Quality of Life and Well-being at Work: a Quantitative Study with a Generational Focus

Conceição Aparecida Silva Sousa; Adriana Maria Fuzer Grael

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602793

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

There has been a growing concern with well-being and quality of life at work, especially in the face of generational diversity, which has imposed challenges on management in adapting the environment to the distinct demands of employees. The study aimed to analyze generational differences in quality of life and well-being at work, as well as their association with socioeconomic and contextual factors. A quantitative, descriptive, and cross-sectional survey was conducted with 111 participants through online questionnaires, using the WHOQOL-BREF and the PERMA-Profiler Workplace. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and Kruskal-Wallis test, with a significance level of 5%. The results indicated moderate levels of quality of life, with variations between domains, highlighting the social domain, especially in Generation Z, while the psychological domain showed greater vulnerability. Generation X presented the lowest scores in most evaluated domains, while the physical domain showed better performance only among Millennials. Regarding well-being, higher scores were observed in the dimensions of meaning, positive emotions, and relationships, while accomplishment and engagement showed lower averages. The influence of structural factors, such as physical working environment conditions and economic security, was also verified. The findings indicated that quality of life at work resulted from the interaction between individual, organizational, and contextual factors, highlighting the need for integrated strategies focused on promoting mental health and improving working conditions.

Keywords: organizational environment; generations; positive psychology; mental health.

1. Introduction

The importance of work in the corporate environment transcends the mere execution of tasks and the achievement of economic results, strategically impacting both the development of organizations and the personal and professional fulfillment of individuals (Pereira; Trevelin, 2020). In this context, there is a growing concern with issues related to the health, well-being, and quality of life of employees. The understanding of these concepts has expanded beyond traditional indicators, such as symptom control or mortality reduction. Thus, quality of life can be understood not only as a synonym for health, but as a broader concept that encompasses physical, psychological, social, and environmental aspects (Santos; Paiva; Spiri, 2018; Gomez; Caballero, 2021).

In this scenario, quality of work life (QWL) constitutes a multidimensional phenomenon that involves individual and organizational factors. It is recognized as a central element for promoting mental health and preventing burnout, a syndrome associated with professional exhaustion resulting from prolonged exposure to stressful situations in the workplace (Bueno, 2017). From a theoretical point of view, complementary models that support its understanding stand out. Walton (1973) defines QWL as a set of organizational conditions that favor the worker’s well-being, encompassing economic, social, psychological, and ethical dimensions. Hackman and Oldham (1975) propose a motivational model centered on job characteristics, such as skill variety, task identity and significance, autonomy, and feedback. Limongi-França (2010) integrates these perspectives into the biopsychosocial and organizational (BPSO) model, articulating biological, psychological, social, and organizational dimensions in a systemic approach. Complementarily, well-being, from the perspective of Positive Psychology, comprises positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment, dimensions of the PERMA model (Butler; Kern, 2016).

Beyond organizational and individual factors, understanding QVT requires considering the characteristics of the different groups that make up the work environment. In this regard, generational diversity stands out, marked by the coexistence of distinct age groups in organizations, which simultaneously presents challenges and opportunities for people management (Ceribeli et al., 2023). Baby Boomers (1946–1964) tend to value stability, results, and commitment to the organizational mission (Neumann; Mallmann, 2012). Generation X (1965–1980) is characterized by greater stability in work responses and the accumulation of professional and family responsibilities (Beutell; Wittig-Berman, 2008). Millennials or Generation Y (1981–1996) seek purpose, recognition, and exhibit greater professional mobility (Damo, 2021). Generation Z (1997-2012), digital natives, show a strong orientation towards innovation and new expectations regarding work-life balance (Rampasi; Raycik, 2023). This context demands that organizations adopt strategic approaches capable of reconciling different expectations, promoting organizational cohesion and collective well-being (Lima, 2024).

