Take the survey https://forms.gle/weLGNcB9vbQLKnbw5
Organisational success is a top priority for business executives. Scholars increasingly discuss work-related drivers that either reduce or improve employees’ overall wellbeing and now study wellbeing as a multidimensional construct (Lomas, in press). The concepts of a positive workplace and positive psychology in the workplace (PPW) are being introduced, and management literature increasingly contains suggestions regarding the potential benefits of implementing positive psychological interventions to improve employees’ experience and Several studies have demonstrated that employee loyalty, job satisfaction and productivity are driven by ‘internal quality’. Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser and Schlesinger (2008) describe internal quality as the quality of work life. It comprises the physical work environment, available support, resources and the workers’ feelings about their professional occupation, co-workers and organisation.
2.1 Wellbeing and life satisfaction:
In 1948, the World Health Organisation defined health as: ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.’ (WHO, 1948). Wellbeing is at the heart of positive psychology. Therefore, extensive research exists on how happiness, wellbeing and LS can be attained. These three ideas, as well as quality of life, are used interchangeably in both academic and classic literature. However, happiness is more often related to hedonic feelings and pleasure, while LS is viewed as experiencing a life worth living (Eger & Maridal, 2015).
There is consensus among scholars that wellbeing, as an umbrella term, takes priority over happiness and LS, and that it can be further divided into two constructs: objective wellbeing and subjective wellbeing (Arneson, 1999). Sen (1999) relates objective wellbeing to quantifiable indicators, either economic or social, while subjective wellbeing refers to one’s opinion or evaluation of self. When it comes to subjective wellbeing, the positions vary. According to Andrews and Whithey (1976), subjective wellbeing is comprised of positive affect (PA), negative affect (NA) and LS. This construct has inspired a significant amount of research and has received both criticism and support from scholars (Diener, Emmons, Larsen & Griffin 1985; Busseri, 2018). Busseri’s (2018) meta-analyses of 40 studies, with a total of over 30,000 participants, confirms the positive correlation between LS and PA as well as the expected negative correlation between LS and NA.
Eger and Maridal (2015) conducted a statistical meta-analysis of 560 studies on wellbeing. They divided subjective wellbeing again in affective wellbeing (referring to hedonic concepts) and evaluative wellbeing (which they saw as being closer to eudaimonia). Out of the 560 publications analysed, 132 focused on affective wellbeing and 428 on evaluative wellbeing. LS falls into the latter category. Table 1 (Eger & Maridal, 2015) demonstrates the division of subjective wellbeing and objective wellbeing as well as evaluative wellbeing (EWB) and affective wellbeing (AWB). Table 1: Classification of wellbeing concepts.
Seligman’s (2012) wellbeing theory contains the PERMA construct, a combination of positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning and purpose, followed by accomplishment. Although it is possible to measure the level of each either subjectively or objectively, none of the separated values can indicate wellbeing. Each element contributes to the wellbeing of an individual. The feeling of being satisfied with life is a cognitive process and a component of wellbeing (Shin & Johnson, 1978) falling under Eger and Maridal’s (2015) EWB. In contrast to hedonic happiness or AWB, Kahneman and Deaton (2010) and Graham (2010) describe EWB as a personal and global assessment of the life the individual is living. The results can be positive or negative. In 1976, Campbell, Converse and Rodgers found that work counted for 20% when evaluating overall LS (Campbell, Converse & Rodgers, 1976). In the present study the focus was on LS rather than on overall wellbeing.
PS: This is an extraction from:
Hospitality managers’ well-being: Emotional exhaustion, disengagement and the relationship with work orientation and life satisfaction
Hrafnhildur Krumma Jonsdottir
Student n°: U1637298 School of Psychology,
University of East London, Water Lane, London
Programme: MAPPCP Term: 2-2019 Submitted on May 14th 2019
Module leader: Dr Rona Hart
