Abstract While physical indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and psychosocial stress are known to affect employee well-being, their combined influence on multidimensional work performance remains underexplored, particularly within academic medical settings in Southeast Asia. To address this gap, this cross-sectional study investigated the associations between specific work performance domains and both physical and psychosocial environments among office workers in a Thai academic medical institute. A survey was conducted among 419 administrative staff members (51.16% response rate) employed for over six months. Participants completed paper-based questionnaires assessing: (1) demographics, (2) physical indoor environment perceptions (7-point Likert scale), (3) psychosocial environment (Thai Effort–Reward Imbalance Questionnaire), and (4) work performance (Individual Work Performance Questionnaire). Multiple linear regression analyzed relationships between these factors and three performance domains: task performance (TP), contextual performance (CP), and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). While TP was negatively associated with male gender (β = -0.14, 95% CI: -0.26 to -0.03), CP was significantly hindered by perceived stagnant air movement (β = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.02) and facilitated by adequate privacy (β = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.11). Furthermore, high-risk effort-reward imbalance was a strong predictor of lower CWB scores (β = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.45 to -0.07), indicating that highly stressed individuals engaged in more frequent counterproductive behaviors. These findings demonstrate that physical and psychosocial factors are significantly associated with specific performance dimensions. Specifically, poor air movement and a lack of privacy are linked to lower contextual performance, while work stress is positively correlated with counterproductive behavior. Consequently, institutional policies should prioritize improving ventilation, enhancing workplace privacy, and balancing effort-reward structures to optimize staff productivity and well-being.
Chuthong et al. (2026) studied this question.