Additionally, the work represents a fundamental pillar for mental health, with organizations being responsible for managing psychosocial risks associated with work activities, especially in light of the guidelines of Regulatory Standard number one (Brazil. Ministry of Labor and Employment [MTE], 2025). In this context, quality of life at work assumes a strategic role in health promotion, prevention of illnesses, and organizational sustainability, contributing to the reduction of turnover rates and occupational diseases (Freitas, 2023; Rogério, 2024).

Despite the relevance of the topic and the advancement of discussions in the literature, a scientific gap is observed in the integration of approaches that allow for the simultaneous analysis of quality of life and psychological well-being using standardized and validated instruments, especially when considering different generational groups in the organizational context. This limitation compromises a deeper understanding of generational specificities and hinders the formulation of more assertive organizational strategies aimed at promoting well-being at work.

In this sense, understanding these differences becomes fundamental to support more effective organizational practices aimed at promoting health and well-being in the workplace. Given this scenario, the following research question emerges: what are the generational differences in the perception of quality of life and well-being at work? Therefore, the main objective of this research is to analyze the generational differences in the levels of quality of life and well-being at work, as well as their association with socioeconomic and contextual factors.

2. Material and Methods

This research was characterized as a descriptive study, with a quantitative approach and a cross-sectional design, employing the field survey strategy. The main objective was to analyze generational differences in quality of life and well-being at work, as well as their association with socioeconomic and contextual factors, as established in the introduction.

The unit of analysis comprised individuals over eighteen years of age, with different occupational ties, including self-employed, entrepreneurs, interns, full-time or part-time employees, and individuals with no professional experience. The sample consisted of 111 participants, selected by convenience and recruited through social media dissemination, characterizing a non-probabilistic sample.

The ethical aspects were rigorously observed. The research project was submitted to and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Continuing Education Program in Economics and Business Management (PECEGE), under CAAE No. 91522525.5.0000.9927. All participants were informed about the study’s objectives and signed the Free and Informed Consent Form (TCLE), ensuring voluntary participation, secrecy, and data confidentiality, in accordance with Resolution No. 510/2016 of the National Health Council. The collected data were stored under the researcher’s responsibility for a minimum period of five years.

Data collection was carried out between November 2025 and March 2026, through online questionnaires administered on the Google Forms® platform. The data collection instrument was structured in three main sections. The first section, named Questionnaire 1 (Appendix A), contained 32 sociodemographic, social, and economic questions, as well as contextual information about the physical work environment and economic security, developed based on multidimensional concepts of quality of life and well-being (Fleck, 2000; Limongi-França, 2010; Tomazini, 2022).

The second block, Questionnaire 2 (Appendix B), corresponded to the adapted version of the Workplace PERMA-Profiler. This instrument, developed by Peggy Kern and Julie Butler and based on Seligman’s model, assesses psychological well-being in five dimensions: positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment (Schirmer, 2025). Additionally, it included items on negative emotions, health, loneliness, and general happiness, totaling 31 questions, with one control question to check respondents’ attention.

The third block, Questionnaire 3 (Appendix C), used the abbreviated Portuguese version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (WHOQOL-BREF). Composed of 27 questions, including a control question, the instrument assesses general quality of life and health perception, distributing the remaining questions into four domains: physical, psychological, social relations, and environment (Laguardia et al., 2013). Responses were collected on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where higher values indicated better quality of life perception (Fleck, 2000).

After collection, the responses were consolidated and checked for consistency. Data analysis was performed using predominantly descriptive statistics, including the calculation of means and standard deviations. To identify possible associations between quality of life indicators, well-being, and sociodemographic factors, Pearson correlation analyses and group comparisons using the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied. A significance level of 5% (p < 0.05) was adopted for all analyses, which were processed using Microsoft Excel software.

3. Results and Discussion

The database analyzed in this study gathered 111 respondents, covering four central blocks of information: sociodemographic data, contextual indicators of the living and working environment, scores from the WHOQOL-BREF and PERMA-Profiler Workplace instruments, and analyses of generational differences in the perception of quality of life, well-being, and mental health. The integrated analysis of these parameters allowed for an understanding of how sociodemographic, economic, and contextual factors articulate in the perception of quality of life and well-being at work, as proposed by the research objective.

The research sought to analyze generational differences in quality of life and well-being at work, as well as their association with socioeconomic and contextual factors. Initial results provided a detailed overview of the sample, essential for contextualizing participants’ perceptions and experiences. The predominance of Generation Z and Millennial participants, with a high educational level and formal employment, suggests a profile of respondents with access to resources and greater awareness of health and self-care, which may influence how they perceive and report their well-being and quality of life.

Sample Profile: Sociodemographic and Contextual Data

The study sample was predominantly composed of female individuals, representing 59% of the participants, in contrast to 41% male. Regarding sexual orientation, the majority of participants, 90%, declared themselves heterosexual. In terms of race, self-declaration indicated a higher representation of brown individuals, with 47.7%, followed by white individuals, with 41.4%, black individuals, with 9%, and yellow individuals, with 1.9%, reflecting the ethnic diversity present in the studied population.

Regarding educational attainment, a significant concentration of participants with completed postgraduate studies was observed, totaling 31.5%. Following this, 21.6% of respondents had incomplete higher education, and 16.2% had completed higher education. This high educational profile of the sample suggests that participants may have a greater capacity for understanding and accessing health and well-being information, influencing their perceptions of quality of life in the workplace.

In terms of occupation, the majority of respondents, 50.4%, were employed full-time, indicating a predominance of insertion into the formal labor market. This condition generally provides greater financial stability and access to benefits, factors that can positively impact individuals’ perception of quality of life. The other categories, such as part-time work, students, self-employed, and unemployed, showed a more balanced distribution, but with less representation in the sample.

The participants’ gross family income showed a relatively homogeneous distribution across the ranges of 3 to 6, 6 to 10, and above 10 minimum wages, each with 21.6% of respondents. The highest concentration, however, was observed in the 1 to 3 minimum wage range, which accounted for 31.5% of the sample. This income distribution, combined with the occupational profile, suggests that most participants have an economic base that may influence their perceptions of well-being and quality of life.

When relating income to occupation, it was found that most respondents were employed in the formal market, particularly full-time employees, which may be associated with a higher concentration in intermediate income brackets. On the other hand, unemployed individuals or those in more unstable occupations were predominantly concentrated in lower income brackets, indicating greater socioeconomic vulnerability. This condition is often associated with lower levels of well-being and greater exposure to psychosocial risk factors, as highlighted by the Ministry of Labor and Employment (Brazil. MTE, 2025).

Among self-employed individuals, for example, a greater presence was observed in the range of 1 to 3 minimum wages, suggesting lower financial stability when compared to workers with formal employment. In general, the cross-referencing of schooling, occupation, and income revealed a consistent pattern of association, in which higher levels of education tend to favor insertion into formal employment and a better position in income brackets. These factors, together, tend to promote better quality of life and well-being conditions, corroborating the literature that points to the influence of socioeconomic factors on the perception of well-being (Fleck, 2000; Tomazini, 2022).

Quality of Life Perception (WHOQOL-BREF) by Generation

The analysis of the sample distribution by generation revealed a predominance of Generation Z, which represented 52.7% of the participants, followed by Millennials, with 37.3%, and Generation X, with 9.1%. The presence of only one participant from the Baby Boomers cohort, corresponding to 0.9% of the sample, made robust comparative analyses for this group unfeasible, with their participation being considered only descriptively. This sample composition directs the interpretation of the results, predominantly reflecting the perception of young adults in contemporary work contexts.

The comparison of the mean scores of the WHOQOL-BREF domains between generations showed relevant differences in the perception of quality of life. Generation X presented the lowest scores in the physical domain, with a mean of 57.86, and the general domain, with a mean of 62.82. This low perception of physical well-being may be related to the accumulation of professional and personal responsibilities characteristic of this phase of life, frequently associated with higher levels of stress and overload, as pointed out by Mendes (2016) and Beutell and Wittig-Berman (2008).

In contrast, Millennials showed the highest values in the physical domain, with an average of 72.04, suggesting a more favorable perception of quality of life in this aspect. Generation Z, in turn, stood out in the social domain, with an average of 70.69, and the environmental domain, with an average of 67.24, indicating a greater perception of interpersonal support and satisfaction with the environment. This characteristic can be discussed in light of the relational and connectivity particularities attributed to Generation Z in the literature (Rampasi; Raycik, 2023; Martins, 2024).

In the psychological domain, differences between generations were less expressive, with relatively close values, although Generation Z maintained a slight advantage. However, the analysis of score distribution revealed the presence of lower outliers, especially among Millennials and Generation Z. These atypical points indicate the existence of individuals with significantly reduced levels of psychological well-being, which may reflect emotional vulnerabilities in specific subgroups, even in generations that, on average, present more positive perceptions.

Additionally, 55.9% of participants reported having already undergone psychotherapy, suggesting a sample relatively sensitive to discussions about mental health and self-care. This openness to psychological care may influence how these individuals perceive and report their well-being, contributing to the complexity of the findings. In the social domain, greater data variability was observed across all generations, with a highlight on Generation Z, which presented both high scores and very low values, indicating that, although some individuals perceive their interpersonal relationships positively, there is also a portion that faces relevant difficulties.

In the environmental domain, scores tended to be more moderate and relatively similar across groups, although Generation Z again showed greater dispersion. The presence of low outliers in all generations highlighted inequalities in living conditions, especially related to access to resources, safety, and the quality of the physical environment. These factors are recognized as determinants of quality of life, as pointed out by Fleck (2000) and Tomazini (2022), reinforcing the need to consider the objective context in the assessment of well-being.

In general, the results indicated variations in the perception of quality of life among generations, especially in the physical and social domains. Factors related to the life cycle, working conditions, and generational characteristics may be associated with these variations. Such findings reinforce the need for differentiated approaches in people management, considering the specificities of each generational group, especially in the development of strategies aimed at promoting mental health, engagement, and quality of work life.

Well-being Assessment (PERMA-Profiler Workplace) by Generation

The PERMA-Profiler Workplace scale was calculated from the average of the items that make up the five domains of the model (positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment) and the overall happiness dimension. In the total sample, the overall PERMA presented a mean of 7.77 with a standard deviation of 1.20, on a scale of 0 to 10, indicating a high global level of well-being. The highest scores were observed in the happiness dimension, with a mean of 8.42, and in the domains of meaning, with a mean of 8.18, positive emotions, with a mean of 8.12, and relationships, with a mean of 8.07, suggesting that the perception of well-being is strongly associated with the experience of purpose and the quality of interpersonal bonds.

In contrast, the dimensions of achievement, with an average of 6.82, and engagement, with an average of 7.68, presented relatively lower averages. This difference may indicate possible gaps between professional expectations and effective growth and development opportunities within organizations, or lower satisfaction with the ability to achieve goals and fully engage in work activities. The generational analysis revealed distinct patterns in the perception of these domains, contributing to a deeper understanding of the specificities of each group.

The results indicated that Generation Z presented the highest overall PERMA average, with 8.03, followed by Millennials, with 7.67. In contrast, Generation X presented the lowest scores, with 7.00, especially in the domains of engagement, meaning, and accomplishment. The Baby Boomers group, although with only one participant, presented high values, with 8.19, but low representativeness prevents statistical generalizations for this cohort. This variation between generations suggests that the priorities and the way each group experiences well-being at work may differ significantly.

In inferential tests, the overall PERMA difference between Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z did not show statistical significance, with p=0.064. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the relationships domain, with p=0.027, indicating that the relational dimension of well-being is what best differentiates the generational groups in this sample. The data suggested that younger groups, such as Generation Z, report a higher perception of support, recognition, and relational satisfaction, which may be aligned with their characteristics of greater connectivity and appreciation for social interactions.

Overall, Generation Z showed a higher concentration of high PERMA scores, but also a relatively wide dispersion. This pattern indicated that, although many individuals in this group present high levels of well-being, there are also cases with lower levels, evidencing internal heterogeneity. This variability may reflect a greater sensitivity to workplace conditions and emotional demands, characteristics often associated with this generation, which grew up in a scenario of rapid changes and instability (Martins, 2024).

Millennials, in turn, also demonstrated high levels of well-being, with values close to those of Generation Z, but with a more concentrated distribution. This behavior suggested greater stability in perceptions of quality of life, although there are some cases with reduced scores, indicating possible specific difficulties related to well-being. Generation X, on the other hand, showed less variability, but with lower average levels, indicating a more homogeneous, but less positive, perception, possibly due to the accumulation of professional and family responsibilities (Beutell; Wittig-Berman, 2008).

When relating PERMA scores to contextual variables, consistent associations were observed between well-being, material conditions, and environment. Positive correlations were highlighted with the perception of comfort regarding income, with the assessment that the physical environment favors concentration, and with the presence of natural light in the activity space. These findings indicated that well-being is not restricted to subjective factors, being strongly influenced by concrete living and working conditions, reinforcing the understanding that the work environment and socioeconomic conditions are determinants of quality of life (Fleck, 2000; Tomazini, 2022).

Regarding health variables, participants who reported using controlled medications showed lower mean overall PERMA scores, with 7.13, compared to those who did not use them, with 7.94, with a statistically significant difference (p=0.003). A similar result was observed for psychotherapy: participants who declared not having undergone psychotherapy presented a mean overall PERMA score of 8.19, while those who have already undergone or are undergoing follow-up presented a mean of 7.44, also with a statistically significant difference (p=0.003). This finding, however, should not be interpreted as a negative effect of the treatment, as the cross-sectional design of the research does not allow establishing the direction or causality of this association, but it suggests a greater vulnerability or demand for mental healthcare in the organizational context.

Discussion of Findings and Implications

The predominance of Generation Z in the sample, combined with their hyperconnectivity and experience of major global events, such as the Covid-19 pandemic and economic crises, contributed to a more dynamic worldview adapted to contemporary challenges (Martins, 2024). This context helps to understand why the results largely reflect the experience of individuals simultaneously engaged in study and work routines, with professional expectations that value job security, flexibility, and alignment with personal values (Martins, 2024).

The descriptive results indicated variations among generational groups, which can be discussed in light of the literature. Generation Z values purpose, recognition, and work-life balance, Millennials seek development and fulfillment, and Generation X faces different professional and family demands (Damo, 2021; Martins, 2024; Beutell; Wittig-Berman, 2008). However, these interpretations should be considered with caution, especially given the lower representation of Generation X in the sample, which limits the generalization of findings to this specific group.

Regarding quality of life, the data indicated globally positive levels, with emphasis on dimensions related to the meaning of work, interpersonal relationships, and positive emotions. These results suggest that participants recognize work as a significant sphere of life, capable of providing satisfaction and purpose. However, it was observed that dimensions such as achievement and engagement presented relatively lower values, indicating possible gaps between professional expectations and effective opportunities for growth and development within organizations, a crucial point for people management.

Intergenerational analysis revealed that younger individuals showed greater sensitivity to workplace conditions. Generation Z, in particular, demonstrated high levels of engagement and perceived meaning, but also greater emotional variability, evidenced by responses associated with anxiety and insecurity about their professional future. This pattern can be interpreted in light of the characteristics of this generation, marked by greater exposure to rapid changes, economic instability, and performance pressures, which requires organizations to pay special attention to their needs.

On the other hand, participants belonging to Generation X showed less fluctuation in their responses, with more stable levels of quality of life perception. This group tends to demonstrate a greater balance between professional expectations and reality, possibly due to accumulated experience and the consolidation of their career paths in the job market (Beutell; Wittig-Berman, 2008). However, when compared to other generations, Generation X presented the lowest scores in both evaluation systems, which may be associated with occupational overload and the accumulation of family responsibilities, as pointed out by Mendes (2016).

The findings of Mendes (2016) converge with the studies of Beutell and Wittig-Berman (2008), who point out that, although Generation X values work-life balance, this balance is not always achieved in practice. This is due to simultaneous demands in the professional and family spheres, generating high levels of work-family conflict. Millennials occupy an intermediate position, combining high levels of ambition and pursuit of achievement with a certain vulnerability to organizational conditions, making them a group with specific support and development needs.

Another relevant aspect identified in the analysis concerns the influence of contextual factors on well-being. Variables such as satisfaction with income, physical work environment conditions, and access to structural resources showed a positive association with quality of life levels. The perception of an environment that favors concentration, as well as the presence of adequate lighting and comfort conditions, contribute significantly to increased employee well-being. These findings reinforce the importance of organizational investments in infrastructure and the quality of the work environment, as highlighted by Fleck (2000) and Tomazini (2022).

Additionally, factors related to mental health and access to care also proved relevant. The presence of responses associated with the use of controlled medications and psychotherapy indicated that a portion of the participants faces challenges related to psychological well-being. It was observed that these individuals tend to present lower levels of quality of life, which does not imply causality, but suggests the presence of greater vulnerability or demand for mental health care in the organizational context, reinforcing the need for support programs.

Interpersonal relationships also proved relevant to well-being. Satisfaction with relationships, social support, and professional recognition were associated with higher levels of quality of life, reinforcing the importance of the relational dimension in individuals’ experience in the workplace. Given these findings, it becomes evident that quality of life in the corporate environment cannot be analyzed homogeneously. Generational differences play a fundamental role in how individuals perceive and experience work, demanding a more sensitive and adaptive approach from organizations.

Strategies that consider generational diversity, promote work-life balance, and value individual development tend to contribute to healthier and more productive environments. Corroborating the findings of this study, Lirio, Gallon, and Costa (2020) highlight that the characteristics of different generations are directly related to the social context and historical moment in which individuals are born, live, relate, and develop. In this sense, factors such as generational profile, workplace suitability, and financial stability contribute significantly to employee quality of life.

Although Damo (2021) points out specific differences between Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Z regarding factors associated with happiness at work, the findings of the present study indicated that such differences are less pronounced. This converges with the idea that contextual and organizational variables, such as work environment, interpersonal relationships, and professional satisfaction, may exert greater influence on well-being than the generational factor alone. Organizational well-being has been described as a multidimensional and subjective construct, influenced by individual and contextual factors, such as purpose, recognition, and working conditions (Lagarto, 2025).

The author Lagarto (2025), in a study that addressed generations X, Y, and Z, indicated the existence of generational differences in motivations and priorities in the workplace. However, the findings of the present study suggested that, although such differences exist, they did not appear as expressively as pointed out in the literature, evidencing that variables related to the organizational context may exert greater influence on individuals’ well-being than generational belonging itself. This perspective reinforces the need for a more holistic approach to people management.

A relevant point identified in the research concerns mental health, especially when considered in conjunction with factors such as physical activity, psychotherapeutic follow-up, and perception of support in the workplace. The results indicated that participants who demonstrated greater attention to mental health care tend to present better well-being indicators, which reinforces the importance of implementing preventive and health promotion strategies in the organizational context. This evidence aligns with contemporary occupational risk management guidelines, such as those provided in NR-01 (Brazil. MTE, 2025), which incorporates psychosocial risk management as an organizational responsibility.

In this context, the role of leadership also stands out, as managers directly mediate labor relations, build organizational climate, and identify signs of emotional exhaustion in teams. Additionally, the findings suggest that people management should adopt more integrated and individualized approaches, including structured actions such as mental health promotion programs, encouragement of physical activity, strengthening of organizational support, and development of leaders more sensitive to employees’ emotional demands (Limongi-França, 2010; Silva et al., 2025).

In this sense, managers’ performance should be oriented not only towards delivering results but also towards promoting a psychologically safe work environment, by strengthening communication, organizational support, and work relationships. It is fundamental to consider the multiple dimensions that influence well-being at work, overcoming analyses restricted to generational recorte. Understanding these dynamics is essential for formulating management policies and practices that promote not only productivity but also the quality of life of employees, aligning organizational objectives with human needs in the context of contemporary work.

In summary, the data analysis demonstrated that well-being in the corporate environment results from the interaction between individual, organizational, and contextual factors, being influenced by the characteristics of each generation. The results of this study showed that well-being, quality of life, and mental health of individuals were associated with working conditions, socioeconomic aspects, and lifestyle habits, across all generations analyzed, albeit with discrete variations. Variables such as income, physical environment conditions, and job satisfaction were associated with quality of life levels, suggesting that context exerts greater influence than the generational factor in isolation. Furthermore, the dispersion of data and the presence of outliers indicated that individuals of the same generation may have distinct experiences in the workplace, reinforcing the need for organizational interventions with greater impact potential that articulate integrated actions for health promotion, qualification of the physical work environment, strengthening of interpersonal relationships, remuneration and economic protection policies, in addition to expanding access to psychological support.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to analyze generational differences in quality of life and well-being at work, as well as their association with socioeconomic and contextual factors. It was found that quality of life presented moderate levels, with the social domain standing out positively in Generation Z, while the psychological domain revealed greater vulnerability. Generation X registered the lowest scores in most quality of life domains, and Millennials demonstrated better performance in the physical domain. Regarding well-being, it was observed that the dimensions of meaning, positive emotions, and relationships presented higher scores, while accomplishment and engagement showed lower averages. The influence of structural factors, such as the conditions of the physical work environment and economic security, on the perception of well-being was also identified. The findings indicated that quality of life at work results from the complex interaction between individual, organizational, and contextual factors, highlighting the need for integrated strategies to promote mental health and improve working conditions. The main contribution of this work lies in reinforcing the importance of more humanized, preventive, and evidence-based corporate practices, capable of aligning organizational performance with the sustainability of employee well-being.

However, this study has limitations that must be considered. The convenience sample, with a predominance of participants from younger generations, especially Generation Z, restricts the generalization of findings to other age groups and population contexts. Data collection through digital platforms may have introduced a selection bias, favoring individuals with greater access to technology. Additionally, the cross-sectional design of the research only allowed for the identification of associations, without establishing causal relationships between variables. Finally, the adapted version of the PERMA-Profiler instrument used was not subjected to a psychometric validation process specific to the sample, which represents a limitation in the interpretation of the results. It is suggested that future studies explore more comprehensive and diverse samples, adopt longitudinal designs to investigate causal relationships, and conduct psychometric validation of adapted instruments, in order to deepen the understanding of generational dynamics in well-being and quality of work life.

Bibliographic References

Bueno, R.A.F. 2017. Síndrome de Burnout: seus sintomas e consequências no âmbito profissional e pessoal. Anais da XV Jornada Científica dos Campos Gerais. Disponível em: <https://www.iessa.edu.br/revista/index.php/jornada/article/view/121>. Acesso em: 01 abr. 2025.

Gomez, K.S.R.; Caballero, J.V.C. 2021. Desenvolvimento histórico do conceito de qualidade de vida. Rev. cienc. Cuidad 18 (03): 86-99.

Hackman e Oldham, 1975 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

Limongi-França, A.C.

Pereira, M.N.; Trevelin, A.T.C. 2020. Qualidade de vida no trabalho: a importância das pessoas nas organizações. Revista Interface Tecnológica 17 (1).

Santos, R.R.; Paiva, M.C.M.S.; Spiri, W.C. 2018. Associação entre qualidade de vida e ambiente de trabalho de enfermeiros. Acta Paul Enferm 31 (5):472-479.

Walton, R.E. 1973. Quality of working life: what is it? Sloan Management Review 15 (1): 11-21.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in People Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform