FAQ

(what the work environment creates)

They describe the overall employee work experience and the health of the work environment.

For example:

• Wellbeing
• Burnout
• Alienation

These indicators show:

• whether the work environment supports sustainable performance,
• whether risks are accumulating that may affect organizational results over time.

Outcome indicators act as early signals of an organization's ability to maintain stable performance over the long term. They help understand not only how employees feel at a specific moment, but also how sustainably the organization functions as a whole.

These indicators often reflect processes that are not directly visible in day-to-day management data - for example, gradual energy depletion, loss of motivation, reduced trust, or emotional distancing from work. If such signals accumulate over a long period, they usually begin to affect organizational results as well - the quality of collaboration, initiative, customer experience, number of errors, employee turnover, and overall execution capacity.

That is why outcome indicators are used as indicators of organizational work environment health - to identify risks in time and understand where deeper analysis or action is needed.

(indicators that influence the outcome)

They describe specific aspects of the work environment that influence wellbeing, engagement, and burnout. For example:

Job security and stability

• Job security
• Financial security
• Monetary compensation

Working conditions and workload

• Suitable work environment
• Suitable workload
• Suitable working time

Leadership, culture, and relationships

• Positive organizational culture
• Supportive manager
• Motivating feedback

Factor indicators help identify the specific elements of the work environment that have the greatest impact on organizational results. They make it possible to understand which aspects of the work environment currently support employees' ability to work sustainably and which, on the contrary, create an increased risk of burnout, alienation, or declining motivation.

Unlike outcome indicators, which show the overall situation, factor indicators help identify possible causes. For example, a high burnout risk in one structural unit may be related to excessive workload and unclear responsibilities, while in another it may be related to low psychological safety or insufficient manager support.

Analysis of these indicators makes it possible to prioritize action more precisely and make more targeted decisions about change, leadership development, work organization, or other interventions. This helps avoid situations where symptoms are addressed instead of the factors that create them.

• Outcome indicators show where the organization stands in terms of work environment health.
• Factor indicators help understand why it is there.

These indicators are not analyzed in isolation. They are assessed together, looking for patterns between work environment factors and the outcomes the organization experiences day to day - burnout, engagement, alienation, trust, quality of collaboration, and the share of employees with healthy work capacity.

The analysis begins with an assessment of outcome indicators to understand the current state of the organization or a specific part of it. Factor indicators are then analyzed - workload, leadership quality, psychological safety, relationships in the team, role clarity, development opportunities, and other aspects of the work environment - to identify which factors are most strongly associated with the observed situation.

Results are compared across structural units, employee groups, industries, and Baltic data, making it possible to identify points where risk is concentrated and priority areas for action. Sometimes the analysis also looks for relationships between indicators - for example, whether lower trust in certain teams is associated with higher burnout risk or lower engagement.

This makes it possible to move from identifying symptoms to a more precise understanding of their causes and helps make better-grounded decisions about the changes, interventions, and development priorities that are needed.

BDVB data is collected using a standardized and unified methodology across all Baltic countries to ensure that results are mutually comparable. Surveys are conducted in representative samples of working people, taking into account the most important demographic and employment parameters.

Baltic Workplace Barometer measurements are carried out twice a year - in spring and autumn. These periodic measurements make it possible to build Baltic and industry benchmark data that shows typical trends across different countries, industries, and organization types. This gives organizations the opportunity to compare their results not only with the overall Baltic level, but also with organizations similar to their own.

For the assessment of an organization's work environment, a separate survey of the specific organization's employees is conducted. It uses the same methodological approach and core indicators, allowing the organization's results to be compared with Baltic and industry data.

The quality and representativeness of each survey are assessed using statistical analysis methods. The participation rate, distribution of respondents across structural units and employee groups, as well as data stability and reliability of interpretation are analyzed. This helps ensure that conclusions are based on data of sufficient quality that can be meaningfully interpreted.

Depending on the size of the organization and the structure of the data, analysis can be carried out at the level of the organization, structural units, or specific employee groups. This makes it possible to identify not only overall trends, but also specific risk areas and priority development areas.

This methodological approach ensures that results are comparable across countries, industries, organizations, and different time periods. It makes it possible to observe not only the current situation, but also its dynamics and trends of change over a longer period.

The methodology also helps distinguish the state of the work environment itself from the factors that influence it. This is important because similar results in different organizations may arise for different reasons. For example, low engagement in one organization may be related to excessive workload, while in another it may be related to a lack of trust or unclear leadership.

