Engaged, motivated and healthy employees are the foundation of an effective public administration. Their experience at work shapes not only their individual performance, but also the capacity of public institutions to deliver, innovate, and adapt. This chapter finds that the most impactful driver of employee engagement and well-being is learning and development. Further, it explores how engagement and well-being vary across countries and key demographic characteristics. It analyses key risks such as turnover, and absenteeism associated with lower levels of engagement and well-being. Finally, this chapter provides recommendations for policy actions based on these insights.
Workforce Insights from Central Governments
Findings of the 2024 OECD/EU Survey of Public Servants
Abstract
Employee engagement and well-being are two measurable concepts that have been linked to performance, productivity and innovation. Employees who are engaged in their work and have a high level of well-being tend to have higher levels of motivation, commitment and energy to contribute to their organisations’ goals and objectives. Engagement and well-being are both multidimensional concepts and have been measured in various ways in the literature (see Box 2.1). In this report, they are measured through two indices (see Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3, and Annex A for more details). This survey’s employee engagement index encompasses employees’ feelings of job satisfaction, motivation, organisational commitment, enthusiasm, accomplishment and their willingness to go beyond expectations. This survey’s employee well-being index encompasses workload management, a supportive well-being environment, as well as the physical and mental well-being of the employees. Measuring and analysing the engagement and well-being of employees can provide valuable insights into people management in public administrations, as they are determined by factors such as the quality of leadership, working conditions, and the innovation and learning climate.
This chapter begins by presenting overall trends in engagement and well-being, how different employee sub-groups perform against these indices and how they may impact organisational productivity through turnover and absenteeism. Then, the chapter analyses how key drivers (i.e. leadership and management, learning and development, and innovation climate) affect engagement and well-being, resulting in actionable insights for policymakers. It does this through two linear regression models1, treating engagement and well-being as outcome variables, and analysing the effect of an increase in the drivers’ scores on the engagement and well-being scores. Lastly, it provides recommendations on how to leverage these insights to improve employee engagement and well-being, thereby boosting workforce performance and productivity.
Empirical evidence links employee engagement and related concepts of organisational commitment and staff motivation to better organisational outcomes, including efficiency, productivity, public sector innovation, citizen trust in public sector institutions, and employee trust in organisational leadership. Employee engagement strengthens organisational capacity as it is positively related to individual performance and employee retention (OECD, 2016[1]).
Employee engagement is defined in many ways in the literature; however, there is general agreement that it refers to the alignment of individual behaviour with organisational goals, fostering motivation and performance. It contrasts with compliance-based approaches, which can be costly and ineffective. A widely used definition describes engagement as a positive, fulfilling work-related state characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova, 2006[2]). Engagement involves motivation and decision-making processes that drive employees to achieve organisational goals effectively. In addition to these, many engagement indices also measure dimensions such as overall job satisfaction, job pride, and organisational promotion, commitment and alignment.
As employee engagement is multifaceted, the best practice is to measure it through an index combining several questions into one common measure. Doing so provides a data-driven approach to track and benchmark the performance of organisational leadership, people management, and HRM, and to inform policies and reforms in these areas. According to many of the leading practitioners in this field, engagement can be measured at both an individual and an organisational level, and this can provide evidence-based insight into the organisational culture and health of an organisation.
Sources: Australia’s Public Service Census 2024 (APS, 2024[3]), Irelands Civil Service Employee Engagement Survey (Gov.ie, 2024[4]), United Kingdom Civil Service People Survey 2023 Results Highlights (Gov.uk, 2024[5]), United States Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Summary (OPM, 2024[6]).
Overall, employee engagement is moderately positive across the EU8 countries, with a mean score of 66.7 (Figure 2.1). In contrast, employee well-being scores lower in the EU7 with a mean score of 58. Employee engagement is highest in the Netherlands (72.5) and Belgium (68.7), and lowest in Latvia (63.5) and Croatia (63.6). Meanwhile, well-being is highest in the Slovak Republic (61) and Belgium (58.7), and lowest in Latvia (56.4) and Lithuania (56.6) (Figure 2.1).
