Employee productivity is a key determinant of organizational performance in medical sciences universities and is influenced by multiple organizational and psychosocial factors. This study aimed to investigate the associations between job stress, job security, organizational justice, and employee productivity among non-faculty employees of Saveh University of Medical Sciences and to identify the organizational factors associated with employee productivity after mutual adjustment. An analytical cross-sectional study was conducted between October 2025 and March 2026 among 215 non-faculty employees of Saveh University of Medical Sciences, Iran. Participants were selected using simple random sampling and completed validated questionnaires assessing job stress (HSE Management Standards Indicator Tool), job security, organizational justice, and employee productivity. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation analysis, and hierarchical multiple linear regression were performed. Productivity was positively correlated with job security ( r = 0.674, p < 0.001), organizational justice ( r = 0.671, p < 0.001), and HSE scores ( r = 0.533, p < 0.001). Because higher HSE scores indicate lower perceived job stress, this correlation shows that lower job stress was associated with higher productivity. After adjustment, organizational justice (β = 0.381, p < 0.001) and job security (β = 0.355, p < 0.001) remained significant, while job stress did not (β = 0.037, p = 0.575). The final model explained 58.1% of the variance in productivity (R² = 0.581). Organizational justice and job security showed the largest independent associations with employee productivity. Interventions aimed at improving fairness and employment security may be more effective than focusing solely on individual stress management. Multicenter studies are recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alirezaei et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: