Well-Being at Work: Factors and Effects

(1)

Well-Being at Work: Factors and Effects

Alexander Maximilian Helmut Andreas Heidmeyer S4020642 | 200361013

a.heidmeyer@student.rug.nl | a.heidmeyer2@newcastle.ac.uk

Dual Award Dissertation

MSc. Advanced International Business Management and Marketing University of Groningen | Newcastle University

Faculty of Economics and Business | Newcastle University Business School

Supervisors

Dr. B.J. Pennink (University of Groningen) Prof. I. Munro (Newcastle University)

Word count: 15, 283

(2)

Abstract

Previous research in the field of occupational well-being has largely been focused on performance outcomes for the company, instead of the generation of well-being. This study sought to examine what exactly the influencing factors are that can result in occupational well-being. To achieve a valid definition of what constitutes well-being factors and how they affect a worker’s well-being, a thematic analysis on the existing occupational well-being literature was conducted to synthesise a multitude of influencing factors and effects that characterise a workforce with high well-being. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with working professionals and academics that are endemic to the well-being field. The results show that occupational well-being is an inherently complex topic that is being influenced by a plethora of work-related and non-work-related aspects. Nonetheless, a set of psychological, organisational, social and task-related factors have been found which exhibit a strong correlation with well-being at work. The results further display how even the most established well-being influencers are subject to personal preferences and do not

(3)

The quality of work across all nations and industries has significantly increased in the past three decades. Work-related accidents and injuries reached an all-time low in 2013 (Croneri, 2013). In the European Union 28, the GDP, which is the most common measure for overall productivity, has more than doubled since 1995 (Eurostat 2020). The unemployment rate dropped from 10.8% in 1995 to 8.3% currently, in spite of an ongoing recession. Overall wages have equally experienced a significant rise of 50% although total labour costs have only increased by about 26%, implying notable cost savings for organisations. This is partially explained by the rise of income inequality all over the world, but especially in the United States where the wages of the top 1% of workers have increased by 138% while real wages for 90% of the working population have seen only a 15% increase (Mishel et al., 2015). Almost all EU nations’ real wages have increased with exceptions in Portugal, Greece and especially the UK, where real wages significantly decreased (-10.4%) between 2007 and 2015 (Allen and Elliot, 2016).

Today, an increasing number of academics and business professionals argue that these economically positive developments have come at the expense of the well-being of workers. A comparative analysis of working times by the European Foundation for Improvement of Working and Living Conditions has concluded that while the average working hours of EU employees has fallen by 1.6%, an almost equal percentage increase (1.7%) was seen among the part-time workforce, meaning the shorter working hours are deceptive. In fact, multiple studies have shown part-time work to be far more stress- and uncertainty-inducing

(Zeytinoglu et al., 2004; Andersen, 2008). One of the factors in these developments is the advancement of technologies. Although new technologies can make work processes easier or even redundant and can significantly increase the resources available to workers, they also make surveillance and performance-control by employers significantly easier. In the same vein, technology can enable working from home, and research shows that when determined and directed by the employee, this can have net positive effects on the well-being of

employees (MacEachen et al., 2008; Aronsson and Göransson, 1999). However, opposite effects are also observable. When prescribed by the employer, the aforementioned

(5)

2

Overall, a two-pronged development has taken place in the economic sphere over the past 30 years. Output, productivity and general economic activity have sharply increased, with wages and quality of work likely developing concomitantly. However, detailed

examinations of the wage statistics among the different working populations tell a different story. Mental and physical health issues have, in general, remained stable, with work-related accidents and injuries even decreasing significantly (Straker and Mathiassen, 2009). In

contrast, mental issues relating directly or indirectly to work are increasing all over the world, with younger populations experiencing significantly higher levels of mental health problems (Leka and Jain, 2016; APA, 2019). This significant mismatch between trends among worker populations and overall economic developments is worrisome.

In human resource management (HRM), a few concepts have garnered attention which try to combine output-oriented results with higher quality of work, such as high-performance work systems (HPWS) or the resource-based view. While the HPWS label focuses on performance, the resource-based view accentuates human capital as a major method of gaining a competitive advantage. However, in the resource-based view,

organisational performance and growth are the desired goals, regardless of the well-being of employees, as long as they can fulfil their roles. The bottom line in the vast majority of human resource initiatives is the focal orientation of enhanced organisational performance as an end, with workers as a means to achieve that end.

While this is reflected in the academic literature with most well-being studies evaluating performance rather than subjective well-being, a growing number of academics criticise the presumptuousness of the field. The notion of positive psychology was only introduced in the late 1990s, and so far, it has not been translated into the business world. Even when modern knowledge on employee well-being is applied, such as in Silicon Valley companies, it is evident that a deficient organisational orientation still yields negative outcomes for employees (Bowles, 2019).

(6)

3

earned it criticism in academia (Schaufeli and Taris, 2014). While sufficient for a theoretical approach, the JD-R model has seen few opportunities for applied use in businesses.

Furthermore, only a very limited number of scholars have tried to identify the entirety of specific work elements that influence an employee’s well-being (Kalimo et al., 2011; Guest, 2017).

Thus, the primary research question of this study aims at collecting, synthesising and analysing the well-being literature for work-related influencing factors that contribute towards employee well-being. For the secondary research question, the author intends at highlighting the managerial purpose of OWB, by collecting and examining the effects a company can expect when their workforce display high levels of OWB. For answering both research questions, a thematic analysis of the well-being literature will be conducted using the steps of a thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Additionally, primary data will be obtained by conducting interviews with working professionals and academics that have significant experience in the area of employee well-being.

Before the thematic analysis is executed, an overview on the definitions and

(7)

4

2 Definitions, Conceptualisations and Measurement of Well-Being

Early Definitions

Before a thematic analysis of pertinent academic articles can be conducted, the parameters around the definition of ‘well-being’ must be specified, since the definition has been subject to change over time. At the early stages of research prior to the Second World War, well-being was considered to be the absence of disability and disease (Cooke et al., 2016). However, in one of the pioneering modern articles discussing the specification of well-being, Diener (1984) criticises the absence of positive subjective well-being in the psychology literature. Even further, Diener reinforces this view by quoting Wilson’s (1967) article from years prior, stating that ‘little theoretical progress in understanding happiness has been made in the two millenia since the time of Greek philosophers’ (Diener, 1984; Wilson, 1967). Andrews and Withey (1976) summarised the three components of well-being as life satisfaction judgements, positive affect, and negative affect, which are other terms for ‘current mood’. For Diener (1984), negative affect could be measurable in its absence, or rather by the prevalence of positive affect. Thus, he collapsed both affect scales into one with the other two components being life satisfaction and happiness.

Today, the World Health Organisation (WHO, 1948) recognises the need for a

holistic inclusion of multiple life areas, namely psychological, physical and social well-being, that all contribute to being well, or ‘healthiness’, a term used synonymously with happiness by the UN. As the understanding of this topic has advanced, the definition of well-being has shifted towards an emphasis on the positive features of one’s life, or in the words of Waddell and Burton (2006, p. 4), ‘the subjective state of being healthy, happy, contented, comfortable, and satisfied with one's life.’

Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-being

Second, it is important to understand the differences between hedonic and eudaimonic definitions of well-being. The aforementioned definitions are all rooted in a hedonic

(8)

5

self-report to be happy might not be psychologically well for various reasons (Ryan and Deci, 2001). From this perspective, living well instead of feeling well is prioritised by focusing on realising maximum individual potential. Ryff and Singer (1998) categorise the actualisation prospects into six fields: autonomy, mastery, personal growth, self-acceptance, life purpose and positive relatedness. Thus, professional advancements, mastering skills and obtaining new knowledge can be some of the guiding goals behind this view. The eudaimonic view dates back to ancient Greece with Aristotle being one of its first proponents. In his

argumentation, honour, wisdom and pleasure are all equally products of a life dedicated to positive functioning (i.e. fully functioning in a society). The fulfilling of hedonic well-being and positive affect are therefore a consequence of doing good which, for him, can only be made possible by functioning (Aristotle, n.d. translated by W.D. Ross). In short, wherever studies refer to well-being as happiness and pleasure, hedonic well-being is thematised. When well-being is referred to in terms of optimal or positive functioning, eudaimonic well-being is discussed.

Division into Sub-categories

Third, as the inherent complexity of the concept of well-being encompasses

practically all parts of one’s life, scholars felt the need to subdivide well-being into additional dimensions that all affect an individual’s overall well-being. In their second edition of their book Well-being: Productivity and Happiness at Work, Johnson, Robertson and Cooper (2018 p. 3) found a summarisation of three aspects sufficient, namely psychological well-being, physical well-being and social well-being. They mainly focus on the psychological aspect of well-being, in line with their argumentation that, at the workplace, psychological well-being likely plays the most important role and can be most reliably influenced by measures at work.

(9)

6

‘feeling’, but also in objective, physiological analyses. However, as these are relatively time-consuming and costly, especially in an efficiency-oriented office environment, studies with qualitative research methods are more common. (Diener, 1984) The third dimension, social well-being, is mainly focused on the quantity and quality of contacts in the individual’s social network. A common form of measure includes five positive and five negative statements, regarding the subject’s social network and life satisfaction (Keyes, 1998). Although, there appear to be no measurements for social well-being at work, specifically.

Other scholars such as Russell (2008) and Keyes and Magyar-Moe (2003) find two categorisations when defining subjective well-being that are unrelated to work. According to these scholars, subjective well-being can be divided into ‘emotional well-being’ and ‘positive functioning’. Emotional well-being includes aspects such as how individuals perceive the balance of positive and negative effects on their life and general life satisfaction. Positive functioning involves both psychological well-being and social well-being; the former deals with personal growth, meaning a continuous path of development of skills and knowledge, purpose in life and self-acceptance (Ryff, 1989) while the latter deals with relationships with other people. This categorisation is also largely consistent with Diener’s article (1984), which states that subjective well-being is composed of ‘happiness, life satisfaction and positive affect’, with happiness and life satisfaction making up the emotional well-being component and positive effects representing positive functioning.

However, some scholars view the two- or three-way division of well-being as

insufficient and not encompassing enough given the concept’s inherent complexity. Waddell and Burton (2006, p.4), in accordance with Felce and Perry (1995), describe six areas of well-being, namely physical, material, social, emotional (‘happiness’), development and activity. Cvenkel (2020 p.31-49) notes that there is a need for subdividing the prevailing three domains into more detailed dimensions that fully encompass all well-being domains in a workplace. Her extended domains contain psychological well-being, physical well-being, intellectual well-being, mental health well-being, career well-being, spiritual well-being, material well-being, financial well-being and family and work well-being.

Measurement of Well -being

(10)

7

of happiness in life, while multi-item scales were used almost exclusively for assessing a specific group (i.e., the elderly) (Diener, 1984). Today, as research on well-being has advanced, so has its measurement. Cooke et. al (2016) summarise the most common

instruments and items for well-being measures and conclude that 12 common instruments are in use for assessing hedonic well-being and five distinct measures exist for determining eudaimonic well-being. Five of the hedonic instruments only report a single-item measure, highlighting the consistency of this approach over the decades, while eudaimonic well-being is assessed with a total of 21 items.

Moreover, it is crucial to note that the measuring of well-being is conducted almost exclusively subjectively via self-reported surveys. This is likely a consequence of the prevailing acceptance in academia that well-being is primarily constituted by a subjective assessment of one’s perception of happiness and positive functioning in life. Or in the words of Marcus Aurelius, ‘No man is happy that does not think himself so’ (Meditations, n.d. translated by Long, 1993), which affirms the subjective measuring of hedonic well-being. Eudaimonic well-being, in contrast, can usually be determined with multiple-item scales that assess all areas of self-advancement, and since the validity of these responses is equally difficult to obtain objectively, self-reported measures are preferred here as well. Although this method is also prone to flaws such as denial, recency bias, current mood, and

representation bias, it has proven accurate and reliable (Diener, 1994). In general, when assessing subjective emotions difficulties can arise in the validity of the measures, especially when considering the different cultural backgrounds that might empower or restrict the sharing of emotions (Diener, 1984; Russel, 1991).

Psychological Needs

(11)

8

his reasoning, a worker when motivated by the fear of punishment, will only be motivated in so far as that they want to avoid that punishment. For Herzberg (1968) motivators that trigger the individual’s own willingness to work lead to satisfaction, while eliminating hygiene factors only leads to no dissatisfaction.

More recently, Deci and Ryan (2000) argued for the satisfaction of three

(12)

9

3 Theoretical Overview of Occupational Well-being

The field of OWB has advanced notably in the last 40 years. From the early days of OWB research, well-being was mostly measured in terms of existing mental strain and many scholars focused on attaining maximum organisational performance through well-being, rather than employee well-being (Diener, 1984;1994). Today, OWB is treated as a positive, holistic concept that exceeds the absence of mental strain and includes multiple life areas Only now, scholars are increasingly motivated to look into the conception of well-being and how well-being effects work processes (Guest, 2017). Moreover, OWB appears to always be influenced by the well-being of the workers personal life, personality, preferences and genetics (Ryff, 1989; Diener, 1999).

Karasek (1979) argues that mental strain arises from a mismatch between individuals’ job demands and their latitude of job decisions (Demand-control model (DCM)). Job

demands include the work amount, pressure to deliver on time, complexity of tasks,

unexpected tasks and stressors of interpersonal conflict. Job decision latitude is defined as the individuals control over tasks and is divided into decision authority and intellectual discretion (i.e., applicability of skills and knowledge and variety of tasks) (Karasek, 1979). The

combination of high demands at the workplace coupled with low latitude to control aspects of the job leads to particular mental strain which is corroborated by Karasek’s data. The

combination of high control latitude and adequate job demands would produce an employee with high mental well-being. Karasek (1979) is explicit in his view that more research should be conducted on the factors that influence aspects of work related to individual job decisions. Johnson and Hall (1988) expanded Karasek’s model by including a social support dimension. Their reasoning was based on multiple studies, spanning various industries and

demographics, showing significant, negative physiological effects on employee well-being from a lack of social support structures at work (Johnson and Hall, 1988).

(13)

10

and control is opaque, interaction effects are unaccounted for, DCM is too simple to capture the complexity of an individual’s work environment, and the relationship between strain and job characteristics is subject to personality (e.g., coping mechanisms) (De Jonge et al., 1997).

Siegrist (1996) emphasises the importance of the existing models, but also finds critique in the variable of control of the DCM. He remarks on the individuality of the effect of control on workers and attributes it to the factor of individual coping mechanisms, such as varying levels of aspiration or effort put into work. Instead, Siegrist argues that discrepancies between efforts (consisting of job demands [e.g., work load, time pressure] and intrinsic effort [e.g., high aspirations]), and rewards (e.g., monetary benefits, esteem, or status control) lead to psychological strain. In particular, the combination of high intrinsic and extrinsic effort and low rewards leads to high levels of stress because of the high effort costs occurring when fulfilling job demands and intrinsic demands. When these ‘high costs’ are not met with adequate rewards, the individual perceives the compensation for their efforts as inappropriate or unjust, which leads to mental strain (Siegrist, 1996).

In a similar vein, Bakker and Demerouti (2007) criticise the rigidity of both models, claiming that both fail to account for additional work factors. They argue that the simple nature of both cannot capture the multiplicity of factors in the work space. For Karasek (1979), for example, the level of one’s autonomy is a key determinant for mental well-being, while Siegrist only implicitly mentions autonomy and prioritises adequate rewards over any other factor for the basis of being well at work. On the basis of Karasek’s demand-control model, Bakker et al. (2003b) and Demerouti et al. (2001a) developed the similar job

(14)

11

(15)

12

4 Methodology

The academic literature presented above provides valuable insights into the research that has been conducted on this topic. The author’s contribution to this body of research involves a thematic analysis of a literature review and qualitative interviews which result in the identification of the influencing factors characterising a modern office workplace that ensures the well-being of its employees. The scientific contribution is provided by

ascertaining factors that enable the generation of well-being at work. The managerial

contribution is provided by the secondary research question, which addresses the effects of a workforce with high well-being.

4.1 Literature Review Method

4.1.1 Planning the Literature Review

The exploratory nature of the review derives from the scarcity of identified

occupational well-being factors; these factors must therefore first be explored using pertinent articles. Moreover, an inductive approach is chosen because the author wanted to gain an understanding of what being factors at work are and did not want to be limited to well-being factors that are derived from one or few pre-existing frameworks in the well-well-being field of study. The relative youth of the well-being field further makes a theory-driven approach less adequate, especially given the variation between existing frameworks. The entire process of a thematic analysis follows Braun and Clarke’s (2006) process of thematic analysis used in qualitative psychology.

Since the author is interested in the face value of empirical findings about aspects that enhance well-being at work or are antecedents to occupational well-being, a semantic

approach to the thematic analysis is chosen to examine and evaluate explicit data. The other option of a latent approach is dismissed, because the author primarily desires explicit data (what aspects result in higher occupational well-being) stemming from verifiable and replicable research studies which do not need to be questioned regarding their underlying ideas and assumptions.

Unless specifically defined, this study only includes studies that specifically mention well-being (or use it as a focus) or use the terms ‘happiness’ or ‘satisfaction’ synonymously with the definition of well-being in the office work setting. While these terms are

(16)

13

acknowledges that the term ‘well-being’ or ‘occupational well-being’, for well-being at work is a relatively recent addition to the academic literature and therefore, different terminology might have been used prior to the establishment of the term. Additionally, only studies that investigate the entire working population (office workers and knowledge workers) are

included in the analysis. Although there is a significant body of research on the well-being of selected groups (i.e., aging workers, women, geographical groups), the intent of this research is to identify generally classifiable elements of employee well-being, instead of focused results that only apply to a limited percentage of the population, hence the holistic nature of this research.

To investigate the effects of a workforce with high well-being, a similar procedure could not be conducted, as it exceeds the scope of this article and the time provided to the author. Rather than applying thematic analysis on a whole new set of articles, the initial scan articles, manual search articles and responses by interviewees were used to synthesise workplace effects.

4.1.2 Conducting the Review

The first step of the review was to create a search protocol. The initial search criteria were derived from the WHO’s holistic (1948) definition of well-being as ‘the inclusion of multiple life areas, namely psychological, physical and social well-being that all contribute towards happiness’ (as used synonymously by the UN). From the outset, this eliminated negatively influencing factors, as they do not contribute to the state of well-being per se. Thus, the initial search keywords were ‘well-being factors’, ‘occupational well-being

(17)

14

to be attained. The scope of the review included all articles up until the 20th_{of June 2020. No}

bottom limit was included because of the strong overlap between the terms ‘happiness’ and ‘well-being’ prior to the 1990s. It was not feasible to simply exclude studies that did not specifically mention well-being because of the recency of well-being as a defined term and because many studies on well-being were conducted prior to 1990 but using a term close to well-being (e.g., ‘job satisfaction’ or ‘happiness’). Rather than restricting the search to journals with the highest impact, the author included all published and available articles in the second quartile of SJR and found on either WorldCat, LibSearch or Google Scholar search engines. However, given the limited time and resources available for this review, only the first five pages of each search engine were considered. An initial search for the keywords was conducted resulting in 39 search matches. After application of the exclusion criteria and removal of duplicates, a total of 21 academic papers remained.

After analysis of each article’s abstract, only eight papers were eligible for the research. This led the author to expand the initial search criteria. Certain book sections and studies published in books were now included, due to the notable significance of these books for the well-being field (e.g., Warr’s (1999) ‘Well-being and the workplace’ in Kahneman, Diener and Schwarz’s (1999) Well-being: foundations of hedonic psychology). Additionally, the search terms ‘happiness’ and ‘job satisfaction’ were included to account for studies that preceded the defining of well-being. Moreover, the terms ‘antecedents’, ‘antecedent factor’ and ‘influencers’ were included to synonymise with the term ‘factor’.

As an additional manual search, studies that were mentioned multiple times (three or more) in the initial scan of the first 21 articles were included. While these articles did not appear on the first five pages of the search engines mentioned above, their prevalence in the well-being field and the significance of their findings substantiate their inclusion. With the inclusion of the manual search articles, a total of 48 studies remained that report on factors influencing organisational well-being.

4.1.3 Analysis of the Review

(18)

15

the nature of the search was guided by identification, organisation and classification of a wide variety of factors influencing well-being in the workplace.

The thematic analysis commenced, in accordance with Braun and Clarke (2006), with generation of initial codes found in the eight initial studies plus the studies found in the manual search. Codes were attained from reading articles’ abstracts, theoretical basis, hypotheses, and models, and from findings and discussion sections. The themes were not derived from their context, meaning the identified themes followed a holistic understanding of the paper. This was performed to account for the changing terminology of the well-being field and its relative juvenescence. The articles were all scanned and organised

chronologically; the first set of codes can be found in Appendix A.

4.2 Interview Methods

4.2.1 Planning Interviews

The second part of the research consisted of collecting primary data through semi-structured interviews with four interviewees. The interviewees consist of a sustainability entrepreneur and HR and psychology academics. The reasoning behind the choice of each interviewee is described in the appendix (see Appendix B). The interview subjects provide valuable internal insights from companies and academic institutions and report either continuous experience on the matter or first-hand research experience. The choice of semi-structured interviews arises from the exploratory nature of the research, allowing for a more liberal discourse on well-being in the workplace. The structured questions asked of each interviewee were formed after a preliminary scan of pertinent articles resulted in the identification of a number of general well-being themes, namely task characteristics (work load, work times, autonomy) (Karasek, 1979; Kinnunen and Feldt, 2013; Zacher and Schmitt, 2016), social processes at work (Daniels and Guppy, 1992; Perko et al. 2016) and the

structural characteristics of the organisation (culture, climate, support structures) (Nilsson, 2020; Huhtala et al., 2011; Cotton and Hart, 2003).

(19)

16

4.2.2 Conducting Interviews

The four interviews took place between October 2020 and December 2020, were conducted online via Google Meet, and lasted on average 32 minutes. On the basis of the initial scan, a total of five questions were asked of every interview subject: One question regarding concrete measures for well-being enhancement (‘In your experience, what helped boost well-being at work?’), one regarding the effects of well-being in a workplace (‘What is your opinion on the happy/productive worker theory?’), one question regarding motivation at work and one question on the role of the supervisor (‘How can an employer ensure

motivation?’ and ‘How important is a supervisor in that?’). The remainder of the questions either arose naturally as the conversation flowed or were asked to draw upon the specific expertise of the interviewee.

4.2.3 Interview Analysis

The methodology of analysing interviews is based on the same concept as the literature research (Clarke and Braun, 2006). This is done for similar reasons as mentioned above: an exploratory nature coupled with an inductive approach allows for an unrestricted search for factors of occupational well-being and well-being effects on a workforce. Again, a semantic approach is chosen to reflect interviewee responses by their face value, as no interpretive analysis is sought, and answers are to be taken as stated information.

First, all interview data was transcribed (Appendix C) and then colour-coded

(20)

17

5 Effects of Workplace Well-Being

The business world and governments are exhibiting growing interest in the field of employee well-being, despite the concept being relatively new (Baptiste, 2008). While some might assume that emerging studies on this concept have focused on the nature of altruism, most of them describe HRM initiatives as performance-enhancing tools instead of desirable outcomes. Such studies are often accompanied by the happy/productive worker theory, which simply states that happy workers are more productive than unhappy workers. Thus, it is unsurprising that most researchers have focused on the causal link between work well-being and work productivity (Guest, 2017).

Performance of Well-Being

Cropanzano and Wright (1999; 2001; or Wright and Cropanzano, 2000; 2004; 2007) have provided some of the more influential findings on the specific relationship between hedonic well-being and performance. Their first lengthy study examined the causal influence of psychological well-being and objectively (i.e., externally) reported performance

assessments (Cropanzano and Wright, 1999). The authors conducted a five-year longitudinal study that demonstrated a significant and positive relation between performance assessed and well-being, when measured with a maximum interval of one year. Considering the nature of positive affect, which is a state of momentary cognitive happiness, it is unsurprising that a time interval difference that is greater than a year shows no significant correlation with performance measures.

(21)

18

On the other hand, well-being was found to be a strong predictor of job performance. The authors used two separate hierarchical regression analyses to examine the relative contribution of psychological well-being and job satisfaction to composite job performance, beyond all other control variables. They found well-being to ‘account for a significant proportion of variance in composite job performance’ while job satisfaction did not account for a significant proportion of variance (Wright and Cropanzano, 2000). Lastly, the authors have called for caution in interpreting the research results. They have noted that certain personality traits and genetic factors likely influence the relationship between well-being and productivity. Moreover, the possibility of reverse causality cannot be discarded. Although the research clearly shows a positive correlation, it is also possible that individuals who perform well receive better assessments and recognition for their work, resulting in higher

psychological well-being.

Despite many studies providing evidence for a positive correlation between hedonic well-being and performance, a few studies were unable to identify that link (Bowling, 2007; Iaffaldano and Muchinsky, 1985). The correlation thus remains debatable.

In a recent study, Peiro et al. (2019) examined the synergistic and antagonistic relations between performance and being outcomes by accounting for the different forms of well-being and performance operationalisation. The authors differentiated between self-reported performance and supervisor performance assessment. They also treated hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being as distinct. Interestingly, the study found that 50% of all

participants belonged to a group of workers who did not fit into the happy/productive or unhappy/unproductive scheme. They also found many employees who would be considered happy in hedonic terms but not eudaimonic and vice versa. Moreover, the self-reported ratings of employees often could not be determined in the external evaluations (supervisor reports).

(22)

19

significant evidence for a causal association between well-being and positive performance outcomes at both the individual and unit levels.

Some of the incongruencies of the happy/productive worker theory could be partially explained by Ayala et al. (2017) In this empirical study, the scholars differentiated the synergistic and antagonistic relations (happy/productive, unhappy/productive) in terms of the following factors: psychological job role, job self-efficacy, and the degree of

overqualification for the job. Overqualification was a strong predictor for the

unhappy/productive worker phenomenon. These findings further suggest how psychological needs and individual factors, namely role clarity, job self-efficacy, and appropriate use of skills, moderate the relationship between job requirements and well-being.

This type of unclear divide in the results and interpretations of the happy/productive worker theory is reflected in the responses of the interviewees. ‘I am a bit ambivalent on the term happy. Nobody can be happy all the time’ (HR Advisor 2020). This quote exemplifies the complex concept of positive affect. Positive affect, or being in a good mood, is an

inconsistent state, as Ayala et al. (2016) have made clear. Thus, there are inconclusive results for the relationship between productiveness and a momentary assessment of one happiness indicator. A broader view of this relation has been offered by the HR Professor (2020):

There is a relationship between happiness and productivity and that is mainly based on the research of the relation of job satisfaction and productivity. This connection, on an individual level, does not appear to be very strong. But on an organisational-level comparison you see stronger effects. Generally, companies with happier employees are more productive. Even though, the effects are not strongly documented on an individual level.

This quote offers insight by identifying interorganisational comparison studies as useful for measuring the happy/productive worker hypothesis. It also clarifies an existing relationship that has been supported by too many findings to be dismissed (see Staw and Barsade, 1993; Cropanzano & Wright 1999; 2000). However, the inconsistency of well-being measurements leaves the field open for further research.

Well-Being and Health-Related Expenses

(23)

20

presenteeism, medical costs, insurance premiums, and lost employees amounted to 3.3% of the European Union’s GDP in 2010, which is about €480 billion (Eurofund, 2010).

While all these costs are primarily health-related, they are also related to well-being in its physical sense (Waddell and Burton, 2006; Felce and Perry, 1995). To tackle this issue, multiple companies have introduced wellness programmes in the past two decades, with overwhelmingly positive financial effects. Notably, wellness programmes only implicitly attempt to improve well-being. Most of these programmes are aimed at reducing obesity or reducing other risk factors while providing education about healthier lifestyles (Baicker et al., 2010).

Baicker et al. (2010) studied the effects of wellness programmes in 32 companies and found that 30 of those companies reported net cost savings. In terms of savings, an average dollar spent on wellness programmes would yield $3.27 saved in medical costs and $2.73 saved in absenteeism costs. Bertera (1990) found that a US dollar spent at the end of the second year on health programmes would result in $1.45 back in the first year and $2.05 in the second year, highlighting the need for high initial investments and the speed at which such costs are compensated.

Other scholars have expressed the cost savings from wellness programmes in absolute terms. Sidney et al. (2015) calculated that wellness programs result in annual savings of $62 for ill workers and $26 for healthy employees. Mattke et al. (2013) observed that the

establishment of a wellness programme resulted in an annual $378 reduction in healthcare costs per employee. The authors noted that successful wellness programmes often relied on effective communication strategies, employee engagement opportunities, and engaged leadership. Parks and Steelman (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of wellness programmes and concluded that participation in wellness initiatives was associated with higher job satisfaction and decreased absenteeism. While the estimates differ across scholars, there is overwhelming evidence that wellness programmes rapidly lower costs.

Customer Effect

(24)

21

employees’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction, and reduce employees’ role conflict and ambiguity’ (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996).

Yoon and Suh’s (2003) empirical study found that job satisfaction has similar effects on service quality. Their data showed that satisfied employees were more likely to engage in organizational citizenship behaviours, meaning they were more likely to contribute to both organisational and customer goals by exceeding the requirements of their roles. A frontline service employee’s engagement in organizational citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction were both found to be significantly related to customers’ perceived service quality (Yoon and Suh, 2003). Additionally, Jeon and Choi (2012) demonstrated a statistically significant relation between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction but could not show reverse causality. Hussinki and colleagues (2019) studied how intellectual capital affected customer value when moderated through job satisfaction. They found that some forms of intellectual capital led to significantly increased customer value if a workforce was satisfied with their work.

Notably, no studies could be found that researched the relationship between

(25)

22

6 Results

From the set of codes, arising from the literature scan, a mind map was created manually by the author in analogue and then in digital (Figure 1). From these 19 codes, a multitude of factors expressed very similar measures/characteristics for well-being generation, such as sense of coherence, future outlook and progress, for example. The

grouping of codes via the visual presentation of the mind map aided the author in collating all codes into grouped themes. The resulting list of themes contained 15 articles. These 15 factors were finally subjected to the typical level-categorisation of individual-level, unit-level and organisation-level. The overarching theme of psychological factors contains OWB influencing factors that are initiated and conducted by the individual. The name

“psychological” for the first set of factors arose due to all aspects of this theme relating to psychological processes, such as the sense of coherence, and is not in direct relation to the psychology domain. The focal point of this theme group is the individual worker and his sense-making processes. The second group, the unit-level, was renamed to task-specific factors, due to the prevalence of task and job characteristics in correlation to well-being (e.g. work load, working times, skill use). The third group consisted of organisational-level

characteristics in relation to well-being and was thus named organisational factors. Examples include organisational climate, physical work environment and support structures. However, this left an important branch of well-being factors outside of this categorisation, which is why the category for social factors influencing well-being has been added and named

socio-specific characters.

(26)

23

Figure 1: Mind map of OWB factors (created with MindView)

However, one needs to note that no strict division exists among the themes. For instance, virtually all aspects of a job are decided by the employer which is why even aspects of psychological processes can be seen as organisational measures (e.g. hiring an

occupational therapist). This is also true for organisational factors, as compensation for example can be relative to the aspirations of an employee and can thus be evaluated by the individual, in that whether or not the current compensation fits to the aspiration levels. However, the differences among the themes are significant and ultimately, the grouping of psychological process factors and organisationally-determined factor seemed reasonable and justifiable to the author and was kept.

(27)

24

of individual OWB, they are the two most important pillars of social processes happening in a firm and were collated. Lastly, the eight remaining themes were mapped across the 14 themes of the literature review and seven of the eight items corresponded to a theme already

established from literature data (See Appendix E). The left-out theme was ‘Need fulfilment’ which is seen more as an explanatory concept for well-being, than a strict factor.

The first part of each factor section summarises the existing literature and the

evidence gained from academic research. The second part summarises and exemplifies on the responses of the interviewees and their reasoning behind the importance of each variable. For sections where interviewee responses are missing, the interviewees did not make any

comments.

6.0 Occupational Well-Being Factors

“If you [as an organisation], are ambitious in your goals, you need to be as serious about the well-being of your employees”

– Sustainability Entrepreneur (2020)

Figure 2: Visualisation of OWB Factors

Work Benefits Sense of Coherence

Sense of Belonging Stress Management

Social Processes

Organisational Culture and Climate

(28)

25 6.1 Psychological-Factors

The first group of psychological factors is concerned with benefits from psychological processes at work. The factors categorised as psychological role have been clustered because of the focal point on the individual themself. While, as with most processes in an

organisation, these factors are substantially influenced by the employer, the net effect they have on the employee is subject to individual, psychological sense-making processes.

Work Benefits

Work in itself offers a plethora of well-being factors and influencers. The notion that people work in order to receive compensation, which they use for the fulfilment of personal desires to ‘achieve’ well-being, is outdated and not supported by much evidence (Cassar and Meier, 2018). In fact, there are a multitude of reasons why employees like their work and would even continue working after the legal retirement age (Wielers and van der Meer, 2020). When engaging in an employment relationship, employees perceive a continuous exchange of effort and compensation as a valuable source of stability. Employee know they can rely on a daily occupation and social contacts, while fulfilling a purpose greater than their own individual role.

These implications came a few years after Jahoda (1982) who previously established five human needs in an organisational context. Jahoda (1982) identified five needs that any individual seeks to fulfil via work: 1) a time structure, 2) social contacts, 3) collective purpose activities, 4) status and identity and 5) regular activity (Andersen, 2008). With these work needs satisfied, a worker would experience well-being according to Jahoda (1982). The daily work provides a worker with a clear time structure and a daily activity, the colleagues at work provide social interactions, pay and the occupation itself can provide status and shape the worker’s identity, while the work itself can be considered a collective purpose activity. Consequently, this means that with the absence of work, individuals struggle to fulfil these needs and experience diminished well-being. Several studies have since confirmed the notion of work as an additional source of well-being or have demonstrated the significant mental risks associated with unemployment (see Frey and Stutzer, 2002; or Warr et al., 1988).

(29)

26

positive functioning at work, enabling an employee to fully make use of learned skills and thus gain even more meaning from work. In their argumentation, a company’s mission enables sense-making processes, such as a socially-oriented mission which confirms workers to be part of a ‘bigger social context’ (Cassar and Meier, 2018)

This has been echoed by interviewee statements, such as the following from the sustainability entrepreneur (2020): ‘If your employees identify with the mission, they will be more motivated than just for financial gain. This means that even employees from big

multinational companies want to work for us, because they see their values in your mission.’ This further suggests that monetary compensation is likely not the primary motivating factor for people to engage in an employment relationship. The anecdotal evidence implies that employees seek greater relatedness to the company and meaning in their work, as well as congruent company and individual values, rather than seeking to attain the highest wage possible.

Sense of Coherence

The sense of coherence (SOC) is a concept developed by Antonovsky (1979) in the elaboration of the origins of health (salutogenisis). This approach is based on the premise that stress arising from difficulties is an integral part of any individual’s life and consists of three components: comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness. Comprehensibility is the aspect of whether or not outer and inner stimuli make sense in one’s own perception.

Manageability deals with the question of whether demands can be met by given resources, and meaningfulness refers to the individual’s reaction to challenges, such as whether the individual sees the difficulties as part of a learning path or as an unnecessary hindrance (Antonovsky, 1979; Olsson et al., 2005).

(30)

27

The sense of progress in naturally closely tied to SOC. Progress is the positive development towards an improved state. The movement towards a desirable state directly implies that work done for this cause has meaning and coherence, in that one works

continuously towards a desired goal. Moreover, personal progress is equally an integral part of the conception of well-being. This means that a portion of an employee’s actions in their line of work must be in congruence with what the employee considers personal growth, or at the very minimum, the company should offer possibilities to facilitate personal growth.

The responsibility of providing an SOC is a double-edged sword, because one can argue that it is the responsibility of the employer to not just give employees the opportunities for advancement and sense-making, but also to structure the individual’s job demands so that their schedule allows for personal growth and other activities. In contrast, much of what constitutes the SOC and sense of progress is dependent on the behaviour and personality of the employee, which is why it was ultimately placed in the psychological category.

Sense of Belonging

The sense of belongingness is very similar to the aspect of relatedness and fulfils a basic human need (Maslow, 1954). Studying well-being antecedents in a communal setting, Kimweli and Stillwell (2002) concluded their empirical findings by stating that ‘congruency with one’s community values and expectations, belongingness, thriving personality and positive relationships […] are important indicators of quality of life and increased subjective well-being.’ Although this cannot automatically be assumed for the organisational context, most companies exhibit community-like characteristics and a general trend towards increased community features is observable (Mintzberg, 2009).

The sense of contribution or feeling of belonging has a number of organisational advantages: the feeling of belonging enables the worker to create meanings, share practices and

(31)

28

However, in contrast to the aforementioned senses, the feeling of belonging is largely dependent on the community around the individual and whether or not this community ‘allows’ the individual to be part of it and whether or not the individual wants to take part. Nevertheless, the individual can strongly influence how the group reacts to them, for example by the virtue of dedication to group goals. Therefore, feeling of belonging or sense of

contribution can be categorised into either psychological factors or organisational factors but since it is a sense, meaning the individuals perception of contribution, the author saw the categorisation to psychological process factors more adequate.

Stress Management and Psychological Work Detachment

For the purpose of this study, work stress is defined as an individual’s perception of work demands that exceed the individual’s capacity (Edwards, 1992). The wide-spanning topic of stress management initiatives (SMI) has gathered a lot of academic attention in recent decades and thus, only a short summation of SMI and well-being outcomes is given. SMI’s are deliberate and planned interventions, usually administered by individuals to combat the negative effects work-related stress. Relaxation exercises, cognitive-behavioural programs and lesser defined organisational and alternative interventions are common forms of SMI’s. (Richardson and Rothstein, 2008)

This research field is concerned with controlling and managing the perception of stress, which is why no direct relation of SMI’s and well-being can be assumed. Similarly, work-related pressure, which can turn into stress, has been shown to negatively influence well-being (Kalimo et al. 2002; Wielers, 2015). However, there is some evidence to suggest that deliberately and successfully managing stress, which usually comes in form of relaxation exercises can lead to increased OWB (Richardson and Rothstein, 2008; Sijanoia et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2019). In particular, cognitive-behavioural programs, such as exercises for work detachment have shown to negatively influence stress and positively influence well-being, more than other forms of SMI (Richardson and Rothstein, 2008)

(32)

29 6.2 Organisational Factors

The second cluster of well-being-influencing factors regarding work is concerned with the structure and organisation of work, human relations and company characteristics. In contrast to the psychological factors, organisational factors are generally influenced not by the individual worker but by the organisation itself.

The characteristics of organisational factors can be further divided into socio-specific factors, organisation-specific factors and task-specific factors. This categorisation aligns with the common level-oriented differentiation at organisations, that is, individual-level, unit-level and organisation-level. However, these similarities cannot be fully assumed in the context of well-being because of the strong diffusion of some factors across said levels.

6.2.1 Socio-specific Factors

Supervisor and Colleague Relation

Socio-specific factors are concerned with the fulfilment of psychological needs regarding social embeddedness. Being in relationships with other people, being an accepted part of a community and contributing towards community goals all appear to be fundamental needs for most people. Or in the words of Diener and Biswas-Diener (2008, p.49), ‘Simply put, we need others to flourish!’

During the process of procuring, synthesising and analysing data from over 100 papers, supervisory relationships and their importance to a multitude of well-being

components have been mentioned repeatedly. A number of studies exemplify that supportive and constructive feedback from a supervisor is a strong predictor of well-being (Warr, 1999; Kalimo et al., 2002; Sykes, 2015; Day and Nielsen, 2017). Warr (1999) names supervisory support and interpersonal contact with others as some of the main well-being processes at work. Kalimo et al. (2002) find that, apart from SOC, supervisory support as well as work appreciation by superiors and peers significantly influence occupational well-being. Sykes’ (2015) study demonstrates the strength of social processes at work by showing that peer advice, compared to the common support structures, results in the most positive changes in employee well-being.

(33)

30

work systems and found social factors, meaning supervisory support and positive communication with colleagues to have the strongest association with well-being of any factor. Day and Nielsen (2017) propose that a transformational supervisor, that is, a manager who actively encourages personal growth and decision making, is important for fostering a healthy workplace. Additionally, Kuroda and Yamamoto (2018) demonstrated that high-quality supervisor communication significantly improves the mental health of employees and that good communication leads to increased productivity and lowers presenteeism. However, the scholars note that a compatibility fit must exist between worker and superior.

This academic consensus on the topic is also reflected in the interviewee responses. The HR advisor breaks down the content of supervisory support and explains that having a main person to talk to, to receive advice and guidance from and to trust is a crucial aspect of a functional work life. Moreover, a supervisor should show belief in their workers and facilitate a safe working environment in the unit (HR Advisor, 2020). Two other respondents are of the opinion that a manager exhibits an important role model function. The sustainability

entrepreneur says that a supervisor must have managerial qualities that allow them to translate the company’s mission and values into everyday activities (Entrepreneur Sustainability, 2020). The Psychology Professor stresses the importance of a functional, positive relationship to the supervisor as crucial for fulfilling psychological needs. Not only is the individual relationship import, but so too is the group relationship, that is, with the unit. Most importantly, a supervisor should be competent and able to provide feedback and constructive criticism, which is an important part of mastery. (Psychology Professor, 2020) Moreover, open-mindedness as well a notion to enable and support employees in enhancing their careers seem to play an essential role in the generation of OWB (Psychology Professor, 2020; HR Advisor, 2020).

In addition to supervisory communication, there is strong evidence that colleague communication and a positive social environment are large contributors to well-being at work (Jahoda, 1982; Warr, 1999; Schneider and Weigl, 2018; Kalimo et al., 2002). In peer

communication, in contrast to supervisor communication, the differences in competence and organisational power are minimal; thus, peer communication provides a more level playing field for informal chatter (HR Advisor, 2020).

(34)

31

advantages’ (HR Professor, 2020). Apart from the joy of informal communication, the opportunity to detach and relax during working hours and its function as a valuable informal source of information, communication with colleagues also serves as an additional

reinforcement of current (work and social) behaviour, by appraisal or expression of discontentment, all of which significantly impact well-being (Kalimo et al., 2002).

6.2.2 Organisation-specific Factors

Organisational Culture and Climate

Organisational climate and organisational culture are some of the basic areas that significantly impact employee well-being. The culture in an organisation ‘embodies values, beliefs and underlying assumption[s]’, that reside deep within the organisational structure of the company and its people, while ‘climate is a descriptive measure reflecting the

workforce’s perceptions of the organisational atmosphere’ (Flin et al., 2000). The orientation based on organisational values enforces or discourages certain behaviours and gives the culture its shape. The perceived behaviours and attitudes in the workplace are attributes of the culture translated into everyday activities, creating the organisational climate. The fact that climate derives from individual perceptions prompted some academics to declare that a single organisational climate is non-existent and that instead, a diversity of emotional climates constitutes the organisational climate (Ashkanasy and Nicholson, 2003).

Clear company values and an identification with the company’s mission appear to provide a multitude of orientation and identification benefits for employees, including meaning, guidance, assurance, identity, motivation and goal alignments (Marques et al., 2014). In fact, the majority of business activities can be traced to what values are most adhered to (directly and indirectly) in a company (Sustainability Entrepreneur, 2020). In fact, a few impact-concerned companies have made value representation a common performance assessment tool: ‘The most successful employee at [our company] is the one who represent[s] the company’s values the best’ (Sustainability Entrepreneur, 2020).

Organisational climate furthermore significantly influences employees’ willingness to take risks, innovativeness, and aggressiveness in pursuing new ideas. This effect can be explained by psychologically safe and unsafe climates. Modern change management and well-being literature is overwhelmed with discussion of organisational culture and

(35)

32

for the necessity of appropriate climates in the context of well-being. They found that a positive organisational climate, with a focus on empowering and developing employees, is significantly negatively linked to role stress, which strongly correlates with burnout.

Additionally, a positive climate is further linked to higher job satisfaction. Although these do not specifically address well-being, increased job satisfaction and a decreased risk of burnout constitute positive well-being changes. In a psychologically safe environment, an employee is encouraged to experiment with new ideas and, most importantly, need not fear crude

punishments for mistakes. Some engaged employees can only thrive in psychologically safe climates where their contribution is appreciated (Murphy, 2010).

The interviewees equally stress this point: ‘Having a strong core culture with strong values is a necessity for our business operations’ (Sustainability Entrepreneur, 2020). ‘All of these [aforementioned] benefits of a positive workforce are not possible without a culture of enabling’ (HR Professor, 2020). These comments do not just highlight the importance of values, but also emphasise that having a positive psychological work environment that enables the pursuit of company values is crucial to well-being. The HR Advisor (2020) further attributes the rate of learning to the safety of the work environment: ‘That is how you progress! By doing mistakes, being allowed to do mistakes and learning from mistakes.’

(36)

33

Physical Work Environment

Just as with the psychological work environment, the characteristics of the physical work environment impact the behaviour and well-being of the employee (Shier and Graham, 2011). In the infamous Hawthorne plant experiments from the mid-1920s, the researchers observed how productivity levels changed with changes in lighting. While the results of the experiments are contested and not academically recognised, the experiment sparked a

multitude of work environment tests to observe changes in worker behaviour (Levitt and List, 2011).

In their 1989 study, Klitzmann and Stellmann observed a significant relationship between the physical work environment and psychological well-being. They determined the office environment to account for roughly a third (32%) of variance in well-being levels. Levels of noise and quality of air were the strongest predictors of well-being (Klitzmann and Stellmann, 1989). Like Klitzmann’s and Stellmann’s (1989) paper, most of the academic research that has been conducted in this area has been governed by a focus on the negative, and thus most studies report on the relation of inadequate environmental quality and

physiological outcomes (Leech et al., 2002; Serghides et al., 2015).

Al Horr and colleagues (2016) conducted a literature review on the topic and found that ‘acoustic comfort’, ‘visual comfort’ and ‘thermal comfort’ to be the strongest influencers of employee well-being. They further observed that each of the physical indicators can either produce a negative or a positive work environment. Low levels of office noise, adequate but not too bright lighting as well as a comfortable work space can increase employee well-being. Conversely, dirty air, excessive noise and unergonomic seating can lead to physical and psychological deterioration (Al Horr et al., 2016).

(37)

34

Support Structures

Structures for organisational support provide an additional source of well-being for employees. The effectiveness of support structures in contributing to employee well-being is influenced by 1) whether an employer provides support structures to begin with, 2) how accessible and available they are to employees, and 3) how strongly employees perceive that the company cares for its workers via these support structures (Sykes, 2015; Lancaster and Di Milia, 2014). The American perspective defines the traditional support structures as training, help desk support, online support and change management support (Sykes, 2015). Sykes (2015) studied the effects of these common support structures during times of enterprise change and found that except for training, all support structures lead to positive changes in job satisfaction and decreased employee stress. However, the study (Sykes, 2015) emphasises that peer advice results in more significant positive changes than do support structures.

Career advancement opportunities can equally be seen as support structures (i.e., training). Advancing one’s career is also an integral part in the aforementioned sense of progress. This has been confirmed by Colakoglu and colleagues (2010) who found the existence and availability of organisational support that provides career opportunities for advancing personal goals to significantly correlate with levels of job satisfaction, affect and commitment. Moreover, researchers found that if employees perceive strong organisational support in their firm, their work engagement, career satisfaction and affective well-being increase (Joo and Lee, 2017; Soh et al., 2016).

There are a number of additional support structures at work, but they fluctuate greatly between countries and vary even between companies. This inconsistency across companies, industries and nations is why they will not be discussed in detail. Nonetheless, there is some evidence to suggest that extended parental leave (over 6 weeks) has a positive effect on the well-being of female workers (Hyde et al., 1995). Moreover, there is strong evidence to suggest that brief, cognitive behavioural therapy sessions help employees with high levels of stress to cope better (see Seymour and Grove, 2005). However, the availability and quality of counselling varies strongly between sectors and companies.

The HR professor (2020) saw support structures in a more critical light:

(38)

35

This criticism highlights the important aspect of employer motivation and reasoning. When support structures are not well thought-out and not sufficiently justified, the employer is merely combating the mental and physical strain their workplace is producing, and thus is not tackling their root causes. Another interviewee also emphasises the point of

self-advancements in the workplace. The company of the sustainability entrepreneur (2020) chose a proactive approach:

For every person, there is a development plan, which is not made by the organisation but by both the individual and the supervisor. […] And every year there is a budget to study, to educate yourself further. Plus, there is [a] bonus budget to be given out every month for the coolest activity outside of work. We vote and the coolest hobby gets a financial bonus.

In this example, the company actively encourages development and self-learning, via

appreciation and rewards. Employees are also expected to grow and develop their eudaimonic well-being, regardless of what position they hold.

6.2.3 Task-specific factors

Compensation

The task-specific effects on well-being are more clearly defined and have been researched further than the socio-specific and organisation-specific factors. Compensation is naturally one of the main reasons for a person to engage in work, and thus it is unsurprising that higher levels of compensation usually correlate with higher levels of well-being (Diener et al., 2002). However, this is only true in a broad way when assessing populations of workers and is usually expressed in terms of job or life satisfaction, not well-being per se. Other studies have found absolute compensation to be almost irrelevant to well-being, while compensation relative to peers is far more predictive of well-being (van der Meer and Wieler, 2013). This aspect relates to the age-old question ‘Does money make you happy?’ It is

difficult to answer this question as job factors, industry characteristics, position

(39)

36

comparisons, this relationship generally seems to exist as many of the ‘happiest’ countries also rank very high in GDP and income (Pukeliene and Kisieliauskas, 2013). This can be explained by the higher standards of living and increased access to goods and services, though a number of exceptions to this rule remain. On an individual level, these hypotheses are mostly supported. In general terms, multiple scholars were able to show an increase in subjective well-being or happiness with increases of income (Easterlin, 2001a; Easterlin, 1995).

However, both Easterlin and other researchers note the existence of a ceiling for this correlation. Multiple empirical observations have found cohorts of people whose income has drastically increased while their happiness levels remained stable, even though they did experience happiness increases before when income improved (Easterlin 2001; Pukuliene and Kisieliasukas 2013). Easterlin’s (2001) interpretation of this effect is that rising levels of income result in rising material aspirations, while Kahnemann and Deaton (2010) hypothesise that personal psychological issues increase with higher levels of income. It is important to note that the positive effect of higher income on well-being has been demonstrated

excessively and thus cannot be denied. Nonetheless, the unexpected development of the correlation after significant income has been achieved, that is, the diminishing margin of happiness despite income increases, coupled with the few but notable exceptions to this relation (i.e., rich nations or people who are unhappy and poorer nations or people who are happy) suggest that increased income as a whole has a positive effect on well-being in group-level analysis, but cannot be seen as a definitive means to enhance well-being in individual settings.

To this, the HR professor (2020) added, following on Cassar and Meier (2018), ‘It is an important realisation that there are other needs an employee needs fulfilled other than pay and status.’ Moreover, the sustainability entrepreneur (2020) again emphasised the

importance of mission and value congruence that allows workers to be motivated by more than merely financial gain.

Work Load and Times

Work load and work times as described in the early theoretical frameworks have an influence on employee well-being (Karasek 1979; Bakker and Demerouti 2007). The

Well-Being at Work: Factors and Effects