HeartWise
HeartWise Workplace

What the research says

For people who like to check. HeartWise Workplace draws on published research. This page says what that research suggests, names every source, says how strong the evidence is, and says plainly what we do not claim.

Go to the referencesBack to HeartWise WorkplaceTake the Workplace Pulse
Where we stand

Three honest things to know first

It draws on research

HeartWise Workplace draws on published research on emotional skills, teamwork, recovery, focus, mentoring and how people are led.

A new programme, looked at openly

The research supports the ingredients of HeartWise Workplace. The programme as a whole is new, and we will look at it openly as it grows.

Most findings are associations

Most workplace findings are correlations. Where a source says “associated with”, so do we.

Our promise. HeartWise will share its own results openly when it has them, in the careful way described further down this page.

The chain

How HeartWise supports productivity

Five steps, one after another. This is a logic model: a map of how we think the parts connect. It is to be tested, not proven.

  1. Shared skills and safety
  2. Steadier feelings and positivity
  3. Better focus and energy
  4. More reliable delivery
  5. Respectful behaviour that keeps people learning and staying

  1. Step 1: Shared skills and safety

    What HeartWise does

    The Five Feelings, the Zones, the pause, L.A.N.T.E.R.N., the Mirror and team agreements.

    Research support

    Moderate

    Adults can learn emotional skills (moderate). Teams that feel safe to speak up learn more (moderate; an association).

    Not yet known

    This is where HeartWise starts, so there is no earlier link to test.

  2. Step 2: Steadier feelings and positivity

    What HeartWise does

    Everything in step 1, plus content on recovery.

    Research support

    Moderate

    Skills improve (moderate). Higher wellbeing goes with better performance: moderate, mostly as an association, with some experimental evidence and small to medium effects. It has not been shown for a training programme.

    Not yet known

    No study shows that this approach changes everyday feelings at work. How large any effect is in real organisations, and whether an intervention can move it, is not known.

  3. Step 3: Better focus and energy

    What HeartWise does

    Calm Together and Steady Hearts; agreements on messages, meetings and rest.

    Research support

    Moderate to strong

    Sleep and attention: moderate to strong. Interruptions: moderate.

    Not yet known

    Whether programme-based agreements actually reduce interruptions (one small trial).

  4. Step 4: More reliable delivery

    What HeartWise does

    Agreements that people keep, and meeting rituals.

    Research support

    Limited

    The research review behind this page found no study connecting a culture programme to on-time delivery.

    Not yet known

    This is the weakest link and the most useful to measure.

  5. Step 5: Respectful behaviour that keeps people learning and staying

    What HeartWise does

    Words That Build, Repair and Relationships, and Leading With the Heart.

    Research support

    Limited to moderate

    Experiments in laboratories and simulations, and associations for staying.

    Not yet known

    The real-world effect of a civility programme has not been measured here.

The aim we will look at, and not promise: work that goes well

In plain words. The individual links have real, though mostly correlational, support. The whole chain has not been tested for any similar programme, so HeartWise says that it draws on research, and then measures its own results.

What research suggests

Twenty-three sentences, with their sources

Each sentence names its sources in small print, with a reference number that matches the list below. We use “suggests” and “studies find” only where a source supports it.

Learning emotional skills at work

  1. Adults can learn emotional skills; reviews of training studies find improvements in measured emotional skills.

    Sources: Hodzic 2018 [R15]; Mattingly & Kraiger 2019 [R26]

  2. Research on emotional-skills training suggests that practising with feedback helps more than being lectured.

    Sources: Mattingly & Kraiger 2019 [R26]

How strong is this? Adults can improve measured emotional skills with structured training: the strength of this evidence is moderate (consistent meta-analyses; many studies are small). That practice and feedback work better than lectures is limited and exploratory. The research review behind this page found no meta-analysis showing that emotional-skills training causes better job performance.

Feeling safe to speak up

  1. In teams, research suggests that when people feel safe to ask questions, admit mistakes and speak up, the team learns more together.

    Sources: Edmondson 1999 [R11]; Frazier 2017 [R12]

How strong is this? Psychological safety goes with team learning and engagement: moderate to strong, as an association. That a training programme can create it is limited, because few interventions have been tested.

Work, home and recovery

  1. Research on work and home finds that the two affect one another, in both directions.

    Sources: Allen 2000 [R3]; Amstad 2011 [R5]; Greenhaus & Powell 2006 [R14]

  2. Studies of recovery find that being able to step away from work mentally in the evening goes with feeling more rested.

    Sources: Sonnentag & Fritz 2015 [R33]; Bennett 2018 [R6]

  3. Changing how work is organised and how supervisors support people has been found to ease work-family conflict modestly in a trial.

    Sources: Kelly 2014 [R17]

How strong is this? Home and work affect each other: strong (many studies, consistent). Not being able to switch off hurts next-day energy: moderate (diary studies, correlational). That changing how work is run and how supervisors behave eases the pressure: moderate (one good randomised trial plus quasi-experiments; effects modest).

Sleep, interruptions and focus

  1. Sleep research finds that being tired makes it harder to pay attention.

    Sources: Lim & Dinges 2010 [R23]

  2. Studies link poorer sleep with lower mood and more off-task time at work.

    Sources: Litwiller 2017 [R24]; Wagner 2012 [R35]

  3. Research on interruptions suggests that being interrupted can make work feel more stressful and make it harder to return to a task.

    Sources: Mark 2008 [R25]; Leroy 2009 [R22]

  4. One trial found that people who checked email less often reported less stress.

    Sources: Kushlev & Dunn 2015 [R21]

How strong is this? Tiredness reduces attention: strong (laboratory meta-analysis). Poor sleep goes with worse work-related attitudes and mood and more off-task behaviour: moderate (correlational, plus a few natural experiments). Interruptions and task-switching cost time, stress and quality: moderate. Shared agreements on email and notifications reducing stress: limited (one trial).

Different ages, and learning from one another

  1. Reviews of research on generations at work find that differences between generations are small and inconsistent, so HeartWise looks at each person and at shared agreements instead of labels.

    Sources: Costanza 2012 [R9]; Rudolph 2021 [R31]

  2. Mentoring is linked in research with better attitudes and career satisfaction, though the average effects are modest.

    Sources: Eby 2008 [R10]; Allen 2004 [R2]

  3. In formal mentoring programmes, letting people have a say in the match and preparing mentors goes with better mentoring.

    Sources: Allen, Eby & Lentz 2006 [R1]

How strong is this? That generation labels explain differences in how people work is weak and contested; most reviewers say the effects are small to negligible. That is why HeartWise looks at each person and at shared agreements. Mentored people tend to do somewhat better on attitudes and careers: moderate, with small average effects. Formal-programme design matters: limited to moderate.

Why people stay, and how managers matter

  1. Research suggests that people stay in jobs for reasons beyond pay, including connection to colleagues and feeling supported.

    Sources: Mitchell 2001 [R27]; Kurtessis 2017 [R20]

  2. Studies find that how managers behave is linked with how their teams feel.

    Sources: Montano 2017 [R28]; Kuoppala 2008 [R19]

  3. The World Health Organization’s 2022 guidelines on mental health at work recommend training managers to support their teams.

    Sources: WHO 2022 [R36]

How strong is this? People leave or stay for reasons beyond pay, including relationships, support and demands: moderate to strong (meta-analyses). Leaders’ behaviour is associated with team wellbeing: moderate (mostly cross-sectional). Training managers to notice and support: moderate (WHO).

Respect, satisfaction and how a workplace does

  1. Experiments find that rudeness at work can make people perform worse and help less.

    Sources: Porath & Erez 2007 [R29]; Riskin 2015 [R30]

  2. Studies find that employees’ job satisfaction is linked with how their workplace does.

    Sources: Judge 2001 [R16]; Bryson 2017 [R8]; Krekel 2019 [R18]

How strong is this? Rudeness experiments: limited to moderate (laboratory and simulation studies). Job satisfaction and performance: the association is strong, but the direction of cause is not settled. The large analyses of workplace wellbeing are correlational and draw largely on one company’s data. Satisfaction and mood are different things: one study found that a workplace’s average job satisfaction was linked with its performance, while job-related mood was not. None of this shows that a training programme raises productivity.

Making training stick

  1. Research on training suggests that what happens before and after a workshop (practice, support from managers, follow-up) matters as much as the workshop itself.

    Sources: Salas 2012 [R32]; Blume 2010 [R7]

  2. Research suggests that writing an if-then plan helps people follow through on what they intend to do.

    Sources: Gollwitzer & Sheeran 2006 [R13]

  3. Research suggests that a short, structured team debrief after work is linked with better performance.

    Sources: Tannenbaum & Cerasoli 2013 [R34]

How strong is this? Follow-up, supportive supervisors and a climate that allows practice improve transfer: moderate to strong. If-then plans help follow-through: strong in general, but mostly for individual goals. Structured team debriefs help: moderate. The review found no support for a one-off day producing lasting change on its own, which is why the One-Day Workshop comes with a follow-up path.

Inner work life and daily progress

  1. A diary study of 238 people on 26 creative teams found that when people’s inner work life (their emotions, their view of the organisation and their motivation) was more positive, they did more creative and productive work. A good reason to look after the heart at work.

    Sources: Amabile & Kramer 2011 [R4]

How strong is this? A helpful starting point: it comes from one diary study of creative teams, and it shows that a positive inner work life and creative, productive work go together. We use it as one more reason to look at inner work life.

About HeartWise Workplace itself

  1. HeartWise Workplace draws on this research. It is a new programme, and we plan to share our own results openly when we have them.

    Source: this is HeartWise’s own statement, not a research finding.

How strong is this? This is a statement about HeartWise, not a research finding.

References

The sources, in full

Thirty-six sources, in alphabetical order, each with its link so that you can read it for yourself. If you ever find a sentence that a source does not quite support, please tell us and we will put it right.

  1. R1

    Allen, Eby & Lentz (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 567-578. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.567

    Study type: Survey of formal mentoring programmesCited in statement 13

  2. R2

    Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz & Lima (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127

    Study type: Meta-analysisCited in statement 12

  3. R3

    Allen, Herst, Bruck & Sutton (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278-308. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.278

    Study type: ReviewCited in statement 4

  4. R4

    Amabile & Kramer (2011). The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement, and Creativity at Work. Harvard Business Review Press.

    Study type: Diary study of 238 people on 26 creative teams (per the authors’ summary)Cited in statement 22

  5. R5

    Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering & Semmer (2011). A meta-analysis of work-family conflict and various outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022170

    Study type: Meta-analysisCited in statement 4

  6. R6

    Bennett, Bakker & Field (2018). Recovery from work-related effort: a meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 262-275. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2217

    Study type: Meta-analysisCited in statement 5

  7. R7

    Blume, Ford, Baldwin & Huang (2010). Transfer of training: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880

    Study type: Meta-analysisCited in statement 19

  8. R8

    Bryson, Forth & Stokes (2017). Does employees’ subjective well-being affect workplace performance? Human Relations, 70(8), 1017-1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717693073

    Study type: British linked employer-employee data, cross-sectional and panelCited in statement 18

  9. R9

    Costanza, Badger, Fraser, Severt & Gade (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 375-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4

    Study type: Meta-analysisCited in statement 11

  10. R10

    Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng & DuBois (2008). Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 254-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005

    Study type: Meta-analysisCited in statement 12

  11. R11

    Edmondson (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

    Study type: Field study of work teams in one manufacturing companyCited in statement 3

  12. R12

    Frazier, Fainshmidt, Klinger, Pezeshkan & Vracheva (2017). Psychological safety: a meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183

    Study type: Meta-analysis; most included studies are cross-sectionalCited in statement 3

  13. R13

    Gollwitzer & Sheeran (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

    Study type: Meta-analysisCited in statement 20

  14. R14

    Greenhaus & Powell (2006). When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72-92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379625

    Study type: Theory paperCited in statement 4

  15. R15

    Hodzic, Scharfen, Ripoll, Holling & Zenasni (2018). How efficient are emotional intelligence trainings: a meta-analysis. Emotion Review, 10(2), 138-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917708613

    Study type: Meta-analysis of studies of healthy adultsCited in statement 1

  16. R16

    Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376

    Study type: Meta-analysisCited in statement 18

  17. R17

    Kelly, Moen, Oakes et al. (2014). Changing work and work-family conflict: evidence from the Work, Family, and Health Network. American Sociological Review, 79(3), 485-516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414531435

    Study type: Group-randomised trial in an IT departmentCited in statement 6

  18. R18

    Krekel, Ward & De Neve (2019). Employee wellbeing, productivity and firm performance. Centre for Economic Performance (LSE) Discussion Paper 1605. https://cep.lse.ac.uk/_NEW/PUBLICATIONS/abstract.asp?index=6172

    Study type: Meta-analysis; a discussion paper, largely from one company’s databaseCited in statement 18

  19. R19

    Kuoppala, Lamminpää, Liira & Vainio (2008). Leadership, job well-being, and health effects: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 50(8), 904-915. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31817e918d

    Study type: Systematic review and meta-analysisCited in statement 15

  20. R20

    Kurtessis, Eisenberger, Ford, Buffardi, Stewart & Adis (2017). Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854-1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554

    Study type: Meta-analysisCited in statement 14

  21. R21

    Kushlev & Dunn (2015). Checking email less frequently reduces stress. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 220-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.005

    Study type: Randomised within-person trialCited in statement 10

  22. R22

    Leroy (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002

    Study type: ExperimentsCited in statement 9

  23. R23

    Lim & Dinges (2010). A meta-analysis of the impact of short-term sleep deprivation on cognitive variables. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 375-389. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018883

    Study type: Meta-analysis of laboratory studiesCited in statement 7

  24. R24

    Litwiller, Snyder, Taylor & Steele (2017). The relationship between sleep and work: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(4), 682-699. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000169

    Study type: Meta-analysis of studies of workers (correlational)Cited in statement 8

  25. R25

    Mark, Gudith & Klocke (2008). The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. Proceedings of CHI 2008, 107-110. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357072

    Study type: ExperimentCited in statement 9

  26. R26

    Mattingly & Kraiger (2019). Can emotional intelligence be trained? A meta-analytical investigation. Human Resource Management Review, 29(2), 140-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.03.002

    Study type: Meta-analysisCited in statements 1, 2

  27. R27

    Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski & Erez (2001). Why people stay: using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102-1121. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069391

    Study type: Empirical studiesCited in statement 14

  28. R28

    Montano, Reeske, Franke & Hüffmeier (2017). Leadership, followers’ mental health and job performance in organizations: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 327-350. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2124

    Study type: Meta-analysis, mostly cross-sectionalCited in statement 15

  29. R29

    Porath & Erez (2007). Does rudeness really matter? Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1181-1197. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159919

    Study type: Laboratory experimentsCited in statement 17

  30. R30

    Riskin, Erez, Foulk et al. (2015). The impact of rudeness on medical team performance: a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 136(3), 487-495. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-1385

    Study type: Randomised trial of teams in a simulation, with blinded ratersCited in statement 17

  31. R31

    Rudolph, Rauvola, Costanza & Zacher (2021). Generations and generational differences: debunking myths in organizational science and practice and paving new paths forward. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(6), 945-967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09715-2

    Study type: Critical reviewCited in statement 11

  32. R32

    Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger & Smith-Jentsch (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: what matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661

    Study type: Expert reviewCited in statement 19

  33. R33

    Sonnentag & Fritz (2015). Recovery from job stress: the stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S72-S103. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1924

    Study type: Review of between-person, daily-diary and longitudinal studiesCited in statement 5

  34. R34

    Tannenbaum & Cerasoli (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812448394

    Study type: Meta-analysisCited in statement 21

  35. R35

    Wagner, Barnes, Lim & Ferris (2012). Lost sleep and cyberloafing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 1068-1076. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027557

    Study type: Laboratory experiment plus a natural experiment on search dataCited in statement 8

  36. R36

    World Health Organization (2022). WHO guidelines on mental health at work. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052 (recommendations table: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK586381/)

    Study type: Guidelines using GRADECited in statement 16

What we will measure

Numbers that belong to you

Each organisation owns its numbers. We use data it already has where we can, in aggregate and never about individuals. We agree the definitions before the baseline and do not change them. We look before the Training Stage, and again at the audits 1, 2 and 6 months after the last workshop.