Note: The figure presents employee engagement and well-being index scores by country on a scale from 0 (‘strongly disagree’) to 100 (‘strongly agree’). Scores are calculated as the average of responses across the index items. For details on index construction and scoring, refer to Annex A. The EU average for the employee engagement index (EU8) includes all project countries, while the EU average for the well-being index (EU7) includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. Mean differences between the employee engagement and well-being indices are statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level in all countries where both indices are available.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Overall, around three in four employees in central administrations are satisfied with their jobs (76.2%) and are willing to go beyond expectations when it comes to carrying out their work (70.2%). In contrast, only slightly more than half of the employees feel energetic at work (51.7%) and enthusiastic about their jobs (51.4%).
Note: The figure presents the EU8 average for the underlying items of the employee engagement index. EU8 includes all project countries. Positive responses refers to the combined share of respondents selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ neutral responses those selecting ‘neither agree nor disagree,’ and negative responses those selecting ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the supporting technical documentation (Annex A).
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
The well-being index is grouped into three key subcategories: workload management, supportive well-being environment, and physical/mental well-being. Public servants generally perceive their responsibilities as clear and manageable (Figure 2.3). Across EU7 countries, around eight out of ten (80.7%) civil servants are satisfied with the clarity of responsibilities and work expectations. This is followed by the ability to manage workload effectively (76.6%) and to achieve work-life balance (65.7%).
The physical and mental well-being dimension stands out with lower scores in contrast to relatively more favourable results observed across other well-being dimensions. Only a little more than one-fifth of employees (22.1%) reported not feeling exhausted at the end of the day, and an even lower share (18.1%) stated that they refrain from working when feeling sick. Additionally, approximately one-third of employees reported feeling burned out, pointing to persistent challenges related to stress and mental strain in the workplace.
Across EU7 countries, employees are more likely to support colleagues dealing with mental health issues (57.6%) than to share their own difficulties with their immediate supervisors (49.6%). However, this eight-percentage-point gap masks significant variations across countries. In several countries, particularly Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, and The Slovak Republic, this gap exceeds 10 percentage points, indicating a stronger reluctance to discuss personal challenges with supervisors. Conversely, in Denmark and Lithuania, the gap is negative or negligible, meaning that employees are equally or more inclined to share their health concerns with supervisors as they are to offer support to colleagues facing similar issues. This is relevant as previous studies show that when public sector employees face personal challenges, whether work-related or not, strong workplace support systems and open dialogue contribute to increased well-being among employees (Medina-Garrido, Biedma-Ferrer and Sanchez-Ortiz, 2020[7]; Nielsen et al., 2017[8]).
Note: The figure presents the EU7 average for the underlying items of the employee well-being index. EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Positive responses refers to the combined share of respondents selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ neutral responses those selecting ‘neither agree nor disagree,’ and negative responses those selecting ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. Items marked with an asterisk (*) “I sometimes work despite feeling sick,” “I feel burned out,” and “I often feel exhausted at the end of the working day.” These items were reverse-coded in the visualisation to align with the direction of other items. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the supporting technical documentation (Annex A).
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Employee engagement and well-being vary across key demographic and organisational characteristics. Managers’ report higher engagement levels (70.7) compared to non-managers (65.8), likely due to key engagement drivers such as higher compensation and greater decision-making authority. In contrast, well-being trends follow a different pattern, employees with no managerial responsibilities report slightly higher well-being (58.3) than managers (57.2). This may be attributed to the additional stress and responsibilities associated with leadership roles, which can reduce overall well-being despite higher engagement levels.
Employee tenure follows a U-shaped pattern for both employee engagement and well-being. Employees with less than one year of service report the highest levels of engagement (72.9) and well-being (64.1), whereas those with 6 to 20 years of service have the lowest scores in both areas (Figure 2.4). This pattern aligns with research suggesting that early-career employees experience a "honeymoon effect," characterised by excitement and optimism that sustain both engagement and well-being as they develop skills. Mid-career employees, however, often face career plateaus and potential disillusionment. Late-career engagement typically rises again, potentially due to self-selection (with less engaged employees having departed), achievement of more senior positions, and proximity to retirement (Borst, Kruyen and Lako, 2017[9]).
