With the prevalence of mental distress on the rise around the world, especially in younger generations, mental health and wellbeing has increasingly become a topic of concern for employers. As a result, workplace mental wellbeing programs such as mindfulness apps and therapy have increasingly gained traction across companies.

However, some studies suggest that they don’t work. For example, a study of 32,974 employees at a large warehouse retail company in the United States found that while employees exposed to a workplace wellness program reported significantly more positive health behaviors, there were no significant effects on clinical measures of health, health care spending and utilization, or employment outcomes after 18 months¹. Similarly, a review of survey data from 46,336 workers across 233 organizations in the United Kingdom found employees who participated in a range of common individual-level wellbeing interventions, including resilience training, mindfulness and wellbeing apps were no better off across multiple indicators of subjective wellbeing².

To really tackle mental health in the workplace, we must therefore understand the root causes of the mental health challenges that employees experience. It is only then that organizations can become strategic about mitigating these challenges and understand what role, if any, they are playing in them.

“Only by understanding the root causes of the mental health challenges that employees experience can organizations become strategic about mitigating them and understand what role, if any, they may be playing to cause them.”

Measuring mental health & wellbeing

Mental health and wellbeing is often conflated with happiness or simply mood. However, mental wellbeing goes far beyond this to encompass all of our mental capabilities - emotional, social, cognitive and physical - that together enable us to navigate life’s challenges and function productively. We might think of this as the composite health of our mind. At Sapien Labs, the Global Mind Project measures mental health and wellbeing using an assessment called the Mind Health Quotient which measures 47 aspects of mental function that aggregate into an overall score (the MHQ)^3–5. With these 47 aspects evaluated on a unique life impact scale, MHQ scores reflect the ability to function and are linearly related to productive days such that moving up or down 10 points from anywhere on the scale is roughly equivalent to the same gain or loss of productive days⁵. Thus, the scores that we report are not simply readouts of mood but rather reflect the productive functioning of the population that we assess.

Mental health and wellbeing as measured by the MHQ

Root causes of mental wellbeing at work

We have uncovered numerous societal-level root causes of our mental health challenges from ultra-processed food to smartphone use in childhood to the deterioration of family bonds^6–9.  While companies can consider how they may promote or mitigate these aspects, here we ask specifically how work culture and structure influence mental wellbeing - aspects of the workplace where companies have a direct role to play.

We analyzed data, taken from the Global Mind Project, from 54,831 employed Internet-enabled adults across 65 countries who completed the MHQ assessment in 2024, in addition to answering questions on their work structure and culture and a host of other social and lifestyle factors. We ask about aspects of work structure including remote vs in-person arrangements to working in teams as well as the following 9 work culture factors that have previously been linked to mental wellbeing: Control & flexibility over time, Control & flexibility over job, Workload, Learning & growth opportunities, Relationship with manager/supervisor, Relationships with colleagues, Feeling informed about what’s going on, Being valued & recognized, and Feeling pride & purpose in work^10–15.

For example, multiple large-scale meta-analyses and meta-reviews have found that factors such as effort-reward imbalance, high job demands, low decision latitude, bullying and lack of value and respect in the workplace have been associated with the various outcomes of psychological distress^10,11,13. However, studies particularly focusing on young people have also found a significant degree of uncertainty in terms of how different work factors impact mental health outcomes, suggesting there is still more to understand¹⁶. Here, we probe how these different work culture and structure factors impact mental wellbeing in 2024 and which of these matters the most.

1. Work Structure

Here we look at the relationship between aspects of work structure and mental wellbeing, including whether a person’s work is fully in-person, fully remote or hybrid; whether they work on their own or in teams; and what type of work they do. We present three key results:

i. Work location

First, those who work fully remote, on average, had poorer mental wellbeing than those who work in-person (Figure 1). However, those with a hybrid arrangement (a relatively small minority) had the highest mental wellbeing, slightly better, on average, than those who work in-person (with the exception of South Asia where fully in-person was better than hybrid).