1

On-time delivery of commitments

The team lists the commitments it made in a period. We look at the share finished by the agreed date, using the organisation’s own tracker or a simple list.

Keep in mind. This is the weakest link in the research and the most natural thing to measure. We compare like with like and never change what counts as a commitment halfway through.

2

Meeting quality

After a few key meetings, three yes or no questions: Did it start and end on time? Did everyone who needed to speak get heard? Did we leave with a clear next step?

Keep in mind. Quick and cheap, but self-reported. It suits the first two audits.

3

A short pulse

A short, anonymous set of statements from the Workplace Pulse, answered by staff each time we look.

Keep in mind. Small groups give noisy results, so very small groups are not reported. Answers may also be more positive after a programme simply because people want it to have worked.

4

Absence, in aggregate

The organisation’s existing record of sick or unplanned absence, for the whole organisation or large groups only.

Keep in mind. Many causes lie outside the programme, such as seasons and waves of illness, and six months is short. It is never reported by individual.

5

Voluntary turnover

The organisation’s own record of people who chose to leave.

Keep in mind. A slow indicator: six months is too short to read anything, so we note it at the start and look again later if the organisation continues.

6

Mentoring rhythm kept

Whether mentoring pairs met in the last month, from a simple log of dates only.

Keep in mind. A process measure. It shows whether the set-up is alive, not whether it works.

What we will not measure. Individual productivity scores, individual attendance at the programme, personal health or sleep, or anything that could identify a person in the pulse.

How results will be reported

Careful, open and in the organisation’s hands

  1. We share exactly what was measured, by whom, when and with how many people, with clear definitions.
  2. Every number belongs to the organisation, and we say clearly that HeartWise helped set the programme up.
  3. We write in plain, careful sentences, for example: “In [Organisation], the share of team commitments met on the agreed date was X at baseline and Y at the six-month audit. Other changes also happened in this period.”
  4. We describe what changed and what else was happening at the time, such as new staff, new systems or a busy season, and we name a cause only when the way we measured supports it.
  5. We keep results fair: we choose a sensible starting point, we welcome honest answers, we keep definitions steady and we are thoughtful with small numbers.
  6. We share every result, the encouraging and the challenging, together with what the organisation decided to do next.
  7. We ask written permission before naming an organisation or using its numbers, and we are glad to describe it without a name.
  8. HeartWise delivers and reviews its own programme, and we say so openly in every case study.
  9. We ask for consent before any survey, we collect no personal health data, and we keep only grouped numbers.
  10. The website will show results only once they have truly been achieved, with their source and their limits stated.
Our promise

What this page stands for

Honesty is part of caring.

  • Grounded in what is real.We describe what HeartWise is built to support: a shared language, calmer moments, kinder teamwork and time to recover. Any figures will come from your own data, measured with you, and shared exactly as they are.
  • Learning in the open.HeartWise Workplace is a new programme, and we will look at it openly, as a whole, as it grows. The research behind its parts is named on this page.
  • Skills for everyday life.HeartWise teaches general skills and shared agreements. If someone needs more support, professional help is the right place to turn.
  • Sources we respect.The World Health Organization’s guidelines are a source we cite and learn from. Citing them does not mean they endorse HeartWise.
  • Every person is different.We look at each person, at where people are in life and work, and at agreements the team chooses. No generation is put in a box.
  • A day is a beginning.One day opens the door. That is why the One-Day Workshop comes with a follow-up path.
  • Real stories, when they come.Testimonials and named results will appear here once they truly exist, with permission, and following the reporting promises above.
  • A friendly audit.An audit is a friendly review by the same team that delivers the programme, to help you see what is growing and what to do next. It is not an independent verification.

Ready to look at your own team?

The Workplace Pulse is free and takes a few minutes. It is a conversation starter, not a test.

Take the Workplace PulseDesign your programmeSee HeartWise WorkplaceTalk to us

HeartWise Certified Workplace is the road ahead: the HeartWise Standards are being shaped with a founding cohort, and you can register your interest.