicts PP while WD is found not be a significant predictor of PP at average and high level of PRW. This could mean that a high level of PRW is able to mitigate the negative effect of WD on PP but further research needs to be conducted. This study also has some practical implication highlighting how physical work environment can be an important resource when designed following the restorativeness and biophilic guidelines.