Specifically, fully remote workers were more likely to have feelings of sadness or hopelessness, episodes of confusion or slowed thinking, unwanted strange or obsessive thoughts, and feelings of being detached from reality, compared to those who work in-person or hybrid.

Figure 1: Mental wellbeing, as measured by the average MHQ score, by work location.

ii. Working alone versus in teams

Second, those who work in teams had better mental wellbeing than those who work on their own, while those in larger teams of 15 or more fared better than those who work in smaller teams (Figure 2). The improvements with team size were particularly prominent in Latin America and South Asia, whereas North America and Europe had less dramatic increases in mental wellbeing with increasing team size (see associated tables).

Figure 2: Mental wellbeing, (as measured by the average MHQ score) by team size.

iii. Type of work

Third, those who work in human care (e.g. teachers, doctors), business management or knowledge jobs fare best while those who work in customer service jobs or in physical labor have the lowest mental wellbeing, followed by those who work in technical/vocational jobs or in the visual or performing arts (Figure 3). Latin America has a different pattern relative to other regions with those in technical/vocational jobs faring among the best, and visual or performing arts the worst (see associated tables). The greatest variability across regions was for visual and performing arts.

Figure 3: Mental wellbeing, (as measured by the average MHQ score) by type of work.

2. Work Culture

The differences in mental wellbeing with respect to work structure are significant but pale in comparison to the differences with respect to work culture. Here we look at the relationship between mental wellbeing and aspects of work culture or how people experience their employment. Specifically, we look at 9 factors that were rated by participants on a 1-9 scale where 9 was the most positive and 1 the most negative.

Aspects of work culture that we asked about:

i. Work culture and mental wellbeing

All 9 work culture factors were significantly correlated with mental wellbeing. However, the 2 factors associated with the steepest gains in mental wellbeing were good relationships with work colleagues and a strong sense of pride and purpose in work (Figure 4). MHQ scores systematically increased by 90 and 85 points respectively as the ratings for these 2 factors went from 1 (worst possible rating) to 9 (best possible rating).

In contrast, MHQ scores increased by only 65 and 55 points respectively for the ‘work-life balance’ factors of workload and flexibility over time as ratings increased from 1 to 9. This aggregate trend, with respect to the top and bottom two aspects of work culture, was essentially the same regardless of the specific type of job, whether the person worked remotely, in person or hybrid, alone or in a large team, or whether they were younger or older (see associated tables). 

Figure 4:  Mental wellbeing by work culture. Impact on mental wellbeing was measured as the difference in MHQ score for each aspect of work culture between those who rated that aspect best (9) vs worst (1).  Percentages show the proportion of respondents who rated the factor in the upper third of the life impact scale (>6). Aspects of work structure from section 1 are shown in grey for comparison.

Notably, all aspects of work culture had a much greater impact on mental wellbeing compared to any structural aspects such as the type of job, whether one worked remotely, in person or hybrid, alone or in a large team. Surprisingly, the magnitude of impact was equivalent to that seen when looking at the impact of poor family relationships on mental wellbeing⁸.

Finally, across the globe only about 50% of respondents rated colleague relationships as very good (7-9), while 55% rated pride and purpose as high. Conversely, 13% rated each of these very low (1-3). In contrast, only 38% rated flexibility over time high, while 26% rated it very low.

ii. Interactions between work culture factors

Having more flexibility over your time and a lower workload does not compensate for poor relationships with colleagues or a lack of pride and purpose in work. An almost equivalent difference persisted even for those who had the best ratings for flexibility over time and amount of work (see associated tables). Those who had poor ratings for workload and flexibility over time (ratings of 1-3) but high ratings of 7-9 for colleague relationships and pride and purpose in work had MHQ scores of 66 and 79, respectively (Figure 5) which was not very different from having good ratings on both.