The gender gap in both engagement and well-being is relatively small but significant. Men show slightly higher engagement (67.5) than women (66.5), though this difference is modest and may be partially explained by the higher proportion of men in managerial positions (see Chapter 1). Similarly, gender differences in well-being follow this trend, with men (59.1) reporting slightly higher well-being than women (57.6).
Organisation size shows slightly different trends for engagement and well-being. Engagement follows a U-shaped pattern, with employees working in the smallest and largest organisations reporting the highest levels of engagement compared to mid-sized organisations. However, there is no statistically significant relationship for well-being across different organisation sizes.
Note: The figure presents the average EU8/EU7 scores for the employee engagement (EU8) and well-being indices (EU7), disaggregated by subgroups. Index scores are shown on a scale from 0 (‘strongly disagree’) to 100 (‘strongly agree’). EU8 includes all project countries, EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the technical annex. Statistical significance between sub-groups is indicated by stars next to each bar. A single asterisk (*) indicates significance at the 90% level, two asterisks (**) at the 95% level, and three asterisks (***) at the 99% level. ‘N.S.’ denotes a non-significant difference compared to the reference group. The reference group is shown in light yellow or light green.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Employee turnover is important as it influences organisational effectiveness, service delivery, and institutional knowledge retention. While some turnover can bring fresh skills and perspectives, excessive turnover can disrupt workflows and increase recruitment and training costs. In public administration, where expertise, continuity, and institutional memory are crucial for policy implementation, high turnover can undermine long-term strategic goals.
Turnover is measured by asking respondents whether they intend to leave their organisation within the next 12 months. This self-reported intention to leave, not actual turnover, may not always align with actual rates, as stated intentions might not materialise due to barriers such as limited external opportunities or financial constraints. While comparing these intentions with actual turnover data is valuable, tracking self-reported intent over time can effectively indicate potential turnover risk, as numerous studies have shown it to be a strong predictor of actual departures.
In the EU8 countries, 13% of respondents indicated an intention to leave, with the highest rates in Slovenia (18.8%) and Croatia (16.6%), and the lowest in Bulgaria (8.2%) and Belgium (10.4%). Even in countries with a healthy turnover rate, it is important to consider organisational differences that are hidden by the national averages presented here. Both high and low turnover can signal potential management issues within organisations and should be carefully assessed. Excessively high or low turnover should be addressed, taking into account the underlying reasons provided by employees.
Note: The figure presents the country-level and EU8 average responses of “yes” (Intend to leave) and “no” (Do not intend to leave) to the question: “I want to leave my organisation within the next 12 months.” EU8 includes all project countries, averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Amongst those who intend to leave their organisation, the top reasons cited are pay (47.5%), poor management (44.3%) and lack of interesting work (35.6%), while less common reasons include personal circumstances (9.4%), retiring (10.2%), and promotion or career progression outside of the civil service (18.2%) (Figure 2.6). At the country level, pay and benefits are the most cited reasons for intention to leave in all countries except the Netherlands and Belgium. Poor management ranks second in all countries except for Latvia and Lithuania, where unmanageable workload ranks second instead. Respondents could select all the reasons that applied.
Note: The figure presents the average responses to the question: “Why do you want to leave your organisation within the next 12 months?”. EU8 includes all project countries, averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. Respondents could select all that apply, and are therefore represented across multiple answer categories.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Note: The figure presents the top selected reasons to the question: “Why do you want to leave the organisation within the next 12 months?: 1. For a better pay and benefit package, 2. Due to poor management, 3. For more interesting work, 4. Due to unmanageable workload, 5. For a better work-life balance, 6. Due to lack of meaningful work, 7. Due to lack of inclusion and fair treatment, 8. Due to a promotion or career progression within the civil service”. Respondents could select all that apply, and are therefore represented across multiple answer categories.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Employee engagement is important not only for how the current workforce performs but also for workforce planning, as employee engagement strongly affects retention. Engagement reduces risks of turnover as more engaged employees are less likely to want to leave their organisation. Specifically, an increase in engagement equivalent to an employee shifting their responses to all engagement items from 'neither agree nor disagree' to 'agree' reduces the likelihood of wanting to leave the organisation by 80.1%2 (Figure 2.8).
