Abstract
Is the psychological well-being (PWB) of employees essential to be considered by organizations? Does it have an impact on an organization in the long-run? This study attempts to provide a holistic view of literature on PWB and how it has become indispensable for employees and the organization. The study also proposes a framework consisting of precedents and outcomes of PWB of employees in organizations. A review of the literature of 142 studies was done using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework along with the main construct PWB and ten related organizational variables. PWB has been analysed from a eudaimonic perspective. Literature review reveals the scarcity of management literature on the eudaimonic sense of well-being of employees, and how well-being is not distinguished on the basis of its philosophical roots. Our research discusses the variables which have been studied comprehensively in juxtaposition with well-being, and also those variables which are yet to be explored with eudaimonia as the focus. The study is a novel attempt to systematize literature on the under-examined eudaimonic perspective of PWB of employees and its relationship with prominent organizational variables. The study intends to give practitioners and the managers value adding insights into the factors that affect the PWB of employees and also how these factors can be honed for better employee mental health leading to higher organizational returns.
Introduction
Psychological health at the workplace is becoming an issue of concern for managers at organizations (Dagenais-Desmarais & Savoie, 2011). Current trends in employment indicate deteriorating mental and physical health of employees as most of them juggle between their professional and personal lives. Numerous theories present a direct link between workplace stress and well-being of employees (Faragher et al., 2005; Robertson & Cooper, 2011) Possibly due to work overload, work spills over from work to home, thus negatively impacting mental well-being in general (Rastogi & Garg, 2011; Rathi, 2010).
Based on organizational parameters, research literature has extensively examined the effect of mental well-being of employees on the performance of the organization. Research reports improvement in productivity (Robertson & Cooper, 2011; Wright, 2010) and reduction in absenteeism (Reynolds, 1997) when there is a focus on the psychological well-being (PWB) of employees. Taking into consideration happy-productive worker thesis, employees high in well-being show higher performance and creativity (Wright et al., 2007). An increase in one point on PWB is linked to an increase of 8.8% increase in productivity (Robertson & Cooper, 2011). There is no organizational aspect that remains unaffected by the well-being of employees. So, it becomes important for any organization to promote the well-being of its employees if it wants to benefit from the associated economic gains in the long-run.
Organizational leaders have come to realize that trust in leaders and providing a supportive environment at the workplace positively affects PWB of employees. Those who have a high level of PWB exhibit organizational citizenship behaviour and positive emotions (Garg et al., 2013). This is the reason why leaders are striving to ensure the well-being of employees by providing with benevolent, transformational leadership (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2016; Joo et al., 2016). This encourages employees to perform extra role behaviour which greatly benefits the organization. The notion of job engagement has also expanded from a narrow to a broader conceptualization of full engagement that comprises engagement as well as the PWB of employees (Robertson & Cooper, 2010)
Current research on well-being is rooted in two perspectives—a hedonic approach and a eudaimonic approach (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Studies that focus on hedonic happiness or subjective well-being at work focus on transient pleasures and view happiness as an end in itself (Andrews & Mckennell, 1980; Diener, 2000; Keyes, 2006; Russell, 2008) while eudaimonic well-being refers to the development of a person’s potentials and in a way that aims at self-actualization (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Waterman, 1993; Waterman et al., 2010). People spend at least half of their waking hours at work which makes work a predominant domain of their life (Dagenais-Desmarais & Savoie, 2011; Russell, 2008). Individuals now strive to search for meaning in their work and thereby promoting a new found interest in their jobs (Rothausen & Henderson, 2018; Zika & Chamberlin, 1992).
Researchers seek a deeper theoretical and empirical understanding of the many personal, interpersonal, environmental, social, and cultural aspects of well-being (Howell & Demuynck, 2021). However, there is scant organizational literature on the distinguishing features between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Jain et al., 2008; Kundi et al., 2021; Pawar, 2012). In the practical sense, this distinction is important because hedonic happiness is known to be short-lived, while eudaimonia is the long-run goal. If organizations wish to hire the best and want best from their employees, they need to ensure right kind of well-being which focus on eudaimonic PWB other aspects associated with eudaimonia (Kinderen & Khapova, 2020). Theoretically, there has not been much focus on the eudaimonic aspect of well-being (Grant & McGhee, 2020). Fisher (2014) suggests that organizational constructs like job involvement, work engagement, thriving, flow, vigour, dedication absorption, intrinsic motivation and meaning represent the eudaimonic aspect of well-being (Fisher, 2014). Our proposed model is anchored in the eudaimonic sense of well-being, and seeks to extend the work done on the similar constructs previously.
The current study aims to present a literature review of the PWB of employees from a eudaimonic perspective. We have explored a few organizational variables in tandem with psychological well- being so as to draw conclusions about the effects of each variable on the PWB of employees. While summarizing the findings of the literature review, the article also tries to put together a comprehensive framework of the precedents and outcomes of the PWB of employees. The article is organized as follows the second section talks about the scope of research and research questions of the study, the third section elaborates on methodology of the study, the fourth section discusses the detailed literature review while the fifth and sixth section highlight the findings and maps the framework. The seventh section presents the discussion followed by the managerial and practical implications, limitations and the future scope along with a final conclusion.
Research Domain
In this article, we reviewed several theoretical and empirical papers to draw on a framework that highlight precedents and outcomes of the PWB of employees. Conceptual papers explaining the theories, frameworks, models, literature reviews and the meta-analyses were studied to understand the theoretical aspect (conceptual, review or meta-analysis in Table 1). The papers validating these models and framework in general or in the organizational context were also examined in order to check if framework is empirically valid (empirical in Table 1). Lastly scholarly articles proposing a framework, model, or a new way of measurement while simultaneously testing these empirically were also studied (conceptual + empirical).
Type of Papers Analysed.
We present the following research questions
Methodology
A systematic literature review was found to be appropriate based on the research questions stated above (Paul & Criado, 2020). Systematic reviews should be based on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and the methods planned. Literature reviews based on a detailed and well described protocol lead to a systematic presentation, understanding and appraisal of the studies reviewed (Moher et al., 2015). Guidelines laid down by the PRISMA framework were followed to conduct the literature review, draw the framework and identify future research gaps (Moher et al., 2015).
Literature based on the topic was searched in the databases such as Emerald Insight, JSTOR, ProQuest and EBSCO. To ensure the inclusion of all the relevant papers, a thorough search of the literature available was made in the search engine Google Scholar as well. Scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals are considered to be ‘certified knowledge’ (Ramos-Rodriguez & Naavarro, 2004). Therefore, papers from peer reviewed journals only were considered for the study. The search process started with using primary topic keywords such as PWB, ‘employee well-being’ and ‘eudaimonic well-being’. Using database filters, the articles were restricted to ones in English language, Articles appearing in scholarly journals, in field of business and management and psychology. Boolean terms such as ‘employees’, ‘workplace’ and ‘organization’ were used to filter the studies of PWB in the organizational context. Next, individual variables like job satisfaction, employee engagement, organizational citizenship behaviour, positive psychology, organizational commitment, organization and employee interventions, organizational resilience, job performance and organizational leadership were searched along with PWB to extract studies related to these variables. No specific time period was pre-defined which ensured that old and seminal works are also taken into account. The last extraction was done on 30 September 2021. Once duplicates were removed, title screening and abstract screening were taken care of 142 records including 136 research articles, 1 book, 1 dissertation 1 report and 3 book chapters were found to be appropriate for the study. Table 2 gives the number of papers considered across each theme and each organizational variable. The articles were screened for relevance and suitability, in accordance with the study goals. The process of forward and backward snowballing was followed to ensure that no relevant paper is missed. The reasons of exclusion were—The articles dealing with subjective well-being or well-being measured from a hedonic perspective were not considered nor were the articles not dealing with the organization variables taken for the study. Table 3 systematically covers the screening steps and keywords used to extract the papers for analysis.
Themes and Variables Considered and Number of Studies.
Screening Steps for Finalization of Articles for Literature Review.
Literature Review
Background
It has been generally accepted that the foundation of PWB was laid by Marie Jahoda in her 1958 work on positive mental health. She reviewed PWB based on factors such as purpose in life, personal growth and self-acceptance (Keyes, 2006; Nadinloyi et al., 2013). In the years that followed, Ed Diener formulated his theory of subjective well-being that was based on hedonic assumptions such as happiness, life satisfaction and positive–negative affect balance in well-being (Diener, 2000; Diener et al., 1985; Keyes, 2006). Another stream of well-being emerged in years to be followed, when Carol Ryff in 1989 operationalized Maslow’s self-actualization, Jung’s individualization, Marie Jahoda’s mental health, meaning of life by Viktor Frankl and personal development of Erikson into a single construct named PWB. This construct contains six dimensions—self acceptance, autonomy, purpose in life, positive relationships, personal growth and environmental mastery (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff et al., 2004; Ryff, 2013)
Is subjective well-being different from PWB? Yes, the concepts are different due to the approach each follows to define well-being. Subjective well-being is based on the hedonic conception while PWB is based on the eudaimonic conception. Well-being can be said to be hedonic when happiness is derived from physical, positive, momentary pleasure which is short-lived. Eudaimonic conceptualization is to realize the daimon and reach one’s highest potential on the journey of self-discovery (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Waterman, 1993; Waterman et al., 2010).
Researchers have studied well-being from a eudaimonic perspective which indicates the zenith of ‘good’ that a human can attain and it focuses on self-realization which ultimately leads to life of satisfaction (Rastogi & Garg, 2011; Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). PWB as viewed from eudaimonic perspective could be defined as the optimal functioning of a human, with meaning and quest for self-actualization (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). PWB is a multi-dimensional construct encompassing six core dimensions which are self-acceptance (acceptance of one’s identity and past), positive relations with others (developing and maintaining quality relations with others, autonomy (self-reliance for taking decision), environmental mastery (skill to manage one’s own life and surroundings), purpose (meaningfulness and goal in life) and growth (development of a better version of self) (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff et al., 2004; Ryff, 2013). Table 4 elaborates about the seminal studies relating to psychological well-being.
Studies Related to the Psychological Well-being.
Psychological Well-being in Organizational Context
The PWB construct has been verified among the general population (van Direndonck et al., 2007; Linley et al., 2009; Ryff & Keyes, 1995) and has been found to be an acceptable eudaimonic measure of well-being. However, some studies have reported the overlap of two to three dimensions of the construct (Kafka & Kozma, 2002; Springer & Hauser, 2006). Ryff’s PWB construct has been verified in organizational contexts of different countries such as India (Rastogi & Garg, 2011; Rathi, 2010; Sandilya & Shahnawaz, 2018), Slovenia (Zizek et al., 2014), South Africa (Maziriri et al., 2019), South Korea (Park et al., 2016) and Italy (Tesi, 2017) to name a few. Some authors attempted to conceptualize PWB at work based on eudaimonic concepts. Page amalgamated the concepts of subjective well-being, workplace well-being (job satisfaction and work-related affect) and PWB to gauge the well-being of employees (Page & Brodrick, 2009). The context-free PWB are considered inferior as compared to contextualized PWB, thus Dagenais and Desmarias attempted to develop well-being from eudaimonic approach exclusively for workplace. The dimensions include an interpersonal fit at work, thriving at work, a feeling of competency at work, desire for involvement at work, and perceived recognition at work (Dagenais-Desmarais & Savoie, 2011). Table 5 elaborates about the studies where PWB was studied in the organizational context.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being in the Organizational Context.
Psychological Well-being and Job Satisfaction
Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as a positive emotional state arising from the experiences related to the job. Job satisfaction can thus be stated as an emotional response towards one’s job and workplace (Locke, 1976). The attitude of employees is influenced more by the workplace and job, and less by the personality of the employees (Payne & Morrison, 2002). So, it can be inferred that both the organization and the job play a vital role in job satisfaction and the mental health of employees (Nadinloyi et al., 2013). Autonomy, one of the dimensions of PWB is consistently found to be positively related to job satisfaction (Chung-Yan, 2010). Even with low levels of job autonomy provided, employees experience an increased PWB (Chung-Yan, 2010). Job satisfaction can gain a holistic eudaimonic approach thus rendering meaningfulness, a dimension of PWB, beyond the realm of workplace (Rothausen & Henderson, 2018). Employees setting goals and targets in organization renders a sense of purpose and promptness in employees which in turn increases job satisfaction and PWB (Chang & Nguyen, 2011).
Celma et al. (2018) revealed an interesting insight that job satisfaction is not affected by the amount of salary earned; in fact employees drawing higher salaries are more stressed as a result of the workload (Celma et al., 2018). This indicates the role well-being plays in job satisfaction. Longitudinal studies have shown how employees low on job satisfaction and PWB are likely to quit their job (Wright et al., 2007; Wright & Bonnett, 1992). However, continuous social support from family and friends helps in improving job satisfaction and PWB (Arafa et al., 2003). Continuous social support alleviates detrimental impact of workplace bullying that is considered to hamper PWB and job satisfaction (Arenas et al., 2015). Table 6 summarizes the studies relating to the PWB and job satisfaction.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being and Job Satisfaction.
Psychological Well-being and Job Performance
Research has consistently analysed the correlation between job performance and PWB. Wright (2010) states that 25% of variance in job performance is influenced by the PWB of employees. There is a huge body of evidence of longitudinal studies stating that PWB influences not just the present performance but also the future performance of an employee (Daniels & Harris, 2000). Well-being is not just associated with task performance but is related to contextual performance as well (Edgar et al., 2017). The happy productive worker thesis emphasizes how a happy employee will be an asset to an organization as he would display increased productivity that would enhance his performance (Robertson & Cooper, 2010; Wright & Cropanzano, 2004). To extend this thesis further, Wright suggests that Fredrickson’s Broaden and Build model based on positive emotions should be integrated (Fredrickson, 2001; Wright et al., 2007). Such positive emotions will stimulate efficient work behaviour. Job related well-being and positive relations with the job and the organization will contribute to employee performance thus benefitting the organization in the long-run (Pawar, 2012). Recent research affective commitment and leader–member exchange are found to positively mediate the association between PWB and job performance (Boudrias et al., 2021; Kundi et al., 2021). Table 7 discusses studies relating to PWB and job performance.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being and Job Performance.
Psychological Well-being and Employee Engagement
With outbreak of COVID and effect on labour market, employee engagement has emerged as an important aspect for discussion (Ibrahim et al., 2020). Single minded dedication, vigour and a gratifying state or absorption in the job are the key features of employee engagement (Albrecht, 2012; Jena et al., 2018). Trend analysis of employee engagement of employees from 2015 to 2019 shows that the percentage of employees not engaged in their work has ranged between 40% and 50%. Such statistics are worrisome for company stakeholders (Gallup, 2019). However in a country specific employee engagement survey, employees in Britain stated that the reason for disengagement is poor management (Bartram & Boniwell, 2007). A supportive and encouraging culture is required to be provided to employees for enhancing employee well-being (Bandyopadhyay & Srivastava, 2017). On the contrary, a toxic workplace environment has a negative impact on employee engagement through employee well-being (Rasool et al., 2021). Organizational trust creates a foundation for employee engagement mediated by PWB. This is so because an employee trusts the organization, and believes its engagement norms are unbiased in deciding rewards and recognition, thus enhancing well-being (Jena et al., 2018). PWB is found to be a significant predictor of employee engagement (Greenier et al., 2021). Engaged employees yield a better return to investors, facilitate in increasing operating income, report lower levels of absence due to sickness, lead to increased customer satisfaction and loyalty and have a positive impact on the products and services (Robertson & Cooper, 2011). Customer data collected from 24 different studies in 20 different organizations showed a positive relationship between employee engagement scores and customer perceptions (Robertson & Cooper, 2011). Ample job resources should be provided to employees in order to ensure that they are able discharge their duties as per the demands placed by them. Optimum job resources ensure PWB of employees and their engagement at work (Aiello & Tesi, 2017). Job resources will ensure not just the narrow engagement based on commitment view of organization but full engagement which constitutes employee well-being along with engagement (White, 2010). This holistic concept of engagement ensures positive employee behaviour which leads to employee PWB, thus reinforcing engagement (Robertson & Cooper, 2010). It has been observed that beyond job resources level, organizational and team level resources are also essential motivational constructs that explain well-being and engagement (Albrecht, 2012). Yogamalar and Samuel (2019) found that PWB mediated the relationship between physical, cognitive and emotional engagement, and normative and continuance commitment (Yogamalar & Samuel, 2019). Table 8 outlines the studies relating to PWB and employee engagement.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being and Employee Engagement.
Psychological Well-being and Resilience
Resilience is personal resources of an individual that helps them to adapt to adverse situations (Tonkin et al., 2018). The resilient employees accept changes positively and are adaptive and responsive to changes at work (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). They experience low level of psychological distress and know how to face disruptions in an adept manner (Shin et al., 2012). Strong mental health is believed to be the basic element for resilience (Schultze-Lutter et al., 2016). Resilience is associated with psychological functioning and PWB (Avey et al., 2010) and a positive correlation is found between psychological resilience and well-being (Faircloth, 2017). In an Indian sample of policewomen, resilience was found to be negatively related to occupational stress (Chitra & Karunanidhi, 2013). In a longitudinal Spanish sample of nurses, the results revealed that resilience positively affects PWB and contributes to its enhancement (Isabel et al., 2018). Appropriate interventions can enhance resilience of employees at organizational level (Grant & Kinman, 2012). During the pandemic, PWB showed a significant relationships with workplace resilience in different countries (Delgado et al., 2021; Voon et al., 2021). Hence it can be established that these two variables share a potential relationship irrespective of the situation or event. Table 9 compiles the studies relating to resilience and PWB.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being and Resilience.
Psychological Well-being and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
Organizational citizenship behaviour has been defined by Organ in 1988 as ‘individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organisation’. Organizational citizenship behaviour consists of altruism, courtesy, civic virtue, conscientiousness and sportsmanship. Exhibiting these values lead to environmental mastery, a component of PWB. Employees with cognitive satisfaction display citizenship behaviour and experience well-being at the workplace which spills over to life satisfaction (Rastogi & Garg, 2011). The management should understand that employees strive for PWB rather than material well-being while exhibiting citizenship behaviour (Garg et al., 2013). Recent studies reveal that perceived level of justice in terms of distribution, procedure and interaction contributes to employees PWB. When comparing the effect of subjective well-being and PWB, it is PWB that plays an integral role in developing citizenship behaviour at the individual and organizational level (Dávila & Finkelstein, 2013). Table 10 summates the studies relating to PWB and OCB.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being and Organization Citizenship Behaviour.
Psychological Well-being and Psychological Capital
Psychological Capital (PsyCap) consists of an individual’s positive psychological states of development and the psychological resources (such as resilience, self-efficacy, hope and optimism) (Karatepe & Karadas, 2015). PsyCap as a higher order construct is found to be significantly better than the four-factor model consisting of resilience, self-efficacy, hope and optimism without a higher order construct (Siu, 2013). The positive PsyCap of an individual enables them to display strength and re-align goals as and when needed (Gibson & Hicks, 2018). PsyCap is seen to be positively related to performance and wellbeing in the workplace (Avey et al., 2010). Optimism and self-efficacy, constituents of PsyCap, display a stronger relationship in predicting well-being and contribute more than hope and resilience (Gibson & Hicks, 2018). Fostering PsyCap leads to lower burnout and revitalizes the PWB of employees (Manzano-García & Ayala, 2017). However, gender does not play a moderating role in the relationship between PWB and job burnout, and in the relationship between PsyCap and job burnout (Malekitabar et al., 2017). In a sample of nurses, PsyCap was negatively related to emotional exhaustion, and facilitated an in increase in PWB (Laschinger & Grau, 2012). PsyCap is known to increase constructive emotions and reduce destructive emotions thus enhancing the overall well-being of an individual (Rahimnia et al., 2013). Most of research do highlight that interventions should be carried out in organization to enhance level of PsyCap which in turn will enhance well-being of employees (Avey et al., 2011). Table 11 summarizes the studies related to PWB and psychological capital.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being and Psychological Capital.
Psychological Well-being and Leadership
Extant research has explored the relationship between PWB and different types of leadership in an organizational setting. Authentic leadership which has a strong base in positive psychology, is found to be associated with well-being and has been explained with the perception of subordinates as mediators. However, the mediation effect was partial in the case of subjective well-being as compared to flow (an aspect of meaningfulness) which displayed full mediation (Cassar & Buttigieg, 2013). Empowering leadership is a form of leadership where the focus is on an enhanced relationship between leaders and subordinates wherein individual psychological needs of subordinates are attended too (Joo et al., 2016). PsyCap is found to fully mediate the relationship between PWB and empowering leadership (Park et al., 2016). Yet another form of leadership, benevolent leadership, was found to be positively associated with PWB. However, the relationship was moderated by psychological safety and psychological contract breach, where well-being was higher when psychological safety was higher and lower in the presence of a psychological contract breach. Transformational leaders have a vision and inspire employees to contribute their best towards the organization. While studying the relationship between leadership and PWB, it is important to consider the working conditions as well, or else the assessment might remain incomplete. Transformational leadership was found to be associated with the well-being of the followers in a meaningful work environment (Nielsen et al., 2008) Along with such a work environment, meaningful work on its own, is found to mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and PWB (Arnold et al., 2007). Servant leadership was found to have an indirect effect on affective commitment and PWB through hope, efficacy, and competence resilience (Clarence et al., 2020). Gilbreath and Benson (2004) gauged the impact of supervisor behaviour on employee well-being (Gilbreath & Benson, 2004). The findings showed that positive supervisor behaviour such as good communication, openness and considerate behaviour towards employees made a significant impact on the well-being of employees. Riasudeen and Singh (2021) have maintained that workplace spirituality has a positive relationship with leadership effectiveness and PWB, which results in enhanced job participation (Riasudeen & Singh, 2021). Table 12 examines the studies relating to PWB and leadership.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being and Leadership.
Psychological Well-being and Positive Psychology
Positive psychology and PWB appear to be closely related concepts but they actually trace their roots from different sources and have evolved into different constructs. The dissection of the constituents of both these constructs will reveal that they share many constituents, at least at the theoretical level. For instance, maintaining positive relations with others, a dimension of PWB, can have a direct relationship with positive psychology and can be verified in future research. Martin Selignman broadened the theory of well-being with the conceptualization of PERMA (positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning and engagement (Selignman 2020; Selignman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). PWB also includes the dimension of meaning, a dimension where these two constructs may overlap. Positive emotions, a dimension of Selignman’s PERMA concept, was mobilized through the Broaden and Build Theory. Positive emotions build psychological reservoirs that facilitate the development of human strengths and make human beings as a species, flourish (Fredrickson, 2001). In a similar way, at the organizational level, the concept of positive emotions is gaining importance since it is found to influence job performance (Diener et al., 2020). As an outcome, there are two complementary but parallel studies regarding a positive approach at the workplace—positive organizational behaviour (POB) and positive organizational scholarship (POS) (Quinn & Cameron, 2019; Youssef & Luthans, 2007).
POS is considered to be a holistic concept that unifies the different approaches which signify any positive notion in the organizational context. The foundation of POS lies in bringing organizational change and development through a positive approach (Quinn & Cameron, 2019). POB, on the other hand, is measurable and a criterion that is open-to-development. Three kinds of POB are self-efficacy, optimism and hope (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). POB may be considered a subset of PsyCap. However, PsyCap contains one extra dimension of resilience. Positive PsyCap acts as a cognitive resource reservoir which influences well-being and explains additional variance over time (Avey et al., 2010).
Kinderen and Khapova (2020) highlighted how eudaimonic well-being can be operationalized as an element of positive PWB (Kinderen & Khapova, 2020). Positive psychological intervention can play an effective role in the enhancement of well-being (Koydemir et al., 2021). Table 13 sums up the studies relating to PWB and positive psychology.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being and Positive Psychology.
Psychological Well-being and Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment is positively related to employee PWB. The construct of commitment is composed of three main components consisting of the affective, normative and continuance aspects of commitment (Jain et al., 2008; Meyer & Allen, 1984). Affective commitment is an employee’s emotional attachment with the organization or how he/she identifies with the organization. Continuance commitment can be explained as the cost that an employee will have to bear if he/she quits the organization. Conditional continuance commitment shares a negative relationship with well-being (Jain et al., 2008). Normative commitment is the feelings of obligation to remain with the organization. Autonomy, a component of PWB, is found to have an inverse relationship with normative commitment. This is because autonomy might reduce the sense of attachment the employee feels towards the organization (Aggarwal-Gupta et al., 2010). Hence, organizations, in order to enhance the affective commitment of employees, need to focus on enhancing the PWB of employees (Aggarwal-Gupta et al., 2010).
Employees who experience autonomy at a personal level which, in turn, leads to a meaningful life and competence to achieve goals, will automatically display an attitude of high commitment to the organization they work in. The nature of work in terms of permanency (permanent or temporary job) and the quality of work life, influence organizational commitment which in turn affects the well-being of employees (Rathi, 2010; Rathi et al., 2011). However, as a mediator, PWB partially mediates the relationship between organizational commitment and transformational leadership (Jain et al., 2018). Organizational commitment shares a relationship with well-being in a non-corporate context as well. It is directly related to the employee’s intention to remain in the organization (Vecina & Chacón, 2013). Table 14 discusses about studies related to PWB and organizational commitment.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being and Organizational Commitment.
Psychological Well-being and Interventions
Organizations may not realize this but mental health problems like anxiety, stress and depression of employees, can add to the cost of the organization (Butterworth et al., 2006). Employers are largely unaware of the benefits of quality mental health care and how much the organization stands to indirectly lose on account of absence due to psychological problems (Langlieb & Kahn, 2005; Rosenheck et al., 1999). Intervention is a mechanism designed to enhance the well-being of employees. Such interventions can be at the individual level or the organizational level, delivered either face to face or through an electronic medium. Workplace counselling is a well-known occupational psychological health intervention (Kirk & Brown, 2003; Mcleod & Mcleod, 2001). Counselling is effective in eliminating or reducing the psychological problems of employees (Oostrom et al., 2008). It has shown a significant impact by minimizing sickness absence and improving the affective attitude of employees at the workplace (Mcleod, 2010). Motivational-interviewing based health coaching is another way of eliciting behavioural and lifestyle changes in employees which leads them to an increased level of well-being (Butterworth et al., 2006). Internet interventions are gaining prominence in workplaces. These interventions are delivered via mail, websites and now in the form of apps (East & Havard, 2015). However, there are problems implementing mental health app intervention. Mental health apps provide accessibility but lack scientific evidence (Donker et al., 2013) and employees are not motivated to participate (Ketelaar et al., 2014). Internet interventions are found to reduce the stigma associated with availing such services (Griffiths et al., 2004). Thus, internet interventions in future will be more technology oriented and personalized to enable their easy accessibility and usage (Barak & Grohol, 2011). Table 15 briefs about studies relating to PWB and Interventions.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being and Interventions.
Findings and Analysis
The papers have been analysed in terms of aims, findings, publication time, country context, type of paper, sample size, type of sample and statistical and research methods used. The article provides a comprehensive summary of the papers reviewed. Table 16 summarizes the other factors that affect the PWB of the employees.
Studies Relating to Psychological Well-being and Other Factors.
Time of Publication and Country Analysis
The emergence of the concept of PWB dates back to even before the eighties. While Berkman Beck, Bradburn and Warr discussed PWB in the late 1970s, their perception was more inclined towards hedonic terms of the affect and satisfaction levels (Beck et al., 1961; Berkman, 1971; Ryff, 1989; Warr et al., 1979). In 1989, Ryff crystallized PWB in eudaimonic terms with six dimensions (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Ryan and Deci tried to reconcile the dual notions of hedonic and eudaimonic PWB followed by Keyes and Lent (Keyes, 2006; Lent, 2004).
There is a growing interest in PWB and studies based on the concept has gained momentum after 2000 as validation and reliability tests of various PWB conceptualizations were carried out across different countries and under different settings. Test results yielded that Ryff’s scale was appropriate for usage (van Direndonck et al., 2007; Kafka & Kozma, 2002). After 2005, Ryff’s PWB entered the realm of organizational studies where researchers across countries put it to use (Arafa et al., 2003; Rastogi & Garg, 2011; Zizek et al., 2014) (Figure 1). PWB was tested as a mediator, moderator, independent or dependent variable with combinations of different organizational variables, therefore after 2010 PWB studies increased exponentially.
The conceptualization of PWB took place in the United States of America, which explain the highest number of studies from the country. Western countries like Canada, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom all have tested PWB in organizational settings. In the Asian context, various studies have been carried out in India, China, South Korea and Iran (Figure 2). The proliferation of studies globally has made it evident that well-being at the workplace is of vital importance.
Journals and Publishers
Publications were retrieved from a wide array of journals like the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Social Indicators Research, Journal of Happiness Studies, Journal of Positive Psychology, Human Resource Management Review and the like (Table 17). The wide range of covered shows that studies on PWB contain the opinion of diverse researchers thus ensuring comprehensiveness. Table 18 shows that the maximum number of articles were published by well-known publishers like the American Psychological Association, Elsevier, Emerald, Springer and SAGE, to name a few.
Publishers of the Studies Reviewed.
Sample Size Analysis of Empirical Studies.
Sample Size, Sample Type and Research Method Analysis
The majority of the empirical research papers have been carried out on a sample size of over 100 (Table 18). Infact, some have been conducted on a sample size of more than 1,000 (Avey et al., 2010; Celma et al., 2018). A larger sample size ensures generalisability and robustness. Largest sample was of n = 16001, while smallest was of n = 56. Convenience sampling is perhaps the best method of sampling although it reduces the scope of the generalisability of results (Figure 3) (Hao et al., 2019). Some authors collected data from some specific organizations, and sampling done from one organization emerged as the preferred choice, however this method can limit the scope of generalizability.
Among the research instruments used for the assessment of PWB in empirical studies, Ryff’s scale of PWB was used in the majority of studies, followed by Goldberg’s General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979). A total of 4 studies used the ASSET scale (Faragher et al., 2004) which measures employee perceptions of their job, organizational commitment and employee health. Other instruments used for measuring PWB were Beck’s inventory for depression, Warr’s PWB scale and measure of mental health by Berkman (Beck et al., 1961; Berkman, 1971; Warr et al., 1979).
Empirical papers used more than one research method to establish relationship (Table 19). The most commonly used method was correlation and regression to establish relationship among variables. Factor analysis in form of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was the second preferred choice.
Analysis of Statistical and Research Methods used in Studies Reviewed.
Framework Mapping
The proposed framework outlines the precedents and outcomes of PWB as a context-free eudaimonic construct as conceptualized by Ryff’s six dimensions (Ryff, 1989). The proposed framework presents a comprehensive integrated model of PWB (Figure 4). If the organization assumes precedents such as organizational interventions, quality leadership, positive psychology, resilience and PsyCap among its employees, the result or outcomes would be high job performance, employee engagement, greater job satisfaction, improved organizational citizenship behaviour and improved organizational commitment of employees. Any one or all of the precedent might yield a few or all of the outcomes. This model will enable comprehensiveness as majority of the organizational variables affecting well-being of employees are present. In previous literature, PWB has been studied as a moderator or a mediator or a dependent variable for job satisfaction, employee performance and job engagement (Wright & Cropanzano, 2004; Wright et al., 2007). Somers et al. (2019) created well-being profiles based on job satisfaction. In the proposed model, these variables will be antecedents to PWB. Leadership and PsyCap predict the PWB of employees thus supporting the proposition in model (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2016; Gilbreath & Benson, 2004; Siu, 2013). In a recent study, the servant form of leadership is found to have indirect effect on PWB and affective commitment (Clarence et al., 2020). Yogamalar and Samuel (2019) discussed how PWB can mediate the relationship between commitment and engagement (Yogamalar & Samuel, 2019). However this study investigates how PWB can lead to employee engagement and organizational commitment. Empirically, interventions are found to improve the well-being of employees (Butterworth et al., 2006). Koydemir et al. (2021) investigated the effect of positive psychological intervention on PWB thus combining positive psychology and intervention (Koydemir et al., 2021). There seems to be a lack of studies assessing the relationship between positive psychology, intervention and PWB. The proposed model can fill this gap. Organizational commitment has been analysed as dependent variable in previous studies (Garg & Rastogi, 2009) but McInerney et al. (2015) tested PWB as a dependent variable and organizational commitment as an independent and still found significant results. While Kundi et al. (2021) showed that affective commitment mediates the relationship between job performance and PWB, this study proposes that PWB can predict both job performance and organization commitment (Kundi et al., 2021). PWB when tested with resilience has shown positive results (Delgado et al., 2021). Resilience has shown positive results when resilience acting as a predictor, a moderator and a mediator to PWB (Faircloth, 2017; Isabel et al., 2018; Voon et al., 2021). Organizational citizenship behaviour has been analysed as a predictor variable of PWB and one in which PWB moderated the relationship, however proposed model will analyse it as a criterion variable to PWB (Rastogi & Garg, 2011). In a study by Boudrias et al. (2021), PWB contributed significantly to the proactive performance of employees via leader member exchange thus justifying the presence of both the variables in the proposed framework (Boudrias et al., 2021).
Discussion
PWB impacts almost all organizational aspects directly or indirectly. Employees, companies and the society at large, all benefit from PWB at the workplace. Recent studies have shown how decreased employee well-being accounts for 5%–8% of the total healthcare costs in the United States, affecting over 120,000 people (Somers et al., 2019).
Therefore, it is high time that organizations marginalize the issue of well-being of employees and concentrate just on material profits of organizations. Well-being is not a new concept. For companies that have realized the importance of mental health of their employees, solutions are already being provided. For instance, British Telecom provides its employees a comprehensive mental health tool kit (Robertson & Cooper, 2011). Companies like DuPont, EY, Unilever and American Express realize the importance of well-being of their employees and provide them facilities and services (Gingras, 2020; Kohll, 2018). Every organization needs to encourage and support a culture of well-being where the leaders support the employees. Interventions are an effective way to ensure the well-being of employees and are cost effective when compared to the losses incurred due to loss of productivity or work days lost due to stress (Rosenheck et al., 1999). The findings of the study will enable organizations to identify those organizational factors which contribute to enhanced PWB and to focus on these factors.
Most of the previous studies have analysed aspects like job satisfaction and employee engagement from a hedonic point of view (Bowling et al., 2010; Joo & Lee 2017). Organizations need to distinguish their well-being goals on the basis of their philosophical foundations (Grant & McGhee 2020). Hence it is the time that management scholars understand the relevance of ‘long term well-being’ and push the organizational dialogue towards eudaimonia. The proposed framework can enable the practitioners to identify the precedents that can enhance the well-being of employees. The organization can focus on one or more precedents to improve the well-being of the employees. The precedents can be revamped either through intervention or a change in the processes and systems. Enhanced well-being will lead to improved performance which will benefit the organization in the long-run. The enhancement of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and OCB will lead to improved performance of employees. The framework given here is a context free eudaimonic PWB approach. Although context specific analysis has been done previously (Dagenais-Desmarais & Savoie, 2011), favourable results have been seen in the organizational context also (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2016; Joo et al., 2016). Moreover, since job related facets have a spill-over in life satisfaction (Rastogi & Garg, 2011; Saari & Judge, 2004), a context free eudaimonic approach seems appropriate here. Therefore, it can be asserted that companies that want to actively encourage stable, long-term happiness in its employees, should focus on eudaimonic objectives like strong connections, meaningful challenges and growth, which may or may not impart satisfaction in the short-run but will definitely contribute to satisfaction and happiness in the long-run (Koydemir et al., 2021). The model is an attempt to take a fresh look at well-being with a eudaimonic lens. The model can be the base for humanistic management movement as highlighted by Melé (2014) wherein the growth of the employees and their flourishing is considered to be top goal of the organizations (Grant & McGhee 2020; Melé, 2014). The model can also contribute to human quality treatment (HQT) where employees, their ethicality and dignity is prioritized, and they are assumed to be more than just utility resources (Grant & McGhee 2020; Melé, 2016). The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically altered the workplace scenario, with most of the employees making shift to remote working. Companies are allowing their workers to work from home in order to restrict the spread of the virus and maintain social distance. It is believed that this trend will continue and even expand. Microsoft and Twitter, for example, have stated that their staff can work from home indefinitely, while Facebook expects to allow 50% of its employees to work remotely indefinitely over the next 5 to 10 years (Park et al., 2021). The proposed model can especially prove useful in understanding employee behaviour in these uncertain times of modified working style and organization systems.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
The proposed framework is an attempt to bring topic of employee PWB into the mainstream of organizational dialogue. The study will be beneficial for the academicians and the practitioners. For the academicians, it will provide insight into the eudaimonic approach to well-being of employees. Various theoretical relationships can be drawn and tested in the practical paradigm. The findings of the study can be further analysed. The proposed framework can be tested to decipher if it is valid empirically or not. For the practitioners, the study will give a novel insight into the less discussed eudaimonic aspect of the well-being of employees, and how it is more relevant than short-term hedonic happiness. The application of the proposed framework will enable practitioners and managers to enhance performance and productivity of the employees and ultimately boost the organizational profits, while simultaneously improving the employees’ well-being. An in-depth analysis of the different relationships PWB has with various organizational variables will ensure that practitioners observe PWB from every possible angle that will fit well in practical settings. Such an extensive study will enable interventions and the introduction of organizational practices that will facilitate the PWB of employees.
Limitations and Future Research
Despite its efficacy, the study is restricted by a few limitations. This study has taken a few variables into account. However, there are many other organizational variables which affect the well-being of employees. Variables such as Work life balance, HRM perspectives, workplace spirituality, and occupational stress may be considered in future research studies. The study has analysed well-being from a eudaimonic lens. A comprehensive framework can be drawn for well-being in hedonic terms as well. Although many studies have assessed well-being in hedonic terms (subjective well-being) in organization (Russell, 2008), an integrated framework consisting of both hedonic and eudaimonic standpoints can be drawn and tested in organizational setting (Edgar et al., 2017). Majority of propositions of the framework are drawn on the basis of literature, but a few will test the relationships from a new perspective. The proposed model can be validated empirically in future studies to assess which propositions stand correct and whether the proposed model can be accepted as it is. Validation of the same model in different organizational settings like those for nurses, teachers, employees in service companies, workers in manufacturing firms could also be attempted. The model can be tested in the context of different countries. Well-being at the organizational level has severely been affected by COVID-19 pandemic (Burdorf et al., 2020; Greenberg et al., 2020). The notions of job satisfaction, engagement might see a downturn if the work from home system is continued. This model can be used to gauge the PWB of employees post the pandemic and how model is operative in work from home context. A historical review, tracing the roots of the eudaimonic perspective of well-being, beginning as early as Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle could be charted, and it could be ascertained that how eudaimonic well-being is fairing in management literature. A meta-analysis of various variables used in the study from the eudaimonic perspective can provide a summary of empirical data that is already present in literature
Conclusion
The study attempted to systematize the literature available on PWB along with variables like job satisfaction, job performance, employee engagement, resilience, organizational citizenship behaviour, PsyCap, leadership, positive psychology organizational commitment and interventions. The PWB of employees is observed from a eudaimonic lens. An in-depth analysis of the literature reveals that scholars need to dive deeper into the philosophical roots of PWB, so as to distinguish the hedonic and eudaimonic perspective of the concept. The scarcity of literature on eudaimonic well-being possibly shows that how academia is indirectly pushing organizations to pursue short-term hedonic goals. The study with the help of the proposed framework attempts to disclose the potential of the eudaimonic pillar of well-being and the power it has to meaningfully contribute to the greater good of employees, not only in an organization but also in society, in the long-run.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.