In stark contrast, those who gave good ratings for workload and flexibility over time (ratings of 7-9) but poor ratings for colleague relationships (ratings of 1-3) had substantially lower MHQ scores of 35 and 29, respectively. Thus, work-life balance does not compensate for good relationships and pride and purpose at work. On the other hand, people are less impacted by higher workloads and lack of flexibility over time when they have good relationships with colleagues and feel pride and purpose in what they are doing.

Figure 5: Impact of different profiles of work culture, as measured by the average MHQ score.

iii. Specific mental health symptoms associated with poor work culture

Here we report on the symptoms or capabilities that are most significantly impacted by each work culture or structure factor, when controlling for the other factors.   

Those who report poor relationships with their colleagues (but rated other factors high) experienced more traumatic flashbacks, guilt and self-blame, unwanted, strange thoughts and feelings of sadness and hopelessness compared to those who had good relationships with their colleagues (Figure 6). In addition, other aspects such as planning & organization and speech & language were also rated worse by those with poor colleague relationships.

Figure 6: Impact of relationships with colleagues on individual problems and capabilities measured in the MHQ assessment. Bars show the difference between the best and worst ratings (1 and 9).

This suggests a reciprocal relationship between both work culture and the individuals’ own capabilities with respect to relationships and work, where those who have better relational abilities and skills may experience their work culture more positively. We therefore controlled for relationship ability (Figure 6, orange bars) and show that while differences in capabilities such as planning and organization were no longer as impactful, physical health issues, sadness and hopelessness and unwanted thoughts still dominated.

Those who do not feel pride and purpose in their work (but do well on other factors) also similarly had increased sadness and hopelessness but also report decreased emotional resilience and self-image as well as lower drive, motivation and energy (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Impact of pride and purpose on individual problems and capabilities measured in the MHQ assessment. Bars show the difference between the best and worst ratings (1 and 9).

In contrast, excessive workload had a primary effect on sleep, leading to challenges with appetite regulation, nightmares and diminished stability and calmness (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Impact of workload on individual problems and capabilities measured in the MHQ assessment. Bars show the difference between the best and worst ratings (1 and 9).

Lack of flexibility over time had the least significant impact on its own with sleep quality also topping the list (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Impact of flexibility over time on individual problems and capabilities measured in the MHQ assessment. Bars show the difference between the best and worst ratings (1 and 9).

If there is one theme that emerges from this study, it is that we are social creatures and the more opportunity we have to work socially, and the better that social experience, the better we fare.

When we work in teams, when we have good relationships and camaraderie with these team members, when we feel pride and purpose in the work we are doing together and are valued by our co-workers, we are far more likely to thrive than when we work alone, don’t interact in person with team members and have little sense of pride and purpose in what we are doing. Essentially, as humans, what we need to thrive is not leisure and convenience. Rather we seek meaning and connections with others and a sense of being valued in a human way, even if this means working more or working with less flexibility.

When we lack this, we are consumed by feelings of sadness and hopelessness, unwanted, strange thoughts, diminished drive and motivation, and lower energy. All of this occupies our mindspace and diminishes our productivity and capacity for work.

“As humans, what we need to thrive is not leisure and convenience. Rather we seek meaning and connections with others and a sense of being valued in a human way, even if this means working more or working with less flexibility.”

A great deal of research has been done on the importance of our social relationships showing that those who thrive are those with strong families and strong friendships. For example, the Havard Happiness Study, which investigates what makes a happy life, found that the one factor that ‘continuously demonstrates its broad and enduring importance’ is good relationships and that ‘people who are more connected to family, to friends, and to community, are happier and physically healthier than people who are less well connected’¹⁷.

This is also borne out in studies from the Global Mind Project which show that family relationships, friendships, and the love and care we feel for our wider community are core drivers of our mental wellbeing^8,9,18. It is therefore not surprising that the importance of human relationships extends to work as well, especially since we spend the majority of our waking hours at work.