Examining the reasons behind intentions to leave reveals that higher engagement decreases turnover likelihood for most reasons, with notable exceptions: retirement and a promotion or career progression outside the civil service. Retirement stands apart, as employees approaching retirement age may remain highly engaged regardless of their intention to leave. Meanwhile, those seeking career progression often maintain high engagement, reflecting 'positive' motivations for departure. Ambitious and career-focused employees, in particular, may actively pursue new opportunities while continuing to be engaged in their current roles.
This distinction highlights two types of departure motivations. Positive motivations, such as career advancement, are often driven by highly engaged employees seeking growth opportunities, meaning that employees with higher engagement levels may still choose to leave. In contrast, negative reasons, such as an unmanageable workload, poor working conditions, or ineffective management, typically reflect workplace dissatisfaction. The likelihood of selecting these reasons for leaving decreases as engagement increases.
Note: The figure presents the EU8 increased or decreased likelihood of intending to leave the organisation when moving from one engagement response category to another. EU8 includes all project countries The positive scores indicate an increase in the likelihood of intending to leave, while the negative scores indicate a decreased likelihood of intending to leave. The grey bar represents values that are not statistically significant (on a 0.05% significance level). The model controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and organisational and country fixed effects.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Employee well-being plays a critical role in workplace productivity and absenteeism. Poor well-being is closely linked to increased incidences and duration of sick leave, reducing overall workforce availability. In OECD countries, workers experiencing mental health problems take over 50% more sick days than their counterparts without such conditions (OECD, 2021[10]; OECD, 2022[11]). This issue is particularly relevant in the public sector, as previous studies showed that absenteeism rates tend to be higher than in private sector organisations (Mastekaasa, 2020[12]; Office for National Statistics, 2023[13]).
This survey finds that most public servants across EU7 countries report taking minimal or no sick leave. As illustrated inFigure 2.9, more than half (54%) of public servants across EU7 countries reported not taking any sick leave in the past six months. 13% took between 1-3 days, 9% took 4-5 days, and 8% took 6-10 days. While short-term absences are relatively common, long-term leave remains less frequent. It should, however, be noted that this represent self-reported sick-leave, and actual sick leave might be higher, as employees may not remember the exact number, or may want to underreport their sick leave due to stigmas associated with a high share of sick leave. It is also possible that individuals on long-term sick leave did not respond to the survey, particularly if they were still on leave during the period the survey was run. Despite these methodological challenges, individual trends in absenteeism can be explained by the levels of employee well-being. When comparing to the group of employees who took 0 days of sick leave one response category increase in an employee’s well-being (i.e. from strongly disagree to disagree) is associated with a 21% lower likelihood of moving to the next sick leave category.3
Note: The figure presents the average self-reported sick leave based on responses to the question: “During the last six months, how many sick leave days have you taken?” Results show the averages for six EU project countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, The Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and the Netherlands. Latvia and Lithuania were excluded due to data availability. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. Respondents selected from multiple response options. Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
The public sector can attract and retain skilled professionals by demonstrating a strong commitment to combating all forms of harassment and discrimination. Employees who experience these adverse behaviours are more likely to face mental health challenges and are at greater risk of taking prolonged sick leave (Clark et al., 2021[14]). Beyond the direct impact on employees, government institutions, often seen as role models for broader society, risk losing credibility and public trust if they fail to effectively address these issues.
Across EU7 countries, 13.4% of civil servants reported experiencing harassment, discrimination, or both in the previous 12 months. In most countries, harassment was reported more frequently than discrimination. Harassment can range from bullying and psychological abuse to sexual harassment or insults. International Labour Organization (ILO) defines harassment as “a range of unacceptable behaviours and practices, or threats thereof, whether a single occurrence or repeated, that aim at, result in, or are likely to result in physical, psychological, sexual or economic harm, and includes gender-based violence” (ILO, 2019[15]). Based on this definition, 9.7% of public servants across participating countries reported being victims of workplace harassment. Discrimination, on the other hand, involves unfair treatment based on characteristics such as race, color, sex, religion, political opinion, national origin, or social background. It results in the denial or impairment of equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation (Convention ILO, 1958). According to this definition, 7.3% of public servants across the EU7 countries reported experiencing workplace discrimination in the last 12 months.
Workplace harassment and discrimination rates vary across demographic and employment groups in the public sector, however this survey finds no significant gender gap, as men and women report similar rates for both harassment and discrimination. The likelihood of experiencing harassment and discrimination peaks after six years in an organisation and remains relatively stable thereafter. Non-managers report slightly higher rates of discrimination (7.4%) compared to managers (6.2%), while rates of harassment are nearly identical (9.5% vs. 9.9%). Organisation size is another factor; as organisations grow, the frequency of harassment increases, peaking at 13% in extra-large organisations (Figure 2.10).
Note: The figure presents the average EU7 distribution of responses to the self-reported workplace harassment question: “Having carefully read the definition of harassment below, have you been the victim of harassment on the job in the past 12 months?” and the discrimination question: “Having carefully read the definition of discrimination, have you been the victim of discrimination on the job in the past 12 months?” EU7 includes all project countries except Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size, and are broken down by gender, managerial status, contract type, tenure, and organisation size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Employees who have recently experienced discrimination or harassment are less likely to share concerns about their physical or mental well-being with their immediate supervisors (Figure 2.11). Additionally, they feel less capable of supporting colleagues in their work units who are experiencing mental health challenges.
Experiencing harassment and discrimination in the workplace not only harms individual well-being but may also create an environment of distrust. When individuals face mistreatment or feel marginalised, they may fear that disclosing health-related concerns could lead to further mistreatment, negative career consequences, or being perceived as weak or incapable. To avoid these risks, employees may choose to voice concerns about issues that matter to them outside the internal mechanisms rather than through HR processes or via their reporting lines (i.e. line or senior management). For instance, they might share concerns or emotions informally, such as in casual workplace conversations, in ways that are not recognised by the organisational voice system and may even be perceived as counterproductive. Neglecting these voices can harm organisational performance and reputation while also diminishing employee well-being and motivation at work (Klaas, Olson-Buchanan and Ward, 2011[16]).
Note: The figure presents the EU8 average of responses to the question: ‘I would feel comfortable sharing concerns about my physical or mental health with my immediate supervisor’ broken down by experiences of workplace harassment and discrimination in the last 12 months. EU8 includes all project countries. The mean differences are statistically significant for both items at the p < 0.01 level.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Figure 2.12 and Figure 2.13 illustrate the impact of key drivers on engagement and well-being on the horizontal axis, and the index scores of the drivers on the vertical axis. This analysis helps identify which areas should be prioritised for intervention, and where maintaining existing strengths is essential for sustaining employee engagement and well-being.
The top-right corner represents the ideal position, where a driver has both a strong effect and a high index score. This means employees already perceive this driver positively, so efforts should focus on maintaining its current level to avoid sharp declines in well-being and engagement.
The top-left corner indicates a driver with a limited effect but a high index score. While this aspect does not significantly influence engagement and well-being, it is still worth maintaining, as neglecting it could erode employee satisfaction over time. Monitoring trends in these drivers can help organisations respond proactively if their importance increases.
The bottom-right corner signals an area with high potential for improvement. Here, the driver has a strong effect but a low index score. Investing in improvements in this area could yield substantial gains in engagement and well-being. Policy interventions, leadership strategies, or targeted organisational changes should prioritise these drivers to maximise impact on employee satisfaction and productivity.
The bottom-left corner represents drivers with both a low effect size and a low index score. While the immediate impact of improving these drivers may be smaller than those in the bottom-right quadrant, their low starting point suggests there is still meaningful room for improvement.
2.9.1. Employee Engagement
Learning and development are the most influential driver of employee engagement, followed by senior leadership (Figure 2.12). Learning and development provide employees with opportunities to build their skills and progress in their careers, which, in turn, can enhance their motivation and commitment to the organisation, as well as increase their job satisfaction and sense of purpose (see Chapter 5). Senior leadership plays a crucial role in setting the organisation’s vision and direction and shaping the organisational culture, both of which are essential for fostering engagement (see Chapter 4).
By contrast, pay satisfaction has a weaker direct effect on engagement. However, it is important to note that the effect remains significant. Given that overall pay satisfaction is low, there is substantial room for improvement, which could in turn increase the engagement substantively. However, the costs and efforts associated could be high.
2.9.2. Employee Well-being
Learning and development are also the most influential driver of employee well-being, followed by management (Figure 2.13). Learning and development are crucial for well-being, as continuous learning equips employees with the necessary skills to build resilience, adapt to change and manage workplace pressures. Line management also plays a pivotal role by determining workload, providing feedback and accommodating flexible working arrangements. The third most influential driver is employment security, which is currently at a high level. However, it should be noted that this factor can be volatile over time, particularly when threatened by fiscal pressures. Given its strong impact, a decline in satisfaction with employment security could have significant consequences for overall well-being.
Compared to engagement, the effect of senior leadership on well-being is weaker, out of all the drivers it has the weakest direct effect on well-being. This is unsurprising, as senior leadership is more removed from individual employees. While they are responsible for setting the direction of workplace well-being policies, they are not in direct contact with employees nor responsible for the day-to-day distribution of work.
Note: The figure presents the statistically significant drivers of employee engagement in a mixed-effects regression model that controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and organisational and country fixed effects. All indices depicted are statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level. The x-axis presents the effect sizes of each index on engagement, while the y-axis shows the index scores. Pay satisfaction and employment security are not indices, but represent the average scores on the questions: ‘I am satisfied with my salary’ and ‘I am satisfied with the security of my employment.’ The data covers the EU7, which includes all project countries except the Netherlands.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Note: The figure presents the statistically significant drivers of employee well-being in a mixed effect regression model that controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure and organisational and country fixed effects. All indices depicted are statistically significant at the p<0.01 level. The x-axis presents the effect sizes for each index on engagement, while y-axis shows the index scores. Pay satisfaction and employment security are not indices, but the average scores for the questions: ‘I am satisfied with my salary’ and ‘I am satisfied with the security of my employment’. Data includes the EU7, all project countries except the Netherlands.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Across the EU8 countries, employees tend to be relatively engaged. Around three in four employees report being satisfied with their job, although only about half say they feel enthusiastic about it. Engagement levels are highest among male managers, temporary staff, early-career employees, and those working in small organisations. Two of the most important factors shaping engagement are opportunities for learning and development and the quality of senior leadership, yet employees tend to view both these areas with ambivalence, highlighting clear opportunities for improvement.
In contrast to work engagement, employees express less satisfaction with their overall well-being. While a majority (around four in five) report having clear responsibilities and managing their workload well, significant concerns remain regarding both physical and mental health. Notably, only one in five employees refrain from working when feeling unwell. Well-being tends to be higher among men, non-managers, employees on temporary contracts, those in the early stages of their careers, and those working in small organisations. Employee well-being is strongly influenced by access to learning and development opportunities and the quality of line management. However, employees often view learning and development with ambivalence, highlighting room for substantial improvement in this area. Given this, public service leaders, managers and those designing reforms may wish to consider the following key considerations for policy actions:
Enhancing learning and development activities, including supporting mobility and career growth, can result in improvements in both employee engagement and well-being. As the strongest driver of both employee engagement and well-being, investing in learning and development could lead to significant improvements in these areas. The overall satisfaction with learning and development is at 58.3, slightly above neutral, which means there is room for improvement.
Strengthening leadership and management is another important area of focus. Senior leadership is the second strongest driver of employee engagement, playing a key role in shaping organisational direction and culture. Line managers, meanwhile, are the second strongest driver of employee well-being, directly influencing employees’ daily work. Currently, senior leadership presents the greatest opportunity for improvement, with a satisfaction score of 60.3, standing at 10 percentage points lower than line managers at 71.8.