This approach creates a foundation for data-based interpretation and helps make more precise decisions about priorities, changes, and interventions. It reduces the risk of basing decisions only on assumptions, individual impressions, or isolated indicators.

What is the employee wellbeing index?

The employee wellbeing index is an outcome indicator of work environment health that helps assess the extent to which an organization's work environment supports employees' long-term work capacity, psychological wellbeing, and ability to maintain stable performance.

Unlike narrower indicators, such as job satisfaction or engagement, the wellbeing index combines several interconnected dimensions into one overall indicator. This makes it possible to assess not only how employees feel at a specific moment, but also how healthy and sustainable the organization's work environment is overall.

In organizational psychology and work environment research, employee wellbeing is considered one of the most important indicators of long-term organizational health because it is closely linked to employee engagement, trust, motivation, burnout risk, quality of collaboration, and employee retention.

What does the wellbeing index measure?

The BDVB wellbeing index integrates several dimensions of psychological wellbeing to provide a much fuller picture of employees' work experience and functioning in the work environment.

The index includes:

Eudaimonic wellbeing dimensions

These describe a person's psychological functioning and the feeling that work is meaningful and valuable.

They include:

• the Motify engagement index,
• perceived meaningfulness of life and work,
• psychological engagement at work,
• the feeling that a person can realize their potential.

This dimension helps understand whether an employee experiences not only workload and responsibilities at work, but also a sense of purpose and meaning.

Hedonic wellbeing dimensions

These describe subjective wellbeing and satisfaction.

They include:

• satisfaction with life,
• satisfaction with work,
• emotional wellbeing.

This dimension helps assess how positively or negatively people experience their everyday work overall.

Psychological functioning indicators

The index also integrates vitality assessment statements that help assess:

• energy level,
• emotional state,
• psychological fatigue,
• ability to recover,
• overall psychological functioning.

How is the wellbeing index calculated?

The wellbeing index is calculated as a weighted average of several dimensions, calibrated on a 0-100 point scale.

A higher result indicates a healthier, more sustainable, and psychologically safer work environment, while a lower result indicates increased risks to employee functioning and the organization's long-term performance.

In the BDVB methodology, employees are considered to be in wellbeing when their result exceeds 64.49 points.

The index is analyzed both at the overall organizational level and across structural units, employee groups, and time periods. This makes it possible to identify not only the overall situation, but also specific risk areas within the organization.

How should wellbeing results be interpreted?

High level of wellbeing

A high level of wellbeing usually indicates that the work environment:

• supports sustainable employee performance,
• helps maintain energy and motivation,
• promotes engagement and collaboration,
• reduces burnout risk,
• strengthens trust in the organization and leadership.

In such organizations, employees more often experience meaning in their work, greater emotional stability, and higher psychological safety.

Low level of wellbeing

A low level of wellbeing is often an early signal of cumulative work environment risks.

It may indicate:

• prolonged overload,
• chaotic work organization,
• unclear priorities,
• low psychological safety,
• insufficient manager support,
• a sense of unfairness in the organization,
• emotional exhaustion and alienation.

Importantly, low employee wellbeing in organizations is often not an individual problem. It usually reflects systemic work environment and management processes.

Which factors most often influence wellbeing?

In BDVB data, lower employee wellbeing often correlates with:

• a sense of unfairness in the organization,
• insufficient recognition,
• lack of attention and feedback,
• chaotic work organization,
• unclear goals and priorities,
• excessive workload,
• low autonomy,
• lack of trust in leadership.

The direct manager often has a particularly significant influence. Leadership quality strongly affects how employees perceive the work environment, workload, fairness, and their own significance in the organization.

How is wellbeing related to organizational results?

Employee wellbeing is closely linked to several indicators of organizational health and performance.

A higher level of wellbeing usually correlates with:

• higher employee engagement,
• greater trust in the organization,
• higher job satisfaction,
• lower employee turnover,
• lower burnout risk,
• better quality of collaboration,
• more stable long-term performance.

In turn, a persistently low level of wellbeing is often associated with increasing emotional distancing from work, declining motivation, and a reduced organizational ability to maintain high performance over the long term.

How do organizations use the wellbeing index?

Organizations use the wellbeing index to:

• identify work environment risks,
• define priority development areas,
• compare structural units,
• assess the impact of changes,
• analyze work environment dynamics over time,
• compare their results with Baltic and industry benchmark data.

Because BDVB measurements have been carried out regularly for several years, the index makes it possible to analyze not only the current situation, but also long-term trends in work environment health in the Baltics.

Frequently asked questions

What is good employee wellbeing?

Good employee wellbeing means that the work environment helps people maintain psychological stability, energy, engagement, and the ability to work with quality over the long term without excessive exhaustion.

Is wellbeing the same as job satisfaction?

No. Job satisfaction is only one component of wellbeing. Wellbeing also includes psychological functioning, energy, meaningfulness, emotional state, and the ability to maintain healthy work capacity over the long term.

How can you tell whether an organization has low wellbeing?

An increased risk may be indicated by a low wellbeing index together with higher levels of burnout, alienation, overload, and trust problems.

How does the work environment affect employee wellbeing?

The work environment affects employee wellbeing through leadership quality, work organization, workload, psychological safety, sense of fairness, team relationships, and the opportunity to engage meaningfully in work.

What is the share of burned-out employees?

The share of burned-out employees is an outcome indicator of work environment health that shows what proportion of an organization's employees are in an increased burnout risk zone.

It helps assess the extent to which the work environment creates emotional exhaustion, loss of energy, and reduced psychological capacity over the long term. Unlike short-term fatigue, burnout usually develops gradually - as a result of prolonged overload, high stress, insufficient support, or chronic emotional strain.

At the organizational level, burnout is considered one of the most important indicators of long-term work environment risk because it is associated with reduced engagement, declining productivity, a higher likelihood of errors, increased employee turnover, and a long-term reduction in work capacity.

What does the burnout indicator measure?

The BDVB burnout indicator helps identify employees who show an increased risk of psychological exhaustion and reduced functioning.

The indicator is based on signs of psychological wellbeing and functioning, including:

• lack of energy,
• emotional fatigue,
• difficulty recovering,
• reduced motivation,
• reduced psychological resilience,
• a prolonged feeling of exhaustion.

Burnout is not interpreted as a sign of individual weakness. In the BDVB methodology, it is analyzed as a result of the work environment and organizational processes.

How is burnout risk determined?

The share of burned-out employees is calculated by analyzing indicators of psychological functioning and wellbeing.

Employees whose results indicate an increased risk of psychological exhaustion are classified into the burnout risk group. At the organizational level, the overall share of employees with increased burnout risk is then calculated.

The result is analyzed:

• at the organizational level,
• at the structural unit level,
• across different employee groups,
• over time,
• in comparison with Baltic and industry benchmarks.

This helps identify not only the overall situation, but also specific areas where risk is concentrated within the organization.

How should a high level of burnout be interpreted?

A high share of burned-out employees usually indicates that the work environment has been exceeding people's psychological and emotional capacity limits for a prolonged period.

It is often related to:

• excessive workload,
• insufficient resources,
• unclear priorities,
• chaotic work organization,
• low autonomy,
• prolonged tension,
• lack of psychological safety,
• insufficient manager support,
• a sense of unfairness in the organization.

Particularly important: a high level of burnout is not always immediately visible in organizational results. In many organizations, high performance is maintained for some time at the expense of employee exhaustion. That is why burnout often functions as an early risk that is not initially fully visible in traditional data.

What are the consequences of prolonged burnout in an organization?

A persistently high level of burnout in organizations is usually associated with:

• lower employee engagement,
• greater emotional alienation from work,
• declining motivation,
• higher employee turnover,
• increased risk of absence,
• poorer quality of collaboration,
• a greater likelihood of errors,
• reduced innovation and initiative.

A high level of burnout can also affect an organization's ability to implement change, because emotionally exhausted employees usually adapt less well to new demands and prolonged uncertainty.

Which factors are most often associated with burnout?

In BDVB data, burnout often correlates with:

• excessive workload,
• insufficient control over one's work,
• unclear roles and priorities,
• chaotic work organization,
• low leadership quality,
• lack of feedback,
• a sense of unfairness,
• insufficient recognition,
• low psychological safety.

In many organizations, cultural norms also play an important role - for example, the long-term normalization of overload or indirect pressure to be constantly available and productive.

How do organizations use this indicator?

The share of burned-out employees helps organizations:

• identify work environment risk areas,
• identify structural units with increased overload risk,
• analyze the impact of leadership and work organization,
• prioritize interventions,
• assess the impact of changes over time,
• identify long-term work capacity risks early.

