Dogs in the work environment influence various aspects of work, including lower stress levels, greater mo ti vati on, higher job sa ti sfac ti on and general well ‐being. This study examined the presence and poten ti al posi ti ve e ffects of dogs in public sector organisa ti ons in Slovenia and recommenda ti ons for the integra ti on of dogs in such environments. The research was based on a survey and ques ti onnaire based on previous studies. It examined the e ffects of dogs in the work environment on employees, demographic and organisa ti onal di fferences and barriers to integra ti on. The data was analysed using descrip ti ve sta ti s ti cs, the Shapiro ‐Wilk test, the Mann ‐Whitney U test, the Kruskal ‐Wallis H test, Spearman correla ti on and ordinal linear regression to assess how the integra ti on of dogs into the work environment influences the percep ti on of their posi ti ve impact. The results showed that in organisa ti ons where dogs are already present, the demographic factors of those who bring dogs were not significantly di fferent. However, bringing a dog into the work environment was a sta ti s ti cally significant predictor of perceived posi ti ve e ffects, par ti cularly for reducing stress, improving social interac ti ons and increasing job sa ti sfac ti on. Women were generally more in favour of a dog ‐ friendly policy as they felt it contributed to a more relaxed atmosphere and greater mo ti vati on. Younger respondents were also more in favour, while older workers were more against. Although Slovenian legisla ti on does not explicitly regulate dogs in the work environment, the results emphasise the need for a comprehensive approach that also takes into account the prac ti cal aspects of integra ti on. Successful implementa ti on requires the adapta ti on of exis ti ng prac ‐ ti ses and regula ti ons as well as strategies to address the challenges associated with the daily presence of dogs. The paper concludes with recommenda ti ons to support organisa ti onal change and policy measures that would enable the e ffec ti ve introduc ti on of dogs into the public sector work environment. Keywords: Civil Servants, Dog, Integra ti on, Posi ti ve Impact, Work Environment EFFECTS OF THE PRESENCE OF DOGS IN THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT ON SLOVENIAN CIVIL SERVANTS Tatjana Kozjek* Faculty of Public Administra ti on, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia tatjana.kozjek@fu.uni ‐lj.si Lara Juvan či č Faculty of Public Administra ti on, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia lj2535@student.uni ‐lj.si Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 65 Abstract man et al. (2017), Hall and Mills (2019) and Wag ‐ ner & Pina e Cunha (2021), the presence of dogs in the work environment can have a positive im ‐ pact on reducing stress and absenteeism, improv ‐ ing employee health, improving communication and social interaction between employees, in ‐ creasing morale and energy, work engagement, motivation, enthusiasm and productivity, and greater overall job satisfaction. 1 INTRODUCTION Nowadays, more and more organizations are trying to increase the well ‐being of their employ ‐ ees and create a friendly working environment, which has a positive effect on employees who have dogs in their working environment, among other things. According to Wells and Perrine, (2001), Barker (2005), Boštjan či č & Smolkovi č (2012), Fore ‐ Vol. 14, No. 2, 65 ‐80 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2025.v14n02a05 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 66 Tatjana Kozjek, Lara Juvan či č: E ffects of the Presence of Dogs in the Working Environment on Slovenian Civil Servants Despite the many posi ti ve e ffects of dogs in the work environment, there are also nega ti ve aspects, as noted by Wells & Perrine (2001): Some employ ‐ ees find the pet annoying or distrac ti ng, employees complain about hair on furniture and uncleanliness, problems with allergies to dog hair, phobias, aver ‐ sions and personal dislike of the presence of dogs in the work environment. There are few studies on the presence of dogs in public sector organisa ti ons in Slovenia. Boštjan či č & Smolkovi č (2012) conducted an exploratory study in which they collected data through a survey com ‐ pleted by 24 respondents. The par ti cipants were se ‐ lected based on whether they brought their dogs to work. Respondents came from a variety of profes ‐ sions, including veterinary clinics, animal ‐related businesses (e.g. pet stores, animal ‐related media), IT , marke ti ng, educa ti on, leisure, and administra ti on. The study revealed several key findings about the im ‐ pact of dogs in the workplace: impact on employee wellbeing and produc ti vity, employee sa ti sfac ti on and stress reduc ti on. However, some respondents expressed concerns about poten ti al distrac ti ons caused by dogs in the workplace. While most re ‐ spondents reported posi ti ve experiences, some em ‐ phasised the need for clear policies and regula ti ons to ensure a balanced and produc ti ve environment. This study analysed the presence of dogs in the working environment and their impact on civil ser ‐ vants in Slovenia. The number of dogs in Slovenia is increasing from year to year . In August 2023, accord ‐ ing to the Central Pet Register, 251,608 dogs were al ‐ ready registered, compared to 125,719 in 2005 ( Černoga, 2024). This means that around one in three households has a dog. However, Slovenian leg ‐ isla ti on does not contain specific requirements for the presence of dogs in the working environment, which means that it is at the discre ti on of organisa ‐ ti ons to issue rules and guidelines on this issue. As there are hardly any studies on the presence of dogs in public sector organisa ti ons and no policy measures have been taken, the aim of this paper is to determine the impact of the presence of dogs in the working environment in selected public sector organisa ti ons based on the results of the situa ti on analysis regarding the presence of dogs in the work ‐ ing environment and to formulate recommenda ‐ ti ons for the introduc ti on of changes that would contribute to the integra ti on of dogs in the working environment in the public sector. Based on previous research findings (e.g. Barker, 2005; Foreman et al., 2017; Hall and Mills, 2019; Wagner & Pina e Cunha, 2021) that dogs have a posi ti ve influence on employees in the work envi ‐ ronment, the study aimed to find out: • What impact does the presence of dogs in the workplace have on the well ‐being, job sa ti sfac ti on and stress levels of respondents? • Do demographic factors influence the percep ti on of the posi ti ve e ffects of the presence of dogs in the workplace? • Are there di fferences in percep ti ons of the posi ‐ ti ve impact of dogs between organisa ti ons with di fferent levels of client interac ti on? • What is the rela ti onship between the frequency with which dogs are brought to work and the per ‐ ceived posi ti ve impact? • What are the poten ti al barriers and challenges to integra ti ng dogs into the public sector work envi ‐ ronment? The public sector in Slovenia includes state au ‐ thori ti es, local governments, public agencies, public funds, public ins ti tu ti ons, public economic ins ti tu ‐ ti ons and other ins ti tu ti ons under public law if they are indirect users of the state or local budget (Re ‐ public of Slovenia, n.d.). The ar ti cle is divided into a literature review, which is presented below, followed by the measure ‐ ment instrument and the research method, the re ‐ sults of the study, discussion and the conclusion. 2 LITERATURE BACKGROUND 2.1 Regula ti on the presence of dogs in the working environment Studies have shown that many organisa ti ons do not have clear guidelines regula ti ng the presence of dogs. For example, Hall et al (2017) found that only 36.2% of organisa ti ons with dogs in the workplace have clear policies. According to Bremhost (2018), the current legisla ti ve landscape in the European Union focuses only on assistance dogs. These in ‐ Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 67 clude guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs, mobil ‐ ity assistance dogs and medical guard dogs, which provide important support for people with disabili ‐ ti es. Their legal recogni ti on and access rights vary around the world, which has an impact on their in ‐ tegra ti on into public life. In addi ti on, Von Bergen & Bressler (2017) found that organisa ti ons should allow dogs unless their presence poses an undue hardship. They should also make reasonable accommoda ti ons for employ ‐ ees with allergies and must not discriminate against applicants who use service dogs. Some states o ffer addi ti onal protec ti ons, such as leave for training ser ‐ vice dogs. Organisa ti ons may refuse dogs if they pose a significant hardship, pose health and safety risks or disrupt business opera ti ons, such as in ster ‐ ile environments or high ‐security workplaces. Al ‐ lowing dogs poses liability risks, including workplace injuries, allergy claims and workers’ compensa ti on issues. To minimise the risks, employers should es ‐ tablish clear policies, require vaccina ti ons, designate dog ‐free zones and consult legal experts to ensure compliance. State laws can provide further protec ‐ ti on by preven ti ng discrimina ti on against employees with service dogs or gran ti ng leave for service dog training. Organisa ti ons should educate their em ‐ ployees about the specific regula ti ons. Foreman et al (2017) suggest that when devel‐ oping a pet ‐friendly policy, considera ti on should be given to ensuring that dogs are well behaved, house ‐trained and fully vaccinated. In addi ti on, or ‐ ganisa ti ons o ft en set up designated dog ‐free zones to accommodate employees with allergies or em ‐ ployees who are uncomfortable around animals. Or ‐ ganisa ti ons should consider their o ffice facili ti es, employee preferences and poten ti al health con ‐ cerns. Clear guidelines on acceptable dog behaviour and vaccina ti on requirements are essen ti al for suc ‐ cessful policy implementa ti on. Wilkin et al (2015) recommend a structured policy that includes: des ‐ ignated dog ‐free zones for employees with allergies or phobias, vaccina ti on and training requirements for all dogs in the work environment, conflict reso ‐ lu ti on strategies to address concerns of dog owners and non ‐dog owners. Wagner & Pina e Cunha (2021) emphasise the importance of flexible work ‐ ing hours and autonomy so that employees can properly care for their dogs while at work. In Slovenia, there are no specific regula ti ons for the presence of dogs in the working environment. Ar ti cle 11 of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) lays down only general requirements and controls for dogs to ensure that they do not pose a danger . Own ‐ ers must ensure through appropriate educa ti on, training or other measures that the dog does not pose a danger to the environment, and they must ensure the physical protec ti on of the dog by keeping it on a leash in a public place. Although the AWA de ‐ fines a public place as a public place (Art. 5 AWA) where the protec ti on of public order is guaranteed, there are excep ti ons for areas where large numbers of people are not expected. This means that it is per ‐ missible to let dogs run free even in such public places, but every dog owner or handler must cri ti ‐ cally assess the situa ti on before le tti ng their dog run free. It is important to assess under what circum ‐ stances the dog can be let o ff the lead without en ‐ dangering other dogs, animals or people. It is also important to consider the law and legal liability in the event of a dog bite (e.g. the Code of Obliga ti ons). Animal welfare is also guaranteed. According to Ar ti cle 4 of the Regula ti on on the Protec ti on of Pet Animals, the keeper of a pet animal must take all necessary measures to ensure the welfare of the an ‐ imals entrusted to him and to prevent causes that may lead to pain, injury, illness or behavioural dis ‐ orders of the animals. Animal welfare must be at the forefront of every human ac ti on involving animals, which means above all that all aspects of animal welfare must be taken into account. It is important to recognize that owning a pet brings many benefits, but there is also a responsibility for the welfare of the animal. Every owner must take care of the health and control of their pet and fulfil their obli ‐ ga ti ons to society to keep the animal in good condi ‐ ti on (Slovenian Food Safety, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Authority, 2023). The amendment to the Animal Welfare Act (no. 109/23) par ti ally equates the status of therapy dogs with that of guide dogs for the blind and assistance dogs for people with disabili ti es, as they are allowed to enter public places (with a visible sign on the dog’s harness) and use public transport without a muzzle. According to the amendment, these dogs may be used off‐leash in educa ti onal, social and health facili ti es when providing assistance and sup ‐ Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 68 Tatjana Kozjek, Lara Juvan či č: E ffects of the Presence of Dogs in the Working Environment on Slovenian Civil Servants port, provided that they are properly trained for var ‐ ious forms of assistance and support in accordance with the Slovenian standard SIST 1192. Organisa ti ons should therefore carefully weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of integra ti ng and keeping dogs in the work environment and draw up suitable guidelines and rules on this basis. Poglej & Boštjan či č (2022) also believe that organi ‐ sa ti ons should introduce policies to ensure a har ‐ monious working environment, as the presence of dogs in the work environment has many posi ti ve ef ‐ fects. The posi ti ve e ffects of the presence of dogs in the work environment are discussed below. 2.2 Posi ti ve e ffects of the presence of dogs in the working environment The working environment is increasingly recog ‐ nised as a key factor in employee wellbeing and pro ‐ duc ti vity. Organisa ti ons around the world are exploring strategies to increase mo ti va ti on and job sa ti sfac ti on, reduce stress and improve workplace rela ti onships. One method is to allow employees to bring their dogs to work. Various studies have exam ‐ ined the impact of dogs in the work environment, analysing both the benefits and the challenges. A consistent finding of all studies is that dogs in the workplace significantly reduce employee stress. Boštjan či č & Smolkovi č (2012) in Slovenia and Barker et al. (2012) and Hall et al. (2017) interna ti onally con ‐ firmed that employees experience less stress when their dogs are present. This e ffect was par ti cularly clear in a working environment where employees were able to interact freely with their dogs. The pres ‐ ence of dogs not only reduces stress, but also pro ‐ motes social interac ti on, which further improves employee well ‐being and reduces absenteeism. Barker et al (2012) conducted a quan ti ta ti ve physio ‐ logical study to measure cor ti sol (stress hormone) levels and found that employees who brought their dogs to work had lower stress levels. Wagner & Pina e Cunha (2021) found that dogs in the work environment improve communica ti on between employees, promote a coopera ti ve atmo ‐ sphere and strengthen social bonds. Similarly, Wells & Perrine (2001), Hall et al. (2017), Hall & Mills (2019) found that those who frequently brought their dogs to work showed higher levels of engagement, enthu ‐ siasm, concentra ti on, improved social interac ti ons and overall job sa ti sfac ti on. Foreman et al (2017) re ‐ ported that dog ‐friendly workplaces improve morale and reduce absenteeism. Hall et al (2017) found that dogs facilitate cross ‐departmental interac ti ons, cre ‐ a ti ng a more connected workforce. Boštjan či č & Smolkovi č (2012) also found that organisa ti ons with ‐ out direct client contact are more likely to allow dogs. Employees who bring their dogs to work con ‐ sistently report higher job sa ti sfac ti on and greater work engagement. Job sa ti sfac ti on refers to an em ‐ ployee’s posi ti ve percep ti on and emo ti onal re ‐ sponse to their work and work environment (Mihali č, 2008). Research confirms that bringing dogs into the workplace has a posi ti ve impact on job sa ti sfac ti on (Wells & Perrine, 2001; Barker, 2005; Hall et al, 2017; Barker et al, 2012; Boštjan či č & Smolkovi č, 2012; Hall & Mills, 2019; Edmans et al, 2023). Importantly, the benefits extend beyond the dog owners – Wagner & Pina e Cunha (2021) found that the presence of dogs has a posi ti ve impact on the en ti re organisa ti on by promo ti ng a friendlier or ‐ ganisa ti onal culture. As job sa ti sfac ti on and mo ti va ti on are closely linked, it is important to analyse how dogs in the working environment influence employee mo ti va ti on. Mo ti va ti on is the inner drive that directs a person’s e fforts towards goals (Ganta, 2014; Parijat & Bagga, 2014). It influences engagement, dedica ti on and per ‐ severance in overcoming challenges. Organisa ti ons are ac ti vely looking for ways to increase employee mo ti va ti on through a posi ti ve work environment and incen ti ves. The presence of dogs in the work environ ‐ ment reduces stress ‐related distrac ti ons and allows employees to focus be tt er on their tasks. Employees no longer have to worry about leaving their pets alone, which leads to greater serenity and mo ti va ti on. Studies suggest that interac ti ng with dogs during micro ‐breaks – whether through pe tti ng, emo ti onal bonding or simple observa ti on – provides similar stress relief as socialising with work colleagues (Wilkin et al., 2015; Hall & Mills, 2019). According to Herzberg’s two ‐factor theory of mo ti va ti on, mo ti va ti on consists of hygiene factors – external condi ti ons that prevent dissa ti sfac ti on (e.g. salary, workplace policies). Mo ti vators – factors that Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 69 increase job sa ti sfac ti on and mo ti va ti on (e.g. recog ‐ ni ti on, meaningful work) (Gorenak, 2011; Čivre et al., 2013). In this context, the presence of dogs acts as both a hygiene factor and a mo ti vator: it reduces dissa ti sfac ti on in the workplace by crea ti ng a more pleasant and relaxed environment; it increases mo ‐ ti va ti on by promo ti ng social interac ti on and stress reduc ti on, leading to higher engagement. Foreman et al. (2017) and Wagner & Pina e Cunha (2021) con ‐ firm that the presence of dogs improves communi ‐ ca ti on, teamwork and overall work performance. These aspects were further inves ti gated in a study in Slovenian public sector organisa ti ons, which is discussed in the following sec ti ons. 3 MEASURES AND METHODS Ethical approval is not required for this study as no personal data that could iden ti fy the respondents was used. The ques ti onnaire used in the study was created on the basis of the literature review. In the first part of the ques ti onnaire, respondents were asked for demographic informa ti on such as gender (women or men), age (18 ‐30 or 31 ‐50 or 51 and above), job posi ti on (managerial or non ‐managerial) and the organisa ti on in which they work (agencies, directorates, supervisory authori ti es, educa ti onal in ‐ s ti tu ti ons (primary, secondary and higher educa ‐ ti on), public funds, ministries, municipali ti es, courts, sui generis organisa ti ons, administra ti ve units, state authori ti es, government and others). This was fol ‐ lowed by ques ti ons on dog ownership (whether or not they owned a dog) and the presence of dogs in working environments in public sector organisa ti ons (whether or not they are allowed to bring a dog into their workplace). If respondents were dog owners and could bring their dogs to work, they were asked how o ft en they brought their dogs to work (daily, several ti mes a week, several ti mes a month, several ti mes a year and never). The following 8 statements were rated on a 5 ‐ point scale, where 1 stood for “strongly disagree” , 2 for “strongly disagree” , 3 for “neither” , 4 for “agree” and 5 for “strongly agree”. The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on social interac ti on and com ‐ munica ti on between coworkers, The presence of the dog makes me feel more sa ti sfied at work, The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my re ‐ la ti onships with coworkers, The presence of the dog at work reduces my stress level, The presence of the dog improves my well‐being at work, The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my mo ti va ti on at work, The presence of dog makes me feel less stressed by the working day, The possibility of hav ‐ ing a dog in the organiza ti on makes it less likely that I will consider changing jobs. These statements are based on the ques ti onnaires by Barker et al. (2012), Foreman et al. (2017), Hall and Mills (2019) and Wagner and Pina e Cunha (2021). The opinions on the possible presence of dogs in their working environment were explored further . They were asked what it would mean to them to be able to bring a dog into the organiza ti on. There were a number of possible responses to this ques ti on, in ‐ cluding: increased mo ti va ti on to work, less stress at work, improved well ‐being at work, increased job sa ti sfac ti on, increased engagement at work, dog at work as an addi ti onal source of social support, less worry about the dog being le ft home alone, closer collabora ti on with other employees, and others. These statements are based on the ques ti onnaire by Foreman et al. (2017). Respondents were also asked for their opinion on the presence of dogs in the public sector work environment. There were 11 statements, which were rated on a 5 ‐point scale, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’, 2 being ‘strongly disagree’, 3 being ‘nei ‐ ther agree nor disagree’ , 4 being ‘agree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’. The statements were as follows: Dogs do not belong in the work environment, Dogs are a distrac ti on from work, I support the integra ‐ ti on of dogs into my work environment, It would be useful to organize training for dog owners before in ‐ tegra ti ng dogs into the work environment, I am cur ‐ rently sa ti sfied at work, If I could bring a dog into my work environment, it would mo ti vate me to work, If I had the opportunity to bring my dog into my work environment, I would do so, The rules against dogs in the work environment would make me think about changing jobs, If the rules for dogs in the work environment were changed so that they were no longer allowed, I would change jobs, The policies and rules for dogs in the work environment need to be well defined before dogs are integrated into the work environment, and The presence of Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 70 Tatjana Kozjek, Lara Juvan či č: E ffects of the Presence of Dogs in the Working Environment on Slovenian Civil Servants dogs in the work environment would make the at ‐ mosphere in the o ffice more relaxed. These state ‐ ments are based on the ques ti onnaires by Barker et al. (2012), Foreman et al. (2017), Hall and Mills (2019) and Wagner and Pina e Cunha (2021). An anonymous ques ti onnaire was created using an online tool and a link to the ques ti onnaire was sent to publicly accessible email addresses of selected public sector organisa ti ons with the re ‐ quest to forward the ques ti onnaire to all employ ‐ ees. As the researchers were not informed whether the recipients of the email actually forwarded the link to all employees, and due to the anonymity of the survey, it was not possible to determine an exact response rate. Another problem could be that em ‐ ployees with par ti cularly strong views – either in favour of or against the presence of dogs in the workplace – were more willing to par ti cipate. The data collec ti on took place between 22 April 2024 and 31 May 2024. Various methods were used to answer the re ‐ search ques ti ons, namely descrip ti ve sta ti s ti cs, the Shapiro ‐Wilk test to test for normality, the non ‐ parametric Mann ‐Whitney U test and the Kruskal ‐ Wallis H test to compare di fferences between groups, Spearman correla ti on to analyse correla ‐ ti ons and ordinal linear regression analysis to anal ‐ yse how the frequency of bringing dogs to work influences the percep ti on of the posi ti ve e ffects of the presence of dogs in the work environment. 4 RESULTS The survey was fully completed by 1326 (from 1482) respondents working in various public sector organiza ti ons. Of these, 78.70% were women and 21.30% were men. The majority of respondents were between 41 and 50 years old, which ac ‐ counted for 38.3% of the sample, followed by those who were 51 years or older (34.8%), followed by those who were between 31 and 40 years old, which accounted for 19.6%, and the smallest num ‐ ber of respondents were between 18 and 30 years old. 7.2%. 14.3% of respondents are employed in a managerial posi ti on, while the majority (85.7%) of respondents do not hold a managerial posi ti on. Em ‐ ployees from various public sector organiza ti ons parti cipated in the survey, namely: agencies (9.5%), directorates (0.3%), supervisory authori ti es (6.3%), educa ti onal ins ti tu ti ons (primary, secondary and higher educa ti on) (3.1%), public funds (3.5%), min ‐ istries (24.9%), municipali ti es (19%), courts (18%), sui generis organiza ti ons (1.1%), administra ti ve units (7.3%), state authori ti es (5.1%), government (0.2%) and others (2%). More than half of the re ‐ spondents (59.45%) were not dog owners and 40.55% were dog owners. An analysis of the current situa ti on regarding the presence of dogs in the working environment in public sector organiza ti ons shows that they are pre ‐ sent to a lesser extent. In 3.47% (46 par ti cipants) dogs are allowed in the work environment, while in 96.53% (1280 par ti cipants) they are not allowed. Only 28.26% of respondents who are allowed to bring a dog into the work environment do so, while 71.74% of respondents do not. Of the respondents who answered that they bring a dog to work, 23.08% do so daily, 15.38% several ti mes a week, 15.38% several ti mes a month and most (46.15%) only a few ti mes a year. The results (Table 1) on the posi ti ve e ffects of dogs in the work environment show that respon ‐ dents who allow dogs in the work environment agree with all statements (all average scores were above 3.3). In addi ti on, this study analysed the di fferences in the percep ti on of the posi ti ve e ffects of the pres ‐ ence of dogs in the work environment depending on gender, di fferent age groups, job posi ti on and type of organisa ti on – the organisa ti ons were di ‐ vided into two groups: • organisa ti ons with frequent client contact (e.g. in ‐ spectorates, educa ti onal ins ti tu ti ons, municipali ‐ ti es, courts, administra ti ve units, o ffices). • organisa ti ons with li tt le client contact (e.g. agen ‐ cies, directorates, ministries, government, public funds, sui generis organisa ti ons). The Shapiro ‐Wilk test was used to test normal ‐ ity as 46 respondents were able to bring dogs to work. This showed that the distribu ti ons were not normal (p < 0.05). Therefore, the non ‐parametric Mann ‐Whitney U ‐test was used to compare di ffer ‐ ences between genders and di fferences between Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 71 job posi ti on, and the Kruskal ‐Wallis H ‐test was used to compare di fferences between age groups and two types of organisa ti ons. The results showed no sta ti s ti cally significant di fferences between men and women, managerial and non ‐managerial posi ti on, di fferent age groups and organisa ti ons with frequent client contact and those with li tt le client contact for any of the tested statements (p > 0.05), indica ti ng that demographic factors do not have a significant role in the percep ‐ ti on of the posi ti ve e ffects of the presence of dogs in the work environment. This study also examined whether the percep ‐ ti on of the posi ti ve e ffects of the presence of dogs di ffers depending on the categorisa ti on of dog own ‐ ers. The results (Table 2) of the Mann ‐Whitney U ‐ test showed sta ti s ti cally significant di fferences (p < 0.05) for several indicators, including stress reduc ‐ ti on, improved rela ti onships with coworkers, job sa ti sfac ti on, mo ti va ti on for work and general well ‐ being at work, sugges ti ng that being a dog owner has a significant impact on the percep ti on of the posi ti ve e ffects of the presence of dogs in the work environment. Table 1: Respondents’ agreement with the statements about the posi ti ve e ffects of the presence of dogs in the work environment Statement AV SD The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on social interac ti on and communica ti on between coworkers. 3,90 1,41 The presence of the dog makes me feel more sa ti sfied at work. 3,70 1,41 The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my rela ti onships with coworkers. 3,70 1,40 The presence of the dog at work reduces my stress level. 3,70 1,40 The presence of the dog improves my well ‐being at work. 3,70 1,37 The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my mo ti va ti on at work. 3,50 1,38 The presence of dog makes me feel less stressed by the working day. 3,40 1,32 The possibility of having a dog in the organiza ti on makes it less likely that I will consider changing jobs. 3,30 1,34 Source: own Table 2: Respondents’ agreement with the statements about the posi ti ve e ffects of the presence of dogs in the work environment Source: own Statement Mann ‐Whitney U p ‐value The presence of the dog at work reduces my stress level. 356.0 <0.001 The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my rela ti onships with coworkers. 336.0 0.002 The presence of the dog makes me feel more sa ti sfied at work. 332.0 0.003 The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my mo ti va ti on at work. 333.0 0.004 The presence of the dog improves my well ‐being at work. 337.0 0.002 The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on social interac ti on and communica ti on between coworkers. 332.5 0.005 The possibility of having a dog in the organiza ti on makes it less likely that I will consider changing job. 272.0 0.151 The presence of dog makes me feel less stressed by the working day. 299.0 0.032 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 72 The Mann ‐Whitney U test was used to deter ‐ mine whether respondents who bring their dogs to work perceive a significantly di fferent posi ti ve e ffect of the presence of dogs in the work environment than those who do not (Table 3). Respondents who bring their dogs to work reported significantly lower levels of stress, the way respondents perceive work ‐ place rela ti onships, higher job sa ti sfac ti on, higher mo ti va ti on, the well ‐being scores of respondents who do not bring dogs to work were significantly higher, with all p ‐values < 0.05. As the data were not normally distributed, we used Spearman correla ti on to analyse the correla ‐ ti ons and ordinal linear regression analysis to anal ‐ yse how the frequency of bringing dogs to work influences the percep ti on of the posi ti ve e ffects of the presence of dogs in the work environment (Table 4). Tatjana Kozjek, Lara Juvan či č: E ffects of the Presence of Dogs in the Working Environment on Slovenian Civil Servants Table 4: Spearman’s correla ti on matrix Table 3: Respondents’ agreement with the statements about the posi ti ve e ffects of the presence of dogs in the work environment Statement Mann ‐Whitney U p ‐value The presence of the dog at work reduces my stress level. 293.5 0.022 The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my rela ti onships with coworkers. 300.0 0.014 The presence of the dog makes me feel more sa ti sfied at work. 312.0 < 0.005 The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my mo ti va ti on at work. 314.5 < 0.005 The presence of the dog improves my well ‐being at work. 304.0 0.011 The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on social interac ti on and communica ti on between coworkers. 301.5 0.011 The possibility of having a dog in the organiza ti on makes it less likely that I will consider changing job. 283.5 0.049 The presence of dog makes me feel less stressed by the working day. 297.5 0.018 Source: own Source: own Legend: PE1…The presence of the dog at work reduces my stress level. PE2…The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my rela ti onships with coworkers. PE3…The presence of the dog makes me feel more sa ti sfied at work. PE4… The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my mo ti vati on at work. PE5…The presence of the dog improves my well ‐being at work. PE6…The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on social interac ti on and communica ti on between coworkers. PE7…The possibility of having a dog in the organiza ti on makes it less likely that I will consider changing job. PE8…The presence of dog makes me feel less stressed by the working day. *p<0.005, **p<0.001 Frequency 1.0 PE1 0.1036 1.0 PE2 ‐0.0709 0.8216** 1.0 PE3 ‐0.0709 0.8216** 0.9254** 1.0 PE4 0.1543 0.5052 0.7431* 0.7431* 1.0 PE5 0.1570 0.6928 0.8433** 0.8433** 0.9732** 1.0 PE6 0.3367 0.5667 0.4261 0.4261 0.6456 0.6928 1.0 PE7 ‐0.2263 0.3972 0.4835 0.4835 0.2007 0.2752 0.0530 1.0 PE8 0.0856 0.4509 0.4358 0.4358 0.5657 0.5972 0.4509 0.5916 1.0 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 73 Strong posi ti ve correla ti ons ( ρ > 0.7) indicate that bringing a dog to work was significantly corre ‐ lated with less stress, be tt er rela ti onships and higher job sa ti sfac ti on. There were moderate corre ‐ la ti ons ( ρ between 0.4 and 0.7) for the respondents’ mo ti va ti on, well ‐being and loyalty. Weaker correla ‐ ti ons ( ρ < 0.3) on social interac ti ons may vary be ‐ tween individuals, and in some cases – the sta ti s ti cal significance of the findings varies, with some corre ‐ la ti ons being highly significant (p ≈ 0.000) and oth ‐ ers not significant (p > 0.05). The results of the ordinal logis ti c regression analysis (Table 5) show that bringing a dog to work is a sta ti s ti cally significant predictor of the perceived posi ti ve e ffects of having a dog at work, par ti cularly in terms of reducing stress, improving social inter ‐ ac ti ons and increasing job sa ti sfac ti on. The coe ffi ‐ cients for bringing a dog to work were between 2.50 and 3.19, with p ‐values below 0.05, confirming a strong posi ti ve e ffect. The frequency of bringing a dog to work did not necessarily increase general well ‐being at work (p > 0.05). Respondents were also asked what it would mean to them if they could bring their dog to work – their opinion on the impact of having a dog in the work environment. Respondents were given the op ‐ portunity to make more than one statement. The majority of 1.481 respondents (84.6%) chose the statement Be tt er well ‐being at work, followed by Greater job sa ti sfac ti on (76.9%). Three statements were selected by 61.5% of respondents, namely: Less stress at work, The dog at work is an addi ti onal Table 5: Ordinal Logis ti c Regression Analysis Source: own Legend: PE1…The presence of the dog at work reduces my stress level. PE2…The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my rela ti onships with coworkers. PE3…The presence of the dog makes me feel more sa ti sfied at work. PE4… The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on my mo ti vati on at work. PE5…The presence of the dog improves my well ‐being at work. PE6…The presence of the dog has a posi ti ve impact on social interac ti on and communica ti on between coworkers. PE7…The possibility of having a dog in the organiza ti on makes it less likely that I will consider changing job. PE8…The presence of dog makes me feel less stressed by the working day. Coe fficient St. Error 95% CI Lower Bound 95% CI Upper Bound PE1 Permission 2.5026 0.9464 0.6477 4.3575 Frequency 0.1235 0.5119 ‐0.8799 1.1268 PE2 Permission 3.1596 0.7855 1.6200 4.6992 Frequency ‐0.1106 0.4764 ‐1.0443 0.8230 PE3 Permission 3.1852 0.7868 1.6432 4.7273 Frequency ‐0.1128 0.4771 ‐1.0479 0.8222 PE4 Permission 3.0434 0.7982 1.4796 4.6083 Frequency 0.1932 0.4209 ‐0.6317 1.0181 PE5 Permission 3.0320 0.7917 1.4804 4.5837 Frequency 0.1712 0.4147 ‐0.6416 0.9839 PE6 Permission 1.9831 1.2039 ‐0.3765 4.3427 Frequency 0.5593 0.5305 ‐0.4804 1.5990 PE7 Permission ‐3.7620 0.9146 ‐5.5546 ‐1.9694 Frequency ‐0.5308 0.4882 ‐1.4876 0.4261 PE8 Permission ‐5.3761 0.7867 ‐6.9180 ‐3.8343 Frequency 0.1151 0.4103 ‐0.6891 0.9192 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 Tatjana Kozjek, Lara Juvan či č: E ffects of the Presence of Dogs in the Working Environment on Slovenian Civil Servants 74 source of social support and Less worries because the dog is not alone at home. 38.5% of respondents selected the statement Increased mo ti va ti on to work, followed by the statement Closer coopera ti on with other employees (30.8%). The lowest number of respondents (23.1%) chose the statement In ‐ creased engagement at work. In addi ti on (the Shapiro ‐Wilk test (p<0.001) shows that the data were not normally distributed), non ‐parametric tests were applied: Mann‐Whitney U test to test for di fferences between gender and job posi ti on, Kruskal ‐Wallis test to test for di ffer ‐ ences between three age groups (18 ‐30, 31 ‐50 and 51+ years) and organisa ti ons (with li tt le and fre ‐ quent client contact). The results showed that there were no sta ti s ti cally significant di fferences in any of the tested di fferences. The results regarding the general opinion and impact of the presence of dogs in the work environ ‐ ment (Table 6) show that the policy and rules for dogs in the work environment need to be well de ‐ fined before dogs are integrated into the work en ‐ vironment and that clear guidelines are needed that take into account both the benefits and the chal ‐ lenges of keeping dogs in the working environment. In addi ti on, non ‐parametric tests were used: Mann ‐Whitney U test to test for di fferences be ‐ tween gender and job posi ti on, Kruskal‐Wallis test to test for di fferences between three age groups (18 ‐30, 31 ‐50 and 51+ years) and organisa ti ons (with li tt le and frequent client contact). If significant di fferences were found, Bonferroni post ‐hoc tests were also conducted. The results of the Mann ‐Whitney U ‐test (Table 7) on general opinion show that women are signifi ‐ cantly more in favour of a pet ‐friendly working en ‐ vironment and believe that the presence of dogs brings greater benefits in the form of a more re ‐ laxed working atmosphere and higher mo ti va ti on than men. The results in Table 8 show that older respon ‐ dents (51+) were significantly more likely to be against pets in the workplace (p=0.033). Younger re ‐ spondents (18 ‐30) were more likely to be in favour of pet ‐friendly policies and saw greater benefits for higher mo ti va ti on and a more relaxed working at ‐ mosphere (p<0.001). 5 DISCUSSION The results of this study show that the presence of dogs in the working environment in public sector organisa ti ons is rela ti vely rare. Only 3.47% of re ‐ spondents stated that dogs are allowed in their Statement AV SD The policies and rules for dogs in the work environment need to be well defined before dogs are integrated into the work environment. 4,30 1,02 It would be useful to organize training for dog owners before integra ti ng dogs into the work environment. 4,00 1,22 I am currently sa ti sfied at work. 3,90 0,96 The presence of dogs in the work environment would make the atmosphere in the o ffice more relaxed. 3,40 1,42 I support the integra ti on of dogs into my work environment. 3,20 1,50 If I had the opportunity to bring my dog into my work environment, I would do so. 2,90 1,52 Dogs do not belong in the work environment. 2,90 1,44 If I could bring a dog into my work environment, it would mo ti vate me to work. 2,90 1,42 Dogs are distrac ti on from work. 2,90 1,38 If the rules for dogs in the workplace were changed so that they were no longer allowed, I would change jobs. 1,70 1,01 The rules against dogs in the work environment would make me think about changing jobs. 1,50 0,84 Table 6: General opinion and impact of the presence of dogs in the work environment Source: own Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 75 workplace. Even of those who have permission, the majority (71.74%) do not bring their dogs to work, and those who do, rarely do. Dog owners perceive more benefits of dogs in the workplace than non ‐ dog owners. Further analysis show that respondents who bring their dogs to work reported significant posi ti ve e ffects, such as less stress, be tt er rela ti on ‐ ships with colleagues, higher job sa ti sfac ti on and greater general well ‐being. In addi ti on, those who bring their dogs to work more frequently report sig ‐ nificantly higher well ‐being, greater mo ti va ti on and lower stress. Previous studies by Barker et al. (2012), Quan et al. (2023), Wilkin et al. (2015), Wells and Perrine (2001), Fol ti n and Glenk (2023) and Wagner and Pina e Cunha (2021) support these observa ti ons and emphasise similar benefits of dogs in the work environment. The study also looked at demographic and or ‐ ganisa ti onal factors that could influence the percep ‐ ti on of the benefits of dogs in the work environment. No sta ti s ti cally significant di fferences were found in rela ti on to gender, job posi ti on, age group or type of organisa ti on (with frequent or li tt le client contact). The most important determinant appears to be per ‐ sonal experience with dogs, either as an owner or as someone who brings their dog to work. The result of the organisa ti onal context di ffers from the results of Boštjan či č & Smolkovi č (2012), who found that or ‐ ganisa ti ons without direct client contact are more likely to allow dogs. Correla ti on and regression analyses further support the posi ti ve e ffects of bringing a dog to work. Strong posi ti ve correla ti ons were found be ‐ Table 7: Mann ‐Whitney test (gender di fferences in general opinion and impact of the presence of dogs in the work environment) Table 8: Kruskal ‐Wallis test (gender di fferences in general opinion and impact of the presence of dogs in the work environment) Source: own Source: own Statement Mann ‐Whitney U p ‐value Dogs do not belong in the work environment. 167052.5 0.001 I support the integra ti on of dogs into my work environment. 223568.0 <0.001 If I could bring a dog into my work environment it would mo ti vate me to work. 228200.5 <0.001 If I had the opportunity to bring my dog into my work environment, I would do so. 226132.0 <0.001 The rules against dogs in the work environment would make me think about changing jobs. 208122.5 <0.001 The presence of dogs in the work environment would make the atmosphere in the o ffice more relaxed. 231746.0 <0.001 Statement Kruskal ‐Wallis Sta ti s ti cs p ‐value Dogs do not belong in the work environment. 6.812 0.003 I support the integra ti on of dogs into my work environment. 13.485 <0.001 If I could bring a dog into my work environment it would mo ti vate me to work. 15.750 <0.001 If I had the opportunity to bring my dog into my work environment, I would do so. 8.305 0.002 The rules against dogs in the work environment would make me think about changing jobs. 6.522 0.004 The presence of dogs in the work environment would make the atmosphere in the o ffice more relaxed. 13.979 <0.001 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 Tatjana Kozjek, Lara Juvan či č: E ffects of the Presence of Dogs in the Working Environment on Slovenian Civil Servants 76 tween the presence of dogs and lower stress levels, be tt er workplace rela ti onships and higher job sa ti s ‐ fac ti on. In addi ti on, bringing a dog to work was a significant predictor of perceived benefits, par ti cu ‐ larly for reducing stress and improving social inter ‐ ac ti ons and job sa ti sfac ti on. However, the frequency of bringing a dog to work did not necessarily in ‐ crease overall well ‐being. When all respondents were asked for their opinion on the poten ti al impact of bringing their dog to work, the majority cited be tt er wellbeing (84.6%) and greater job sa ti sfac ti on (76.9%). Other common responses included less stress, addi ti onal social support and less worry about leaving the dog at home alone. However, fewer respondents saw a direct impact on engagement at work or be tt er co ‐ opera ti on with colleagues, sugges ti ng that while dogs can improve the working environment. The general opinion of female respondents showed that they are much more in favour of a pet ‐ friendly working environment and see a more re ‐ laxed working atmosphere and higher mo ti va ti on than men. Older respondents (51+) were signifi ‐ cantly more likely to be against pets in the work ‐ place. In contrast, younger respondents (18 ‐30) were more in favour of pet ‐friendly measures and saw greater benefits in terms of higher mo ti va ti on and a more relaxed working atmosphere. As organ ‐ isa ti ons strive to improve the well ‐being and job sat ‐ isfac ti on of their employees, a dog ‐friendly policy can be seen as part of a larger e ffort to increase workplace flexibility and create a more engaging work environment (Wilkin et al., 2015). The results regarding the general opinion and impact of the presence of dogs in the work environ ‐ ment show that policies, rules and clear guidelines for dogs in the work environment need to be well defined before dogs are integrated into the work en ‐ vironment. The importance of adopted policies as a key element in integra ti ng dogs into the work envi ‐ ronment was also emphasised by Wilkin et al. (2015). They emphasised the need to define and consolidate a set of rules in an employee handbook or include them in employment contracts where ap ‐ propriate. For a successful integra ti on of dogs into the public sector work environment with the aim of increasing employee mo ti va ti on and job sa ti sfac ‐ ti on, it is crucial to develop clear policies and guide ‐ lines based on exis ti ng research and best prac ti ses. Wagner & Pina e Cunha (2021) agree and empha ‐ sise the importance of flexible working hours and autonomy so that employees can adequately care for their dogs while at work. 5.1 Theore ti cal contribu ti on The study provides valuable insights into a tti ‐ tudes towards the presence of dogs in the work en ‐ vironment, par ti cularly in the public sector, as there is a lack of studies in this area. The findings con ‐ tribute to the wider literature on the dynamics of the work environment and employee wellbeing in public sector organisa ti ons. A new ques ti onnaire was de ‐ veloped based on the literature review. The study ex ‐ tends previous research by analysing demographic variables such as gender, age, job posi ti on and type of organisa ti on and concludes that these variables do not have a significant impact on the percep ti on of the benefits of dogs in the workplace by respon ‐ dents who bring a dog to work. In addi ti on, the study extends previous research by showing that bringing a dog to work was a significant predictor of per ‐ ceived benefits, par ti cularly for reducing stress and improving social interac ti ons. The study extends the study by Boštjan či č & Smolkovi č (2012) to public sec ‐ tor organisa ti ons. The results di ffer from their study, which found that organisa ti ons without direct client contact are more likely to allow dogs. 5.2 Prac ti cal contribu ti on Although the presence of dogs is already per ‐ mi tt ed in certain cases, such as guide dogs, the wider integra ti on of dogs into the public sector working environment remains limited. This under ‐ lines the need for a comprehensive and though tf ul approach that takes par ti cular account of the prac ‐ ti cal aspects of having dogs in the working environ ‐ ment. The introduc ti on of such changes requires not only the adapta ti on of exis ti ng working prac ti ces and policies, but also the development of appropri ‐ ate measures to address poten ti al concerns and challenges associated with the daily presence of dogs in the working environment. From a prac ti cal perspec ti ve, organisa ti ons should establish clear cri ‐ Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 77 teria for allowing dogs in the workplace, focusing on behavioural characteris ti cs. These policies should in ‐ clude hygiene and safety requirements, responsibil ‐ i ti es of dog owners and measures to ensure a posi ti ve working environment. The first step is to develop clear guidelines and adopt policies that define the condi ti ons for the presence of dogs in the work environment. The guidelines should include clearly defined criteria, such as the behavioural characteris ti cs of dogs that are allowed in the working environment, and spec ‐ ify the safety and hygiene standards that must be met to ensure a safe and healthy working environ ‐ ment. These guidelines should not aim to restrict the presence of certain breeds, but should take into account or relate to the behaviour of the individual dog. For example, disrup ti ve dogs that are not so ‐ cialized, cannot calm down in public or show signs of aggression should not be allowed in the work en ‐ vironment. Although breed characteris ti cs can in ‐ fluence percep ti on, it is the individual behaviour of the dog and not its breed that determines its suit ‐ ability for presence in the working environment. It is therefore necessary to determine the specific characteris ti cs that make a dog suitable for the work environment, such as calmness, the ability to cooperate with the owner when disturbed, and the ability to coexist with other employees and their dogs. In addi ti on to behavioural standards, the guidelines should include hygiene requirements such as regular vaccina ti ons and veterinary care for the dog. They should also specify the dog owner’s responsibility for any damage caused by the dog and the provision of appropriate care during work ‐ ing hours. Of course, the welfare of the animal must not be forgo tt en when it is brought into the work ‐ ing environment. It determines the animal’s quality of life, how it perceives it and how well it copes with its current situa ti on and environment. It is in ‐ fluenced by the rela ti onship that employees have with the animals. It is therefore the responsibility of the individual to ensure that all animals are treated humanely, respec tf ully and responsibly. Flexible working hours and autonomy are also im ‐ portant so that employees can take proper care of their dogs while at work. The key to implemen ti ng the policy is that all employees are aware of it and formally support it. In this regard, open channels of communica ti on are important to ensure that em ‐ ployees feel comfortable discussing concerns or sugges ti ons about integra ti ng dogs into the work ‐ ing environment. Organisa ti ons should introduce a temporary phase where the impact of dogs on employees is as ‐ sessed through surveys or interviews. This approach allows organisa ti ons to refine policies before full im ‐ plementa ti on. During this period, employee feed ‐ back would be gathered either through interviews or a survey so that management can evaluate the appropriateness of the measure and adjust the pol ‐ icy and guidelines as necessary before final imple ‐ menta ti on. The data collected in the survey can serve as a basis for developing improved policies that focus on the posi ti ve impacts and poten ti al challenges of the presence of dogs in the work en ‐ vironment. Future research could monitor the long ‐ term e ffects of the presence of dogs on the work environment or on employees. This would shed light on how employee percep ti ons change and what long ‐term benefits or poten ti al problems could arise from the implementa ti on of such a policy. Employee training is a key element in the suc ‐ cessful integra ti on of dogs into the working environ ‐ ment. Employees need to be trained in how to interact with dogs. This includes respec ti ng the needs of both dogs and colleagues and managing poten ti al conflicts. Raising awareness of the bene ‐ fits and challenges of dogs in the work environment is essen ti al for a successful transi ti on. Establishing dedicated areas for dogs, regular cleaning and grooming and maintaining hygiene standards are crucial to creating a pet ‐friendly working environment. This may include designat ‐ ing certain areas where dogs can roam freely. Premises should also be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure appropriate hygiene stan ‐ dards and the safety of all those present. These measures will help to ensure the safety and com ‐ fort of all employees. Finally, managers should regularly assess the impact of the presence of dogs on employees to maximize the impact on employee satisfaction, motivation and overall well ‐being. To ensure a smooth transition, the introduction of dogs into the working environment should include continu ‐ Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 Tatjana Kozjek, Lara Juvan či č: E ffects of the Presence of Dogs in the Working Environment on Slovenian Civil Servants 78 ous evaluation and adjustment of policies based on real ‐time feedback from employees. Based on these assessments, additional measures or adjust ‐ ments can be made as needed to further improve working conditions and the working process itself. By implementing these measures, public sector (and private sector) organizations can successfully integrate dogs into the working environment, re ‐ solve health and safety issues and ensure a smooth workflow. 5.3 Limita ti ons and future research direc ti ons Despite its contribu ti on, the study has several limita ti ons. The main issue is poten ti al self ‐selec ti on bias, as the researchers were unable to confirm whether the survey link was forwarded to all em ‐ ployees. The anonymous nature of the survey also limits the ability to understand the representa ti ve ‐ ness of the responses. Future research should take these limita ti ons into account by conduc ti ng structured interviews alongside the surveys to gain a deeper understand ‐ ing of employees’ views. Longitudinal studies would also be beneficial to inves ti gate the long ‐term ef ‐ fects of dogs in the workplace on job sa ti sfac ti on, mo ti va ti on and team dynamics. Research could in ‐ ves ti gate whether certain workplace condi ti ons in ‐ fluence the perceived benefits of dogs in the o ffice and whether adjustments to policies over ti me lead to greater acceptance and e ffec ti veness. By explor ‐ ing these areas, future studies can build on the cur ‐ rent findings and provide more comprehensive guidance to organisa ti ons looking to e ffec ti vely im ‐ plement dog ‐friendly policies. 6 CONCLUSION This ar ti cle analyses the presence of dogs in the working environment of the public sector in Slove ‐ nia. The study confirms that while dogs are rare in public sector workplaces, those who bring them re ‐ port notable benefits, including less stress, be tt er workplace rela ti onships, higher job sa ti sfac ti on and general well ‐being. Dog owners perceive greater benefits than non ‐dog owners, emphasising the role of personal experience. Demographic and organisa ti onal factors have no significant influence on a tti tudes towards dogs in the work environment. Sta ti s ti cal analyses of re ‐ spondents who actually bring dogs to work show strong correla ti ons between the presence of dogs and lower stress, improved social interac ti ons and higher job sa ti sfac ti on, although more frequent presence does not increase these benefits. Most respondents believe that the presence of dogs contributes to a be tt er sense of well ‐being and greater job sa ti sfac ti on. Women were more in favour of a pet ‐friendly working environment and believed that this would lead to a more relaxed working atmosphere and higher mo ti va ti on. Older respondents were more likely to be against dogs in the workplace, while younger respondents were in favour of a dog ‐friendly policy and believed it would lead to higher mo ti va ti on and a more relaxed work ‐ ing atmosphere. The study emphasises the need for clear policies and guidelines to ensure smooth inte ‐ gra ti on, as highlighted in previous research. To successfully introduce dogs into the public sector workplaces, organisa ti ons should establish structured guidelines based on best prac ti se. These include guidelines for responsible pet ownership, behavioural expecta ti ons and sta ff support. Imple ‐ men ti ng these policies can help to create a posi ti ve and sa ti sfying working environment. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 79 REFERENCES Barker, R. (2005). On the edge or not? Opportuni ti es for interdisciplinary scholars in business communica ti on to focus on the individual and organiza ti onal benefits of companion animals in the workplace. Journal of Business Communica ti on, 42(3), 299–315. Barker, R., Barker, S., Cobb, R., & Knisely, J. (2012). Prelimi ‐ nary inves ti ga ti on of employee’s dog presence on stress and organiza ti onal percep ti ons. Interna ti onal Journal of Workplace Health Management, 5(1), 15–30. Boštjan či č, E., & Smolkovi č, I. (2012). Vloga psa na de ‐ lovnem mestu – rezulta ti prve slovenske ek ‐ sploratorne raziskave [The role of dogs in the workplace – Results of the first Slovenian exploratory study]. HRM, 10(50), 15–30. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.hrm ‐revija.si/wp ‐content/stevilke/HRM ‐ stevilka ‐50.pdf Bremhorst, A., Mongillo, P., Howell, T., & Marinelli, L. (2018). Spotlight on assistance dogs—Legisla ti on, welfare and research. Animals, 8(8), 129. EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLE ČEK Pes v delovnem okolju vpliva na razli čne vidike delovnega procesa, vklju čno z mo ti viranostjo in zadovoljstvom zaposlenih ter njihovim splošnim po čutjem. Namen prispevka je na podlagi pri ‐ dobljenih rezultatov analize stanja na podro čju prisotnos ti psov v delovnem okolju v izbranih orga ‐ nizacijah javnega sektorja v Sloveniji prou či ti stališ ča in morebitne pozi ti vne vplive prisotnos ti psov na javne uslužbence ter oblikova ti priporo čila za uvedbo sprememb, ki bi pripomogle k vpeljavi psov v delovna okolja v javnem sektorju. Raziskava je bila izvedena z metodo anke ti ranja, anketni vprašal ‐ nik je bil oblikovan na podlagi predhodnih raziskav. V raziskavi se je ugotavljalo, katere bi bile pozi ti vne posledice prisotnos ti psov v delovnih okoljih v prou čevanih organizacijah ter kaj je poglavitna ovira pri vpeljavi psov v delovna okolja v izbranih organizacijah v slovenskem javnem sektorju. Za odgovore na raziskovalna vprašanja so bile uporabljene razli čne metode, in sicer opisna sta ti s ti ka, Shapiro ‐ Wilkov test za preverjanje normalnos ti , neparametri čni Mann ‐Whitneyjev U test in Kruskal ‐Wallisov H test za primerjavo razlik med skupinami, Spearmanova korelacija za analizo korelacij ter ordinalna linearna regresijska analiza za prou čitev vpliva pogostos ti prisotnos ti psov v delovnem okolju na za ‐ znavanje pozi ti vnih u činkov njihove prisotnos ti pri javnih uslužbencih. Rezulta ti raziskave kažejo, da med sodelujo čimi, ki pripeljejo psa, ni sta ti s tič no zna čilnih razlik glede na demografske dejavnike. Tis ti , ki so svoje pse pripeljali na delo, so poro čali o bistveno nižjih ravneh stresa, pozi ti vnejšem dojemanju odnosov na delovnem mestu, višjem zadovoljstvu pri delu, ve čji mo ti vaciji in izboljšanem splošnem po čutju. Pogostejša prisotnost psa v delovnem okolju se je pri teh sodelujo čih pokazala kot sta ti s tič no zna čilen napovednik zaznanih pozi ti vnih u činkov, zlas ti v smislu zmanjšanja stresa, izboljšanja socialnih interakcij in pove čanja zadovoljstva pri delu. Analiza mnenj sodelujo čih glede prisotnos ti psov v delovnem okolju je pokazala, da so ženske so v splošnem bolj naklonjene hišnim ljubljen čkom v delovnem okolju ter menijo, da to vpliva na bolj sproš čeno vzdušje in ve čjo mo ti viranost za delo. Starejši so v primerjavi s mlajšimi manj naklonjeni prisotnos ti psov v delovnem okolju, mlajši tudi menijo, da bi prisotnost psov vplivala na ve čjo mo ti viranost za delo in bolj sproš čeno vzdušje v delovnem okolju. Slovenska zakonodaja tega podro čja podrobno ne ureja, pokazala pa se je potreba po celovitem in premišljenem pristopu, ki bi upošteval predvsem prak tič ne vidike prisotnos ti psov v delovnem okolju. Uvedba tovrstnih sprememb zahteva ne le pri ‐ lagoditev obstoje čih delovnih praks in pravilnikov, temve č tudi oblikovanje ustreznih ukrepov za ob ‐ vladovanje morebitnih pomislekov in izzivov, povezanih z vsakodnevno prisotnostjo psov v delovnem okolju. V prispevku so oblikovana priporo čila za uvajanje sprememb, ki bi omogo čile implementacijo poli ti k prisotnos ti psov v delovna okolja v javnem sektorju. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 Tatjana Kozjek, Lara Juvan či č: E ffects of the Presence of Dogs in the Working Environment on Slovenian Civil Servants 80 Černoga, M. (2024, January 10). Skrb za živali še zdale č ni poceni [Animal care is anything but cheap]. Nedeljski Dnevnik. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.dnevnik.si/1043041246 Čivre, Ž., Lovec, N., & Fabjan, D. (2013). Herzbergova dvo ‐ faktorska teorija delovne mo ti vacije na primeru za ‐ poslenih v turizmu [Herzberg’s two ‐factor theory of work mo ti va ti on using the example of employees in tourism]. Management, 8(3), 219–232. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:DOC ‐ DJICRHAP/56320e50 ‐3f61 ‐4d0b ‐80fa ‐ 3a85d788438e/PDF Edmans, A., Pu, D., Zhang, C., & Li, L. (2023). Employee sa ti sfac ti on, labor market flexibility, and stock returns around the world. Management Science, 7(7), 4167– 4952. Foreman, A., Glenn, M., Meade, J., & Wirth, O. (2017). Dogs in the workplace: A review of the benefits and poten ti al challenges. Interna ti onal Journal of Environ ‐ mental Research and Public Health, 14(5), 498–519. Fol ti n, S., & Glenk, L. (2023). Going to the o ffice – What’s in it for the dog? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science,1–17. Ganta, V . (2014). Mo ti va ti on in the workplace to improve the employee performance. Interna ti onal Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences, 2(6), 221–230. Gorenak, M. (2011). Analiza zaznavanja dejavnikov zado ‐ voljstva slovenskih turis tič nih vodnikov in spremlje ‐ valcev [Analysing the percep ti on of sa ti sfac ti on factors of Slovenian tourist guides and companions]. Naše gospodarstvo, 57(1–2), 26–34. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:DOC ‐8VPAB ‐ DPL/01616ae8 ‐092f ‐4875 ‐a853 ‐f9c965b26f53/PDF Hall, S., Wright, H., McCune, S., Zulch, H., & Mills, D. (2017). Percep ti ons of dogs in the workplace: The pros and the cons. Anthrozoös, 30(2), 291–305. Hall, S., & Mills, D. (2019). Taking dogs into the o ffice: A novel strategy for promoti ng work engagement, com ‐ mitment and quality of life. Fron ti ers in Veterinary Sci ‐ ence, 6, 138. Mihali č, R. (2008). Pove čajmo zadovoljstvo in pripadnost zaposlenih [Increase the sa ti sfac ti on and loyalty of your employees] (pp. 4–6). Založba Mihali č in Partner . Obligacijski zakonik [Code of Obliga ti ons]. Uradni list Re ‐ publike Slovenije [O fficial Gaze tt e of the Republic of Slovenia], no. 97/07 – uradno pre čiš čeno besedilo [of ‐ ficial consolidated version], 64/16 – odl. US in 20/18 – OROZ631. Parijat, P ., & Bagga, S. (2014). Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory of mo ti va ti on – An evalua ti on. Interna ti onal Research Journal of Business and Management, 7(9), 1–8. Poglej, T ., & Boštjan či č, E. (2022). Pes na delovnem mestu [Dog at workplace]. Retrieved from h tt ps://ebooks.uni ‐lj.si/ZalozbaUL/catalog/down ‐ load/346/664/7563?inline=1 Pravilnik o zaš či ti hišnih živali [Regula ti ons on the pro ‐ tec ti on of pets]. Uradni list Republike Slovenije [O ffi ‐ cial Gaze tt e of the Republic of Slovenia], no. 51/09 and 89/14. Quan, S., Lam, C., Schabram, K., & Yam, K. (2023). All creatures great and small: A review and typology of employee ‐animal interac ti ons. Journal of Manage ‐ ment, 50(1), 380–411. Republika Slovenija. (n.d.). Država in družba: Javni sektor [State and society: Public sector]. Retrieved from h tt ps://e ‐uprava.gov.si/si/drzava ‐in ‐druzba/javni ‐sek ‐ tor.html Republika Slovenija. (2023). Novela Zakona o zaš či ti živali [The amendment to the Animal Welfare Act]. Uradni list Republike Slovenije [O fficial Gaze tt e], no. 109/23. Uprava Republike Slovenije za varno hrano, veterinarstvo in varstvo rastlin [Slovenian Food Safety, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Authority]. (2023, March 24). Do ‐ brobit živali [Animal welfare]. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.gov.si/podrocja/kme ti jstvo ‐gozdarstvo ‐ in ‐prehrana/veterinarstvo/dobrobit ‐zivali/ Von Bergen, C. W., & Bressler, S. (2017). Animals in the workplace: Employer rights and responsibili ti es. Global Journal of Business Disciplines, 1, 87–110. Re ‐ trieved from h tt ps://www.researchgate.net/publica ‐ ti on/318685140_Animals_in_the_workplace_employ er_rights_and_responsibili ti es Wagner, E., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2021). Dogs at the work ‐ place: A mul ti ple case study. Animals, 11(1), 89–109. Wells, M., & Perrine, R. (2001). Cri tt ers in the cube farm: Perceived psychological and organiza ti onal e ffects of pets in the workplace. Journal of Occupa ti onal Health Psychology, 6(1), 81–87. Wilkin, C., Fairlie, P., & Ezzedeen, S. (2015). Who let the dogs in? A look at pet ‐friendly workplaces. Interna ‐ ti onal Journal of Workplace Health Management, 9(1), 96–109. Zakon o zaš či ti živali [Animal Welfare Act]. Uradni list Re ‐ publike Slovenije [O fficial Gaze tt e of the Republic of Slovenia], no. 38/13.