Improving engagement reduces excessive turnover, which can disrupt workflows and increase recruitment and training costs. Employees with higher engagement levels are less likely to cite negative reasons to leave their organisation, such as poor management or a lack of interesting work. However, they are more likely to leave for positive reasons, such as career progression, suggesting a rather healthy turnover.
The fact that over 40% of respondents report feeling burned out underlines the importance of implementing comprehensive well-being initiatives that go beyond physical health to address mental, emotional, and social well-being. Promoting open communication, recognition, and inclusive management practices can also contribute to a healthier and more resilient workforce, ultimately reducing absenteeism and improving overall organisational performance.
References
[3] APS (2024), Australian Public Service Employee Census 2023, https://www.apsc.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/workforce-information/aps-employee-census-2024.
[9] Borst, R., P. Kruyen and C. Lako (2017), “Exploring the Job Demands–Resources Model of Work Engagement in Government: Bringing in a Psychological Perspective”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 39/3, pp. 372-397, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x17729870.
[14] Clark, A. et al. (2021), “Workplace discrimination as risk factor for long-term sickness absence: Longitudinal analyses of onset and changes in workplace adversity”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 16/8, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255697.
[4] Gov.ie (2024), Civil Service Employee Engagement Survey, https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/5e7009-civil-service-employee-engagement-survey/.
[5] Gov.uk (2024), Civil Service People Survey 2023 Results Highlights, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-people-survey-2023-results/civil-service-people-survey-2023-results-highlights.
[15] ILO (2019), C190 - Violence and Harassment Convention.
[16] Klaas, B., J. Olson-Buchanan and A. Ward (2011), “The Determinants of Alternative Forms of Workplace Voice: An Integrative Perspective”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38/1, pp. 314-345, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311423823.
[12] Mastekaasa, A. (2020), “Absenteeism in the Public and the Private Sector: Does the Public Sector Attract High Absence Employees?”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 30/1, pp. 60-76, https://doi.org/10.1093/JOPART/MUZ003.
[7] Medina-Garrido, J., J. Biedma-Ferrer and J. Sanchez-Ortiz (2020), “I Can’t Go to Work Tomorrow! Work-Family Policies, Well-Being and Absenteeism”, Sustainability, Vol. 12/14, p. 5519, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145519.
[8] Nielsen, K. et al. (2017), “Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Work & Stress, Vol. 31/2, pp. 101-120, https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463.
[11] OECD (2022), Promoting Health and Well-being at Work: Policy and Practices, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e179b2a5-en.
[10] OECD (2021), Fitter Minds, Fitter Jobs: From Awareness to Change in Integrated Mental Health, Skills and Work Policies, Mental Health and Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a0815d0f-en.
[1] OECD (2016), Engaging Public Employees for a High-Performing Civil Service, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267190-en.
[13] Office for National Statistics (2023), Sickness absence in the UK labour market: 2022, https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/articles/sicknessabsenceinthelabourmarket/2022 (accessed on 6 March 2025).
[6] OPM (2024), Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results, https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-management-report/2024/2024-governmentwide-management-report.pdf.
[2] Schaufeli, W., A. Bakker and M. Salanova (2006), “The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66/4, pp. 701-716, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471.
← 1. All regressions models in this chapter control for gender, age, educational attainment, contract type, working pattern (full/part-time), managerial status, tenure, country, organisational ID, organisational size.
← 2. The relationship between employee engagement and turnover was tested using a mixed-effects logistic regression model. Turnover intention was measured through the question “Do you want to leave your organisation within the next 12 months?” (yes/no), combined with the follow-up question “Why do you want to leave your organisation within the next 12 months?”. Respondents could select multiple reasons, so individuals may appear in several answer categories. The dependent variable therefore captures whether respondents who expressed an intention to leave cited a specific reason. The model controls for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and country fixed effects. The relationship is statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level.
← 3. The relationship between well-being and sick leave was tested using an ordinal logistic regression model. Well-being was measured on a 0–100 scale, while sick leave was categorised into six response items. The model controlled for gender, age, education, contract type (temporary/permanent), working pattern (full-time/part-time), managerial status, organisation size, tenure, and country fixed effects. The relationship is statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level.