Because BDVB measurements have been carried out regularly for several years, organizations can also analyze burnout dynamics and compare their results with Baltic and industry benchmark data.

Frequently asked questions

What is employee burnout?

Employee burnout is a state of prolonged psychological and emotional exhaustion that usually arises as a result of chronic work stress and overload.

Does burnout mean that the employee can no longer work?

Not always. Many burned-out employees continue to work and achieve results, but this often happens at the expense of increased psychological and physical resource consumption.

How can you tell whether an organization has a high burnout risk?

An increased risk may be indicated by a high share of burned-out employees together with overload, low wellbeing, alienation, and trust problems.

How does leadership affect burnout risk?

Leadership quality significantly affects burnout risk through clarity of priorities, work organization, feedback, sense of fairness, and psychological safety in the team.

What is the share of alienated employees?

The share of alienated employees is an outcome indicator of work environment health that shows what proportion of employees in an organization feel emotional distance from their work, the organization, or its goals.

It helps identify situations where employees continue to formally carry out their duties, but psychologically no longer feel engaged, significant, or connected to the organization. Alienation is not always immediately visible in day-to-day work results, but over the long term it often affects initiative, collaboration, ownership, and the organization's ability to maintain high performance.

In organizational psychology, alienation is considered one of the most important early signals of work environment and management problems because it often develops gradually and remains unnoticed for a long time.

What does the alienation indicator measure?

The BDVB alienation indicator helps assess the extent to which employees:

• emotionally identify with their work,
• feel engaged in the organization's goals,
• see meaning in their work,
• feel motivated to contribute more than the minimum required,
• feel a sense of belonging to the organization.

Alienation often appears as:

• emotional distance from work,
• indifference toward organizational results,
• reduced initiative,
• minimal engagement,
• a desire to "just get through the workday",
• psychological withdrawal from the organization.

Importantly, alienation is not the same as laziness or low competence. It is usually a response to a prolonged work environment experience.

How is the level of alienation determined?

The alienation indicator is calculated by analyzing indicators of employee engagement, motivation, belonging, and psychological connection with work.

In the BDVB methodology, the following are assessed:

• level of emotional engagement,
• motivation to contribute to work,
• attitude toward the organization,
• perceived meaningfulness of work,
• psychological connection with the work environment.

At the organizational level, the overall share of alienated employees is then calculated.

Results are analyzed:

• at the organizational level,
• at the structural unit level,
• across different employee groups,
• over time,
• in comparison with Baltic and industry benchmarks.

How should a high level of alienation be interpreted?

A high share of alienated employees usually indicates that the psychological connection between people and their work is weakening in the organization.

It is often related to:

• lack of trust,
• a prolonged sense of unfairness,
• insufficient recognition,
• lack of meaning at work,
• low psychological safety,
• weak leadership quality,
• an emotionally distant organizational culture,
• the feeling that an employee's opinion or contribution is not significant.

Alienation often develops gradually. In organizations, it can remain unnoticed for a long time because employees formally continue to perform their duties. At the same time, however, initiative, quality of collaboration, willingness to engage in change, and emotional connection with the organization decline.

What are the consequences of high alienation in an organization?

A persistently high level of alienation is usually associated with:

• lower engagement,
• lower initiative,
• reduced willingness to take responsibility,
• a greater risk of "quiet quitting",
• weaker collaboration,
• lower innovation and idea generation,
• increasing cynicism,
• higher employee turnover.

Alienation has a particularly important impact on organizations whose work is based on collaboration, customer experience, initiative, and knowledge work.

Which factors are most often associated with alienation?

In BDVB data, alienation often correlates with:

• low trust in leadership,
• a sense of unfairness,
• insufficient recognition,
• an emotionally distant leadership style,
• unclear organizational direction,
• low psychological safety,
• lack of meaning at work,
• limited opportunities to influence,
• prolonged overload or emotional exhaustion.

A particularly important factor is often the feeling that a person's contribution to the organization is not noticed or valued. Over the long term, this reduces emotional connection with work and the organization.

How is alienation related to other work environment indicators?

Alienation is closely related to:

• lower employee engagement,
• lower wellbeing,
• higher burnout risk,
• lower trust in the organization,
• lower psychological safety,
• higher employee turnover risk.

In many organizations, alienation and burnout partially overlap, but they are not identical phenomena. Burned-out employees may be emotionally exhausted but still psychologically engaged. Alienated employees, in turn, often emotionally distance themselves from work and the organization, even if they are still functionally able to work.

How do organizations use this indicator?

The share of alienated employees helps organizations:

• identify risks of psychological distance,
• analyze organizational culture problems,
• assess the impact of leadership quality,
• identify structural units with lower engagement,
• analyze the impact of change on employee attitudes,
• identify long-term motivation and retention risks early.

Because BDVB measurements have been carried out regularly for several years, organizations can also analyze alienation dynamics over time and compare their results with Baltic and industry benchmark data.

Frequently asked questions

What is employee alienation?

Employee alienation is psychological and emotional distance from work, the organization, or its goals, which reduces engagement, initiative, and sense of belonging.

Does an alienated employee always perform poorly?

Not always. Many alienated employees continue to carry out their duties correctly, but often no longer engage beyond that, do not take initiative, and emotionally distance themselves from the organization.

How can you tell whether an organization has a high alienation risk?

An increased risk may be indicated by a high share of alienated employees together with low engagement, trust problems, lack of meaning at work, and lower psychological safety.

How does leadership affect alienation?

Leadership quality significantly affects employees' emotional connection with the organization through fairness, recognition, communication, psychological safety, and the ability to create a meaningful work environment.

What is the share of employees with healthy work capacity?

The share of employees with healthy work capacity is an outcome indicator of work environment health that shows what proportion of an organization's employees are in a psychologically and functionally healthy state.

This indicator helps assess not only the absence of risks, but also the organization's ability to sustain people's functioning over the long term. Unlike approaches that focus only on problems or symptoms, the healthy work capacity indicator helps understand what proportion of the organization is actually functioning in a stable, sustainable, and psychologically healthy mode.

In the BDVB methodology, healthy work capacity means that an employee simultaneously:

• has no pronounced burnout risk,
• has no pronounced signs of alienation,
• has a sufficient level of psychological wellbeing.

This makes it possible to analyze not only separate risks, but also the organization's overall functional capacity.

What does the healthy work capacity indicator measure?

The healthy work capacity indicator helps assess what proportion of employees:

• maintain a sufficient energy level,
• are psychologically able to function over the long term,
• feel engagement and connection with work,
• are not in an increased burnout risk zone,
• maintain stable psychological functioning in the work environment.

This indicator combines several aspects of work environment health into one integrated indicator and helps assess the overall sustainability of the organization's human capital.

In practical terms, it answers the question:

what proportion of the organization's employees are currently in a healthy, sustainable state of functioning.

How is the share of healthy work capacity calculated?

The share of healthy work capacity is calculated by combining:

• wellbeing results,
• burnout risk,
• alienation indicators,
• psychological functioning indicators.

Employees are considered to be in the healthy work capacity group when they simultaneously:

• maintain a sufficient level of wellbeing,
• are not classifiable as part of the burnout risk group,
• do not show pronounced alienation from work and the organization.

At the organizational level, the overall share of employees with healthy work capacity is then calculated.

Results are analyzed:

• at the organizational level,
• across structural units,
• at the level of different employee groups,
• over time,
• in comparison with Baltic and industry benchmark data.

Why is this indicator important?

In many organizations, separate risks - burnout, alienation, or low wellbeing - are analyzed in isolation. In practice, however, these phenomena often overlap and influence one another.

The healthy work capacity indicator helps assess the organization systemically - how much of it functions in a stable and sustainable mode, not only whether it is "not in a critical state."

This is important because an organization's long-term performance is usually based not on a few highly motivated employees, but on a sufficiently large part of the system functioning in a healthy way.

How should the share of healthy work capacity be interpreted?

High share of healthy work capacity

A high result usually indicates that the work environment:

• helps maintain sustainable performance,
• reduces long-term psychological risks,
• supports engagement and motivation,
• promotes trust and collaboration,
• creates more stable organizational functioning.

In such organizations, people more often maintain energy, psychological resilience, and the ability to engage in work over the longer term.

Low share of healthy work capacity

A low level of healthy work capacity usually indicates that a significant part of the organization is functioning under increased psychological risk conditions.

It may indicate:

• prolonged overload,
• high burnout levels,
• emotional alienation,
• low psychological safety,
• trust problems,
• chaotic work organization,
• insufficient leadership quality.

In some organizations, high performance can be maintained for a short time even with a low level of healthy work capacity, but over the long term this often creates increasing systemic risks.

What are the consequences of low healthy work capacity?

A persistently low share of employees with healthy work capacity is often associated with:

• increasing burnout risk,
• declining motivation,
• lower engagement,
• poorer quality of collaboration,
• higher employee turnover,
• increased absence risk,
• lower organizational resilience during change,
• a greater risk of a culture of "internal fatigue."

Under these conditions, organizations often begin to lose the ability to maintain stable performance over the long term without additional overload.

Which factors most often influence healthy work capacity?

In BDVB data, healthy work capacity is often associated with:

• higher trust in leadership,
• a sense of fairness,
• psychological safety,
• clear priorities,
• adequate workload,
• a supportive manager,
• high-quality collaboration,
• a sense of meaningfulness at work,
• sufficient autonomy and opportunities to influence.

Lower healthy work capacity is more often observed in organizations with chaotic work organization, prolonged overload, and an emotionally distant management culture.

How do organizations use this indicator?

The healthy work capacity indicator helps organizations:

• assess overall work environment health,
• identify systemic human capital risks,
• analyze differences between structural units,
• prioritize interventions and development measures,
• assess the impact of changes,
• analyze long-term work environment dynamics,
• compare their results with Baltic and industry benchmarks.

Because BDVB measurements have been carried out regularly for several years, organizations can also observe long-term trends and analyze how the work environment affects people's ability to function sustainably.

Frequently asked questions

What is healthy work capacity?

Healthy work capacity means that an employee is psychologically and functionally able to maintain stable work performance over the long term without pronounced burnout or alienation risk.

Is the healthy work capacity indicator the same as wellbeing?

No. Wellbeing is one component of healthy work capacity. The healthy work capacity indicator also takes burnout and alienation risks into account.

Can a person be productive even with low healthy work capacity?

Yes. In some organizations, people are temporarily able to maintain high performance even under increased psychological risk conditions. Over the long term, however, this often creates burnout, declining motivation, and turnover risks.

Why is this indicator important for leadership?

It helps assess how sustainable the organization's human capital functioning is and whether the current work model sustains or reduces the organization's performance capacity over the long term.

If you already have your own internal data

If your organization already measures:

• engagement,
• satisfaction,
• attachment,

these indicators help compare your data in the Baltic context, even if the methodologies differ.

How do these indicators differ from the Wellbeing Index?

The Motify Wellbeing Index is a higher-level measurement that combines both hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions.

This means that the index simultaneously assesses:

• a person's subjective wellbeing and emotional state (the hedonic aspect);
• the level of meaning, engagement, and internal motivation (the eudaimonic aspect);
• tension and burnout risk as an indicator of long-term stability.

Separate indicators, in turn, focus on only one of these dimensions.

Satisfaction mainly reflects the hedonic state - how pleasant or acceptable the employee finds the work situation at a specific moment. It does not provide a direct indication of the depth of motivation or burnout risk.

Engagement centers on the eudaimonic aspect - internal motivation, energy, and readiness to invest effort in work. But on its own, it does not say whether a person feels emotionally well or is on the edge of exhaustion.

Attachment / loyalty measures relationship continuity - how strong the desire is to stay with the organization. This indicator may correlate with wellbeing, but it does not show either the level of motivation or the risk of dissatisfaction or burnout.

How can engagement be compared with the Baltic level if the scales differ?

Directly comparing percentages or points can be misleading if different scales or question formulations have been used.

However, an indicative view can be obtained using relative and structural comparisons. This requires:

Normalize the result to a common scale

For example:

• 4 out of 5 points ~= 80%
• 8 out of 10 points ~= 80%

If your result, recalculated as a percentage, differs significantly from the Baltic average, that already provides an initial signal.

Compare the distribution, not only the average

What matters is:

• what % of employees are highly engaged;
• what % are neutral;
• what % are in the low-engagement group.

Even if the scales differ, the share of low engagement is often comparable.

Compare trends over time

If engagement in your organization is falling for the third measurement in a row and the Barometer shows similar dynamics in the industry and region, this may reflect a broader market situation.

If the trend differs, it may point to dysfunction in the organization's work environment.

Important note

Full comparability requires methodological calibration.

Without it, it is possible to obtain an indicative comparison, but not a precisely equivalent one.