 "If there is one clear directive that emerges from the data for organizations that are serious about the wellbeing and performance of their people, it’s that they should focus on how to bring people together as effective teams with manageable workloads and clear sense of pride and purpose."

If there is one clear directive that emerges from the data for organizations that are serious about the wellbeing and performance of their people, it’s that they should focus on how to bring people together as effective teams with manageable workloads and clear sense of pride and purpose. Building relationships and strong and effective teams does not simply happen on its own but must be intentionally cultivated. Pride and purpose is a belief that needs to be reinforced at an individual, team and company level. Sports teams have long recognized the need for strong team relationships, pride and purpose, as well as the need for sufficient rest and recovery as a means of building the mental capacity for sustained high performance. It should not be a surprise that the same principles apply to work teams of all kinds.

The best part of being with the Warriors has been the team camaraderie,
the team meals, the team pranks, the bond we share.

- Shaun Livingston -

It is perhaps obvious that this cannot be accomplished through individual therapy, gym membership, or a few minutes of mindfulness a day. Rather it is important for employers to evaluate how their practices and policies from onboarding new employees, training of team leadership and even performance management systems shape their culture and experience of work. For employers this will have far reaching impact from greater engagement and productivity to lower medical costs.

The Global Mind Project

The Global Mind Project acquires data from adults age 18+ from the literate Internet-enabled world through a comprehensive online self-report assessment called the MHQ^3–5. Participants are recruited through advertising on Facebook and Google by separately targeting populations in each age-gender group and geography across 72+ countries in 17 languages across a broad range of interest criteria¹⁹. Individuals take the MHQ for the purpose of obtaining their mental wellbeing scores along with a detailed report offering self-help guidance.

Presently, 1000-2,000 people complete the assessment each day and are added to a dynamic database. In addition to the scored questions on mental feeling and function, respondents answer various demographic, lifestyle, and life experience questions.

The Global Mind Project is a public interest project that has ethics approval from the Health Media Lab Institutional Review Board (HML IRB), an independent IRB that provides assurance for the protection of human subjects in international social and behavioral research (OHRP Institutional Review Board #00001211, Federal Wide Assurance #00001102, IORG #0000850).

The Global Mind Project database is freely available to researchers in nonprofit and government organizations for non-commercial purpose. Access can be requested here.

The MHQ

The MHQ is a unique comprehensive assessment of mental wellbeing comprised of 47 elements of mental feeling and function including both positive assets, as well as problems that span the symptoms of ten major disorders^3,4.

Within the MHQ, respondents rate each of these 47 items using a 9-point life impact scale reflecting the impact on one's ability to function. For items on a spectrum from positive to negative (spectrum items such as self-image) 1 on the 9-point scale refers to Is a real challenge and impacts my ability to function, 9 refers to It is a real asset to my life and my performance and 5 refers to Sometimes I wish it was better, but it's ok. For items with varying degrees of problem severity (problem items such as suicidal thoughts): the 1 rating on the 9-point scale refers to Never causes me any problems, the 9 rating refers to Has a constant and severe impact on my ability to function, and the 5 rating refers to Sometimes causes me difficulties or distress but I can manage. Respondents rate these elements based on their current perception of themselves.

The MHQ score is an aggregate score of mental wellbeing calculated from these 47 elements, and positions individuals on the spectrum from Distressed to Thriving, spanning a possible range of scores from −100 to +200⁵. Negative scores indicate a mental wellbeing status that has significant negative impact on the ability to function (i.e. a status of distressed or struggling). It also provides sub-scores across 6 broad functional dimensions.

The MHQ is freely available online, is anonymous, and takes ~15 minutes to complete.

Data used in this report

Data used in this report included all responses obtained by the Global Mind Project between March and September 2024 (N=54,831; see associated tables for N values by age, gender and country) after the application of certain exclusion criteria described below. Only countries with sufficient samples size were included in the analysis. The final analyses included data from 40,282-43,687 respondents across 55 countries.

Data fields used in this report included 1) ratings to all 47 mental health questions 2) computed dimension scores and aggregate MHQ score and 3) responses to the following questions on workplace culture and structure:

Data exclusion criteria

Respondents who stated that they did not find the MHQ easy to understand were excluded. This exclusion criterion was applied by removing respondents who answered No to the final question in the MHQ which asks them “Did you find this assessment easy to understand?”. Also excluded were those assessments completed in under 7 minutes (the minimum time needed to read and respond to the MHQ), and those where response ratings had a standard deviation of less than 0.2, indicating that the same rating value was selected across all 47 rating items.

Data analysis and statistics

Average MHQ scores, average dimensional scores, and average ratings for each of the 47 problems and mental functions assessed were computed for all respondents altogether and for each age-gender group separately and overall averages were constructed as weighted averages of age-gender prevalence. These mean values as well as standard deviations, N values and P-values for all comparisons are shown in the associated data tables.

References

1. Song, Z. & Baicker, K. Effect of a Workplace Wellness Program on Employee Health and Economic Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 321, 1491–1501 (2019).

2. Fleming, W. J. Employee well-being outcomes from individual-level mental health interventions: Cross-sectional evidence from the United Kingdom. Industrial Relations Journal 55, 162–182 (2024).

3. Newson, J. J. & Thiagarajan, T. C. Assessment of Population Well-Being With the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ): Development and Usability Study. JMIR Ment Health 7, e17935 (2020).

4. Newson, J. J., Pastukh, V. & Thiagarajan, T. C. Assessment of Population Well-being With the Mental Health Quotient: Validation Study. JMIR Ment Health 9, e34105 (2022).

5. Newson, J. J., Sukhoi, O. & Thiagarajan, T. C. MHQ: constructing an aggregate metric of population mental wellbeing. Population Health Metrics 22, 16 (2024).

6. Sapien Labs. Age of First Smartphone/Tablet and Mental Wellbeing Outcomes. https://sapienlabs.org/age-of-first-smartphone-tablet-and-mental-wellbeing-outcomes/ (2023).

7. Sapien Labs. Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Mental Wellbeing Outcomes. https://sapienlabs.org/consumption-of-ultra-processed-food-and-mental-wellbeing-outcomes/ (2023).

8. Sapien Labs. Mental State of the World 2022. https://mentalstateoftheworld.report/ (2023).

9.  Sapien Labs. Family Closeness and Mental Wellbeing of the Internet-Enabled Young Adults in India. https://sapienlabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Family-Closeness-and-Mental-Wellbeing-Report-India.pdf (2024).

10. Harvey, S. B. et al. Can work make you mentally ill? A systematic meta-review of work-related risk factors for common mental health problems. Occup Environ Med 74, 301–310 (2017).

11. Theorell, T. et al. A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms. BMC Public Health 15, 738 (2015).

12. Law, P. C. F. et al. A systematic review on the effect of work-related stressors on mental health of young workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 93, 611–622 (2020).

13. Molen, H. F. van der, Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. & Groene, G. de. Work-related psychosocial risk factors for stress-related mental disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 10, e034849 (2020).

14. Niedhammer, I., Bertrais, S. & Witt, K. Psychosocial work exposures and health outcomes: a meta-review of 72 literature reviews with meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 47, 489–508 (2021).

15. Aronsson, G. et al. A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and burnout symptoms. BMC Public Health 17, 264 (2017).

16. van Veen, M. et al. Psychosocial work factors affecting mental health of young workers: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 96, 57–75 (2023).

17. Waldinger, R. & Schulz, M. The Good Life: Lessons from the World’s Longest Study on Happiness. (Rider, 2023).

18. Sapien Labs. Mental Wellbeing, Religion and the Love You Give. https://sapienlabs.org/wellbeing-religion-love-you-give-report/ (2024).

19. Taylor, J., Sukhoi, O., Newson, J. & Thiagarajan, T. Representativeness of the Global Mind Project Data for the United States. (2023).