Employees' Capacity Gaps Highlight Work Challenges

The release states these figures. Each one belongs in your article, written exactly as it appears here, in the place it belongs:

- The lowest capacity report 71 more days a year of not working effectively than those with the highest, new research finds. - 3 out of every 4 employees (76%) score lower on capacity than on engagement, so an engagement score alone misses part of the picture for most of a workforce. - 48.5 days a year is the average number of days employees say exhaustion or stress left them unable to work effectively. That is nearly 10 working weeks, about 1 in 5 working days (22% of a 220-day working year). - 85 days against 14 separate the quarter with the least capacity from the quarter with the most: about 6 times as many days, or 39% of working days against 6%. - A 71-day difference, about a third of a working year (71 of 220 working days). Under more conservative ways of converting the answers it is 52 to 65 days, roughly a quarter to a third. - Ten percentage points more capacity goes with about 19 fewer such days a year, nearly 4 working weeks, with engagement held equal. - Employees in the quarter with the most capacity say they delivered 86% of their priority tasks on time. In the quarter with the least it is 56%, a difference of 30 percentage points. The same split appears in loyalty. In the top quarter of the thrive index, the combined score of capacity and engagement, 70% of employees would recommend their employer and 9% would not. In the bottom quarter, 16% would and 57% would not. - The gap is almost everywhere. Capacity sits below engagement in every one of 90 demographic segments examined and in all 18 industries. - A 71-day difference, about a third of a working year (71 of 220 working days). Under more conservative ways of converting the answers it is 52 to 65 days, roughly a quarter to a third. - Ten percentage points more capacity goes with about 19 fewer such days a year, nearly 4 working weeks, with engagement held equal. - Employees in the quarter with the most capacity say they delivered 86% of their priority tasks on time. In the quarter with the least it is 56%, a difference of 30 percentage points. The same split appears in loyalty. In the top quarter of the thrive index, the combined score of capacity and engagement, 70% of employees would recommend their employer and 9% would not. In the bottom quarter, 16% would and 57% would not. - The gap is almost everywhere. Capacity sits below engagement in every one of 90 demographic segments examined and in all 18 industries.

The release also states that the findings are part of a research program covering 7,031 employees and 216,301 responses across Europe and North America; groups are compared at one point in time, and days not working effectively, answered by part of the sample, are as employees reported them. Capacity is measured with a behavior-anchored survey informed by biomarker and physiological research, without collecting biometric data. In a 12-month study, survey answers tracked resting heart rate and heart rate variability, and when a person's capacity changed, their heart rate variability changed with it.

The release also mentions that thrive at work is a workforce performance platform that measures employee capacity alongside engagement. Its research focuses on four dimensions of capacity: energy, recovery, focus, and resilience, and how they relate to sustainable performance at work. Organizations use thrive at work to measure workforce capacity and engagement, identify performance constraints, and translate insights into action plans and personalized learning.