February 20, 2026
The impact of the work environment on employee motivation and mental health
Maria Eunice Mendes; Josiel William Paes Rodrigues
Summary prepared by the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute focused on synthesis and writing.
This study analyzed how the work environment influences employee motivation and mental health, identifying the relationships between organizational climate, professional satisfaction, and the occurrence of mental health problems. The research starts from the premise that, despite the implementation of quality of life programs, many companies face challenges in maintaining a healthy environment. This gap between intention and practice contributes to the increase of disorders such as anxiety, depression, and Burnout syndrome, which affect productivity and generate social and economic costs. The relevance of the topic is amplified by the current scenario, in which mental health at work has become a central issue, driven by data and new governmental regulations that require proactive management of psychosocial risks.
An organization’s success is linked to the engagement and motivation of its employees, a principle of people management (Chiavenato, 2021). To achieve superior performance, companies must understand the factors that motivate employees. Motivation is a complex phenomenon that directly influences productivity. In this context, the work environment is one of the main determinants of well-being and performance. The investigation of organizational climate, which seeks to understand employees’ collective perception of their workplace, is an essential diagnostic tool for evaluating satisfaction and engagement levels, enabling the implementation of actions that promote a positive environment.
The employer-employee relationship has evolved into a model where employee well-being is a strategic asset (Chiavenato, 2021). Many organizations invest in initiatives such as lectures on mental health and work-life balance programs. However, the results often do not meet expectations, as many employees continue to be exposed to excessive workload, excessive goals, and lack of emotional support. This mismatch between discourse and practice exacerbates the mental health crisis in Brazil, which in 2024 recorded a record 472,000 work absences related to mental disorders (CFF, 2025). Burnout syndrome, recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an occupational disease, exemplifies the severity of the scenario.
The impacts of a toxic work environment generate social and economic consequences, such as reduced productivity, increased costs for new hires, and pressure on the public health system. Burnout syndrome, a state of exhaustion resulting from chronic work stress, compromises long-term physical and mental health (Dejours, 1992; Maslach, 1997). Globally, it is estimated that 12 billion workdays are lost annually due to depression and anxiety. In response, the current federal government updated Regulatory Standard No. 1 (NR-1), which from May 2025 will require the inspection of psychosocial risks in companies, with the possibility of penalties.
Despite quality of life programs, many companies fail to create a healthy climate. Psychological violence, lack of support, and constant pressure contribute to the emergence of mental disorders (Kercher, 2025). Organizational climate research is a strategic necessity to understand the psychological field of the work environment (Chiavenato, 2020). An inadequate climate can lead to internal crises and increased turnover. This study is justified by the need to deepen the understanding of this dynamic, providing insights for the construction of more humane and productive work environments.
The study was developed through an exploratory research with a qualitative approach, using a structured questionnaire on Google Forms. The dissemination occurred anonymously and by convenience in WhatsApp groups. The sample was composed of professionals from public and private companies, from the industry, commerce, and services sectors, focusing on administrative department employees. The use of questionnaires is a consolidated technique for information collection, allowing relevant data to be obtained with broad scope and efficiency (Gil, 2019).
The research method followed a deductive logic, starting from theoretical premises to formulate hypotheses tested in the investigated context (Lakatos; Marconi, 2021). The research is characterized as applied, as its objective is to generate practical knowledge for understanding organizational phenomena and proposing solutions (Yin, 2014). Works that use pre-existing knowledge to prove the viability of processes fit into this category (Gil, 2019). The research was directed at participants from various hierarchical levels to encompass multiple perspectives.
To ensure confidentiality, the questionnaire did not request the identification of participants or companies. The only demographic information collected was the department and the institution’s segment. The instrument, with 15 questions in three blocks, was preceded by the Free and Informed Consent Term (TCLE). The first block focused on the respondent’s profile and the company’s actions. The second, on Health and Well-being, addressed issues related to mental health and symptoms of burnout, anxiety, and depression. The third block assessed knowledge about NR-1 and included two open-ended questions for perceptions and recommendations.
The data were systematically organized and analyzed. The analysis was predominantly qualitative, seeking to identify patterns and relationships between employee perceptions and organizational climate. Closed-ended responses were presented in tables and graphs, while open-ended responses were subjected to content analysis to capture suggestions and sentiments (Bardin, 2011). This mixed approach allowed for the understanding of quantitative and subjective aspects. Additionally, a cross-analysis was performed between demographic data and responses on mental health. The results were interpreted in light of the literature on people management, occupational health, and organizational psychology (Richardson, 2017).
The analysis of the results, based on the participation of 52 collaborators, revealed a diversified sample profile. There was a concentration of respondents in Analyst (25%) and Manager/Director (25%) positions, followed by Coordinator/Supervisor (19.2%). The predominant age group was 25 to 34 years old (46.2%), and the female gender represented 61.5% of the participants. The distribution by segment was balanced, with 28.8% in Office/Administration, 25% in Industry, and 17.3% in Commerce. Regarding tenure, the majority (46.2%) had been with the organization for 1 to 3 years.
The assessment of the organizational climate showed that the collective perception is mostly positive, but with reservations. The majority classified the climate as “Good” (55.8%), while an expressive group considered it “Regular” (26.9%). Only 7.7% rated the climate as “Excellent”. On the other hand, the “Poor” (7.7%) and “Terrible” (1.9%) ratings, although in the minority, alert to focal points of critical dissatisfaction. The organizational climate, as defined by Chiavenato (2020), is the perceived quality of the environment that directly influences the behavior of the organization’s members.
The analysis of the factors that most impact motivation revealed that the most cited were “Recognition and appreciation” and “Remuneration and benefits”, both with 46.2%, followed by “Leadership and management”, with 42.3%. This result demonstrates that motivation is sustained by both financial aspects and symbolic and relational factors. Ineffective communication (38.5%) and lack of growth opportunities (36.5%) were also pointed out as barriers. These data corroborate theories such as Maslow’s (2000) and Herzberg’s (1959), which differentiate hygienic factors from motivational factors.
Employee mental health has emerged as a point of concern. The majority of respondents (46.2%) perceive the company’s actions in this regard as superficial, while 11.5% state they do not see any initiative. Only 42.3% acknowledge effective care. This perception is aggravated by extensive working hours, with 80.8% of employees working 8 to 10 hours daily and 11.5% working more than 10 hours. Work overload is a critical factor that compromises the Quality of Work Life (QWL) (Limongi-França, 2012). Consequently, the incidence of stress, anxiety, or burnout symptoms is alarming: 57.7% of employees reported experiencing such symptoms occasionally, and 11.5% experience them frequently. Combined, almost 70% of the sample has already suffered a negative impact from work on their mental health.
The difficulty in balancing professional and personal life is another consequence. Only 38.5% of employees state they can fully balance the two spheres, while 51.9% report that this balance occurs only occasionally. Excessive workload and a draining environment were cited as the main obstacles, which can be interpreted in light of Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) work-life conflict concept. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge about the new NR-1 is evident. Approximately 41.2% of respondents have never heard of the update, and 39.2% know about the standard but report that their companies have not implemented actions, demonstrating a gap between regulation and practice.
Research on mental health initiatives revealed a focus on educational actions. The most common measures were lectures and workshops (48.7%), leadership training (43.6%), and agreements with psychologists (41%). Although important, these actions may be insufficient if not accompanied by structural changes. Measures such as workload reduction were mentioned by only 23.1%, indicating that the root causes of stress, such as overload, are less addressed. Quality of Work Life (QWL) requires an integrated approach that goes beyond isolated actions (Cavalcante et al., 2018).
The discussion of the results in light of organizational theories reinforces the complexity of the phenomenon. McClelland’s Theory of Needs (1961) helps explain how leadership and recognition are crucial for motivation. Communication, highlighted as an important factor, is central to organizational behavior, as teams with clear communication achieve better results (Robbins; Judge, 2020). The perception that human behavior is a consequence of environmental perception is a central point in Chiavenato (2020), and the data confirm that the perception of lack of support and recognition shapes negative attitudes.
The results indicate a work environment with structural weaknesses that compromise motivation and mental health. The predominance of long working hours, the perception that well-being initiatives are superficial, and the high incidence of stress symptoms create a vicious cycle. The lack of balance between effort and reward, as pointed out by Siegrist (1996), can lead to burnout. Companies seem aware of the importance of mental health but hesitate to address the root causes of the problem, such as the culture of overload and leadership quality. The imminent inspection of NR-1 may be a catalyst for organizations to implement more robust psychosocial risk management policies.
The analysis of the collected data showed that the organizational climate presents weaknesses, being evaluated by a considerable portion of employees as regular or poor. The main demotivating factors were ineffective leadership, communication failures, lack of recognition, excessive workload, and lack of growth opportunities. Mental health proved to be a critical point, with frequent symptoms of stress, anxiety, and burnout. Despite actions focused on well-being, most consider them superficial. The difficulty in balancing personal and professional life and the lack of application of NR-1 demonstrate a disconnect between organizational discourse and real working conditions.
Given the scenario presented, consistent investment by companies in practices that strengthen communication, empower leaders for human management, offer fair recognition, promote work-life balance, and implement health programs addressing psychosocial risks is imperative. Only by adopting such measures will it be possible to build a productive, healthy, and sustainable organizational environment. It is concluded that the objective was achieved: it was demonstrated that a work environment with weaknesses in leadership, communication, and recognition, coupled with workload overload, negatively impacts employee motivation and mental health.
References:
Bardin, L. (2011). Content analysis. São Paulo: Edições 70.
Benevides-Pereira, A. M. T. (2010). Burnout – When work threatens worker well-being (3rd ed.). São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo.
Cavalcante, R. M. F., Pontes, K. V., Bandeira, A. A., & Rocha, A. L. (2018). Quality of life and Quality of Work Life: a bibliographic review. Id on Line Revista Multidisciplinar e de Psicologia, 12(40).
Chiavenato, I. (2014). People Management: The new role of human resources in organizations. Barueri: Manole.
Chiavenato, I. (2020). Administration of the new times (4th ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Manole.
Chiavenato, I. (2021). Human performance in companies (8th ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.
Federal Council of Pharmacy. (2025, March 12). Brazil registers the highest number of leaves due to anxiety and depression in 10 years. Federal Council of Pharmacy. https://site. cff. org. br/noticia/Noticias-gerais/12/03/2025/brasil-registra-maior-numero-de-afastamentos-por-ansiedade-e-depressao-em-10-anos
Dejours, C. (1992). The madness of work: a study of the psychopathology of work. São Paulo: Cortez-Oboré.
Gil, A. C. (2019). How to develop projects and research. São Paulo: Atlas.
Goleman, D. (2012). Emotional intelligence: The revolutionary theory that redefines what it means to be intelligent (1st ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.
Herzberg, F. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kercher, D. C. (2025). Mental health at work: challenges and perspectives. São Paulo: Editora Psico.
Lakatos, E. M., & Marconi, M. A. (2021). Fundamentals of scientific methodology (9th ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.
Limongi-França, A. C. (2012). Quality of work life: Concepts and practices in post-industrial society companies (2nd ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. (1997). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Maslow, A. H. (2000). Maslow in management. Rio de Janeiro: Qualitymark.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
World Health Organization. (2025). Burnout: Syndrome now part of the WHO list of occupational diseases. Federal Council of Nursing. https://www. cofen. gov. br/burnout-sindrome-passa-a-integrar-lista-de-doencas-ocupacionais-pela-oms
Richardson, J. R. (2017). Social research: Methods and techniques (4th ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.
Robbins, S., & Judge, T. A. (2020). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). São Paulo: Pearson Universidades.
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27–41.
Walton, R. E. (1973). Quality of working life: what is it? Sloan Management Review, 15(1), 11-21.
Walton, R. E. (1975). Criteria for quality of working life. In L. Davis & A. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of working life (Vol. 1). New York: Free Press.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study: Planning and methods (5th ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Executive summary from the Final Project of the Specialization in People Management from the MBA USP/Esalq
Learn more about the course; click here:
