Lindsay G. Oades and Aylin Dulagil
The notion of the happy and productive worker has long fascinated organizational scientists and practitioners alike. According to this thesis, happy employees exhibit higher levels of job‐related performance behaviors than do unhappy employees. The happy worker hypothesis has typically been operationalized by correlating employee self‐ratings of job satisfaction with supervisory ratings of performance (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000).
However, the happy worker hypothesis (and individual well‐being) does not address the contextual or emergent issues associated with organizations. In addition, the current approach in well‐being puts the onus on an individual to enhance his or her own well‐being. Organizations are made up of individuals and teams, as well‐being dynamic entities in their own right. It is important for researchers and practitioners to focus on both individual well‐being and organizational performance (Cotton & Hart, 2003). However, we argue that there are intrinsic, conceptual differences between variables at the individual, group, and organizational level that need to be taken into account when defining and examining the contribution of individual well‐being to organizational well‐being and vice versa (Loney & Nagelkerke, 2014). This chapter proposes that organizational theory needs to move beyond the happy worker hypothesis and in so doing avoid the individualist fallacy. That is, there is a need to not always conceptualize well‐being, or reduce conceptualization to the individual level.
Researchers have historically conceptualized well‐being at the individual level and this has influenced the conceptualization of well‐being of people at work within organizations. In this chapter, we use the term “individualist fallacy” to refer to the phenomenon of conflating group or organization‐level constructs with individual‐level analysis. The individualist fallacy has been pervasive in the understanding of organizational well‐being. The understanding of the complexities of an organization, in terms of well‐being, needs necessarily to be a multilevel conceptualization.
A three‐level conceptualization of well‐being is proposed. The workplace and organizational well‐being model (WOWM) proposes that well‐being exists at the individual level, at the team/group level, and at the organizational level and that there is a reciprocal impact at each of these three levels. After defining well‐being, a review of relevant literature at each three levels is provided, demonstrating significantly more evidence at the first level. The chapter concludes with discussion of the need for future research, including systems science and systems thinking that explore well‐being at different levels of the organization, and the interaction between these levels.
We define individual well‐being using Ryff and Singer’s (2008) definition of eudaimonic well‐being, as living a meaningful life steeped in self‐truth and self‐responsibility, and striving toward excellence by realizing our unique potential and achieving the best within us. The well‐being perspective enhances the happy worker hypothesis and suggests that the presence of positive emotional states and positive appraisals accentuates worker performance and quality of life. These, in turn lead to more productive, profitable, and successful organizations.
Individual well‐being can be divided into two distinct constructs. Hedonic (or subjective) well‐being is defined by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. It is also characterized by high positive affect, low negative affect, and happiness. Eudaimonic well‐being defines well‐being as a derivative of personal fulfillment and expressiveness. There is evidence that these two constructs are distinct (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002). A full critical review of differences between eudaimonic well‐being, emotional well‐being, and psychological well‐being is beyond the scope of this chapter. For current purposes in organizational contexts it is useful to consider Ryff and Singer’s (2008) six dimensions of psychological well‐being. These are:
Ryff and Singer’s psychological well‐being model applies at the individual level and provides a useful starting point for expanding definitions of well‐being to the team, organization, and environment. It is also important to note that Ryff and Singer’s model includes the three basic psychological needs inherent in self‐determination theory (autonomy, relatedness, and competence [environmental mastery and growth]; Deci & Ryan, 1985).
A key tenet of the individually focused happy worker hypothesis is that high job satisfaction leads to high productivity. According to this thesis, happy employees exhibit higher levels of job‐related performance behaviors than do unhappy employees (Spector, 1997). The happy worker hypothesis has typically been operationalized by correlating employee self‐ratings of job satisfaction with supervisory ratings of performance (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000).
Job satisfaction is a state in which an individual expresses contentment with and positive feelings about her or his jobs (Judge & Kammeyer‐Mueller, 2012). Job satisfaction is an important variable because it has been linked to performance (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Job satisfaction may be diminished by the workplace context and by events that may elicit emotions and attitudes that cause an employee to consider leaving the organization (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001).
Organizations with happy and satisfied employees fare better in a number of ways, including on the stock market (Edmans, 2012). Research on the job satisfaction–productivity connection has typically yielded very low correlations (from r = .17 to r = .30; Judge et al., 2001; Laffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). Judge et al. (2001) conducted a meta‐analysis on the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance and found a correlation of .30 between these variables, only weakly supporting the happy worker hypothesis.
Some researchers suggest that focusing on the relationship between productivity and employee well‐being is likely to be more productive than focusing on job satisfaction alone (Cotton & Hart, 2003). Further research during the 1990s supported the contention that a “happy worker” is better described through the concept of employee well‐being than through job satisfaction (Cropanzano & Wright, 1999; Wright & Bonett, 1997; Wright & Cropanzano, 1997). However, the results were no better than the job satisfaction–job performance correlation, leading researchers to question whether the equivocal findings to support this relationship are due to the inconsistent operationalization of employee “happiness” (Cropanzano & Wright, 2001). Subsequent research provides some support for the relationship between employee well‐being and employee productivity. Despite the significant research done in this area, general skepticism regarding the satisfaction–performance relationship has led to a decline in research, notwithstanding the fact that causality between these two concepts is yet to be determined (Cropanzano & Wright, 2001).
Another incarnation of the happy worker hypothesis has been the recent focus on employee engagement. Employee engagement has received much attention in the popular human resources and management literature; however, it remains a construct requiring further conceptualization and clarification (Macey & Schneider, 2008a; Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004; Saks, 2006). There are many existing definitions of employee engagement, for example as a specific concept (Bakker & Leiter, 2010), or an umbrella term (to include a multitude of conceptualizations, e.g., trait, state, behavioral, attitudinal; Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Kahn, 1990; Macey & Schneider, 2008b). This lack of unified conceptualization makes it difficult to draw general conclusions regarding employee engagement and organizational outcomes. While a comprehensive review of the employee engagement constructs is not within the scope of this chapter, we will examine it in the context of well‐being at work.
An early conceptualization of engagement was the job demands‐resources (JD‐R) model (Bakker, 2011). Job demands and resources trigger two different psychological processes that are the roots of work engagement and burnout. Job resources such as feedback, autonomy, and supervisory support are posited as the major antecedents of work engagement (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006), and they appear to enhance engagement especially when job demands are high (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007). In addition to job resources, personal resources have also been found to predict work engagement (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). Thus, according to the JDR model, work engagement is impacted by both the individual and the work environment, supporting the notion of a reciprocal relationship between these levels.
In a meta‐analysis of the Gallup studies investigating the relationship between employee well‐being and business outcomes such as customer service, productivity, Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes (2003) found a moderate correlation between employee engagement and performance (covering approximately 8,000 business units and 200,000 individuals).
Job satisfaction is one of several important job attitudes that have been studied by organizational psychologists and researchers. Job attitudes are evaluations of one’s job that express one’s feelings toward, beliefs about, and attachment to one’s job (Judge & Kammeyer‐Mueller, 2012). Job attitudes are closely related to global measures of life satisfaction (Judge & Watanabe, 1993) and are important in industrial/organizational psychology because they are thought to predict important behaviors that contribute to organizational productivity and culture (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). The three primary job attitudes are organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and intention to stay. Job attitudes have been found to predict behavioral engagement (Langford, 2010; Langford & Demirian, 2007; Langford, Parkes, & Metcalf, 2006; Newman, Joseph, & Hulin, 2010) and to outperform behavioral measures in correlating with organizational outcomes (Langford, 2010). It is still unclear whether employee engagement is the same (Macey & Schneider, 2008a) as, or different from, job attitudes (Little & Little, 2006).
Job satisfaction and organizational commitment substantially overlap, yet differ in their conceptual targets (role versus organization; Newman et al., 2010). Researchers have argued, however, that while they are correlated, they are distinguishable constructs (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Organizational commitment is an individual’s psychological bond with the organization, defined as an affective attachment and feeling of loyalty to the organization (Judge & Kammeyer‐Mueller, 2012; Meyer & Allen, 1997). A three‐component model of organizational commitment has been proposed incorporating affective, normative, and continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984). However, affective commitment was found to have the strongest relationship with positive organizational behaviors and perceived organizational support (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Sung and Choi (2014) investigated the effects of various human resource development (HRD) dimensions on organizational performance, using path analyses to confirm that both qualitative and quantitative dimensions of HRD initiatives improved employee commitment, in turn determining the financial performance of the organization.
In a study examining the job satisfaction of teachers, salary and length of service were found not to be correlated with job satisfaction, whereas relationships with co‐workers and supervisors did affect job satisfaction (Tillman & Tillman, 2008; suggesting support for the relationship between the psychological need of relatedness and job satisfaction).
An early study determined that teachers perceive their needs and measure their job satisfaction by considering factors such as participation in decision‐making, use of valued skills, freedom and independence, challenge, expression of creativity, and opportunity for learning (Pastor, 1982). These findings have been supported in more recent research, for example in research findings that an employee empowerment climate is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction (Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004). Opportunity to use strengths is, arguably, closely related to the above factors that contribute to job satisfaction. If particular expectations have been established (e.g., that the organization will encourage individual strengths use through the provision of a strengths assessment tool at induction), then these unmet expectations may impact on job satisfaction.
Research has shown that measures of employee turnover, intention to quit, or retention are a reliable indicator of employee attitudes to their workplace (Langford, 2010; Little & Little, 2006; Steel and Ovalle, 1984) or level of engagement (Harter & Blacksmith, 2010). For example, individuals are more likely to leave an organization if their expectations are not met (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986). Such expectations have been found to include “interest in the type of job,” “quality of manager,” “opportunity to learn and grow,” and an expectation of engagement (Harter & Blacksmith, 2010). Managing turnover in order to retain valuable organizational knowledge and skills is a key outcome for organizations.
Another conceptualization of employee engagement is “work engagement,” defined as a “positive, fulfilling, work‐related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (González‐Romá, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret, 2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, González‐Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Work engagement has been found to predict a higher level of service climate, which in turn predicts employee performance and customer loyalty (a clear and desired organizational outcome; Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005).
Attempts have been made to define engagement more comprehensively within the positive psychology paradigm. For example, Stairs, Galpin, Page, and Linley (2006) define engagement as the extent to which employees thrive at work, are committed to their employer, and are motivated to do their best for their own benefit and that of the organization. Such a definition incorporates the notion of well‐being, organizational commitment, and motivational states for both the individual and the organizational outcomes.
There is substantial research to show that individual well‐being has positive outcomes for individuals, is good for organizations, and contributes to organizational well‐being. Since the advent of the field of positive psychology, the notion of the happy worker has moved toward a conceptualization of employee well‐being rather than employee engagement or job satisfaction (Cropanzano & Wright, 1999; Wright & Bonett, 1997; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998, 2000). The well‐being perspective incorporates job satisfaction with the presence of positive emotional states and positive appraisals to accentuate worker performance and quality of life (Cotton & Hart, 2003).
While employee well‐being and engagement have overlapping elements (Robertson & Cooper, 2011, pp. 33–35), well‐being is different from engagement because it implies a more comprehensive approach that focuses on enabling employees to maximize their personal resources as well as creating an organizational structure that enables employees to flourish. Another key difference between the well‐being and engagement literature is that the engagement literature focuses on outcomes for employers and organizations at the expense of positive outcomes for employees (Robertson & Cooper, 2010). The well‐being literature, on the other hand, has focused on individual outcomes. These differences in approach reflect the originating paradigms within which each construct has arisen – engagement from the management and organizational development literature, and well‐being from the psychological literature. While psychological well‐being is not usually positioned as a key component of employee engagement (Harter et al., 2002; Schaufeli et al., 2006), Robertson et al. (2012) propose that including well‐being in the construct of employee engagement would lead to more positive business outcomes, as well as a more comprehensive employee engagement definition for individuals (Meyer & Maltin, 2010) and organizations alike (Robertson & Cooper, 2010).
Higher well‐being is associated with positive self‐perceptions and judgments of others, higher performance on complex mental tasks, greater creativity, flexibility, and originality – behaviors and psychological processes linked to work success (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005). These, in turn lead to more productive, profitable, and successful organizations. Using meta‐analysis, Harter et al. (2002) investigated the relationship between well‐being in the workplace and organizational outcomes and found that positive workplace perceptions and positive emotions were associated with higher business‐unit customer loyalty, higher profitability, higher productivity, and lower turnover.
High levels of psychological well‐being among employees translate into good news for the organization – including lower sickness/absence levels, attraction and retention of talented people, and more satisfied customers, clients or service users. People with higher levels of psychological well‐being work better, live longer, and have happier lives. Engagement and well‐being can sustain each other and lead to a healthier and more productive organization – a win–win for employees and employer (Langford, 2010). Higher satisfaction among employees leads to greater discretionary effort that contributes to the customer satisfaction of the organization (Harter et al., 2002).
Workers who experience poor health and well‐being in the workplace have been found to be less productive, make poorer decisions, be more prone to being absent from work, and make diminishing contributions to the organization (Price & Hooijberg, 1992). In service organizations where staff well‐being is higher, members of staff are more likely to provide extra‐role customer service (Moliner, Martinez‐Tur, Ramos, Peiro, & Cropanzano, 2008); customer satisfaction and service quality have also been shown to be linked to employee well‐being (Leiter, Harvie, & Frizzell, 1998; Robertson & Cooper, 2011).
Page and Vella‐Brodrick (2009) proposed a model that goes beyond job satisfaction to define well‐being and its importance to organizations, and to explore how it can be enhanced. This model comprises three elements of employee well‐being: subjective well‐being (high levels of positive affect, low levels of negative affect, life satisfaction); workplace well‐being (work‐related affect and job‐satisfaction); and psychological well‐being (based on Ryff’s [1995] six healthy psychological dimensions). Wright and colleagues found that job satisfaction was a valid predictor of performance, moderated by employee well‐being (Wright et al., 2007; Wright & Bonett, 2007). These results provide preliminary support for the inclusion of job satisfaction as a core element of employee well‐being (Page & Vella‐Brodrick, 2009).
The New Economic Foundation produced a model of well‐being at work which takes into account an individual’s experience at work (how they feel), their personal resources (who they are), their functioning at work (what they do), and the organizational systems they work within. Reciprocal relationships and feedback loops exist between these four levels of the model, highlighting the interaction between individual experience and resources and organizational context and structure (New Economic Foundation, 2014). Such a model hints at the complexity that lies beneath the relationship between employee well‐being and organizational success.
A comprehensive study examined 16,000 employees across 15 different organizations in a wide range of workplaces and varying roles. They found generally that higher employee productivity was associated with better psychological well‐being (Donald et al., 2005). Further research has established the relationship between psychological well‐being on the one hand, and job performance and productivity on the other, in many different settings (Robertson & Cooper, 2011). In another meta‐analysis Ford, Cerasoli, Higgins, and Decesare (2011) examined 111 studies (87,634 respondents) from a range of countries, concluding that psychological health (i.e., psychological well‐being, depression, general anxiety, and life satisfaction) was moderately to strongly correlated with work performance.
However, focusing on individual work performance does not provide a comprehensive framework for organizational success as a whole, as it fails to take into account team and organizational context that may impact on the value of individual output and effort. Further, the complex nature of these potentially reciprocal relationships is highlighted by research that has found that people with higher well‐being are better equipped to deal with life generally and to be successful (Robertson & Cooper, 2011). There is evidence that people high in well‐being (and thus experiencing more positive emotions) have a reciprocal impact on organizational context and group environments, and create positive upward spirals in their organizations (Fredrickson, 2001).
Workplace factors that drive individual well‐being at work include the individuals’ degree of control and autonomy and the extent to which they feel their workload is unmanageable. Employee welfare is a climate factor that has shown a strong relationship with productivity – that is, when employees feel that the organization is concerned about their welfare they are more likely to be productive (Patterson, Warr, & West, 2004). Such research supports the relatedness aspect of well‐being, underlining the importance of warm, positive, affectionate relationships with others in the workplace (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003).
Positive organizational behavior fosters positive characteristics in individuals, such as hope (Snyder, 2002) and gratitude (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). An individual’s psychological capital (i.e., levels of hope, resilience, optimism, and self‐efficacy) is related to his or her level of financial performance, referrals within the firm, and manager‐rated performance (Avey, Nimnicht, & Nancy, 2010). And it is related to his or her well‐being?
Mental fitness is defined as the flexible capacity to utilize resources and skills to adapt to challenges or opportunities (Robinson, Oades, & Caputi, 2015). The three elements of mental fitness – strengths, flexibility, and endurance – are measurable and can be improved through targeted development and intervention. To date, there is little research linking mental fitness to organizational outcomes; however, there is significant overlap between mental fitness and well‐being with the former providing potential for the investigation of specific relationships. For a more detailed coverage of mental fitness, see Chapter 10, this volume.
The impact of positive emotions themselves on individual well‐being at work is worth noting. Research has shown that when individuals experience positive emotions they are better able to perform flexible cognitive processing (Fredrickson, 2001) that extends creativity and allows them to make the most of their situation (Isen, 2003). Well‐being and the experience of positive emotions provide opportunities for growth, self development, and environmental mastery in the workplace. An employee’s involvement in meaningful work is believed to improve work motivation and performance (Steger & Dik, 2010). The extent to which a person considers her or his work as a vocation and a calling is viewed as an important quality of that person’s work experiences (Steger & Dik, 2010). Meaningfulness at work can be defined as understanding one’s fit within an organization and as a sense of belonging (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Further, meaning making occurs in a social context, therefore enabling the development of relationships and a sense of identity (Steger & Dik, 2010). Organizational practices may foster meaningfulness by enriching role tasks and membership within the organization (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). However, in organizations which do not focus on fostering meaningfulness for individuals, the onus falls on individual workers to create meaning (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003).
Mindfulness has a range of physiological and psychological benefits for individuals which have been extensively reported elsewhere (Marianetti & Passmore, 2010). Mindfulness at work has been shown to impact several areas that are linked to business performance including safety, conflict resolution, creativity, and decision‐making (Marianetti & Passmore, 2010). Mindfulness can also be applied collectively at an organizational level (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).
Self‐determination theory (SDT) is a motivational framework comprising a set of related theories (Deci & Ryan, 2002). One of these (basic needs theory) posits that humans have three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), the fulfillment of which is related to increased well‐being. The extent to which an environment, such as a workplace, provides fulfillment and expression of these three needs is the extent to which it can be described as autonomy supportive. SDT proposes that the more autonomy supportive an environment is, the more intrinsically motivated an individual will be within that environment. This proposition has important implications for organizations, as many desirable employee behaviors are based around directing intrinsic motivation toward organizational goals, for example engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. Indeed, Meyer and Gagne (2008) state that SDT can be readily applied to a wide range of engagement‐related measures. The reciprocity of this construct resides in the provision of autonomy‐supportive environments that allow individuals to enhance their own levels of motivation in the pursuit of organizationally beneficial goals.
Psychological ownership, a construct somewhat similar to autonomy, is positively related to extra‐role or organizational citizenship behaviors (Vandewalle, Van Dyne, & Kostova, 1995) and organizational financial performance (Wagner, Parker, & Christiansen, 2003). Psychological ownership is defined as an individual feeling responsible for a particular target and feeling concerned about that target (which may be a job or their organization; Parker et al., 2003). It differs from the SDT definition of autonomy, in that the individual has not necessarily chosen the target, but displays ownership and responsibility toward it regardless.
It is important to note the reciprocal relationship between individual and organizational well‐being here. In Langford’s university example, as performance improves, facilities are built or upgraded, for example a library, common staff areas, parking, and a university pub. Langford (2010) notes evidence that higher‐performing organizations provide more recognition for employees, thereby potentially enhancing individual well‐being. Conversely, low‐performing organizations are marked by a lack of individual progression opportunities (Langford, 2010). This reciprocal relationship between individual and organizational well‐being is key to the argument we are making.
In this chapter we propose that group and organizational well‐being are different constructs from individual level well‐being. Organizational level well‐being must take into account tangible organizational outcomes that define the sustainability and well‐being of the organization as a separate entity (e.g., productivity, financial performance, customer loyalty, growth and assets). Group‐level well‐being has not received much attention in the literature and below we pull together the existing research on group and team well‐being and related constructs.
New organizational contexts such as globalization, technology, and changing boundaries continually redefine what it is to be a team (Wageman, Gardner, & Mortensen, 2012). A team has previously been defined as having a bounded and stable membership and a being focused on a shared collaborative task (Wageman et al., 2012). Hackman (2012) defines a team as a social system, collectively perceived as an entity by both members and non‐members. Working in a team is distinct from working alone. Team members need to coordinate their actions and the success of teams is dependent on how team members interact with each other (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001).
Using Ryff’s six psychological well‐being dimensions as a starting point, we define a group high in well‐being as one that is growing and developing, that experiences more positive relationships than conflict, that has clarity of purpose, acts with autonomy, has a strong capacity to manipulate its environment in order to achieve its goals, and is characterized by self‐acceptance, empathy, and belonging. As well‐being at the group level has not received much attention in recent research, we have included other related constructs in our review of group‐level well‐being. One conceptualization of well‐being at the group level is that of group morale. Group morale has been posited as an important indicator of group‐level well‐being (Peterson, Park, & Sweeney, 2008) and performance outcomes (Armstrong, Hart, & Fisher, 2003).
Group morale can be defined as including the following: confidence in the group’s ability; enthusiasm for the tasks of the group; optimism for group success; belief in the group’s capability, resilience, and leadership; mutual trust and respect between group members and leaders; loyalty to the group and its members; social cohesion; common purpose; sacrifice of individual needs for the group; and a compelling group history (Peterson et al., 2008). Apart from the last of these, however, they are all individual constructs which reside in individual group members, thereby demonstrating the individualistic fallacy. Peterson et al. (2008) identify that there is a conflation between individual and group descriptions of morale, however they do point out that individual‐level analysis that is then aggregated to a group level does not comprehensively measure true group‐level morale. While Peterson et al. recommend the inclusion of methodologically independent group‐level measures, they offer few suggestions to counteract this approach.
Group morale in the workplace is enhanced by effective leadership, job security, safety, good salary and benefits, opportunities for advancement, sufficient resources to do the work, the status of the work, and the value associated with the goals of the organization (Hart & Cooper, 2001). Group well‐being can also be described as effective teamwork – that is, working together to produce synchronized, collaborative outcomes (Paris, Salas, & Cannon‐Bowers, 2000).
Research on group morale within organizations has often focused on unhealthy work environments marked by group conflict, harassment, prejudice, and poor communication problems, and rarely on healthy work environments that encourage well‐being and flourishing (Cameron & Caza, 2004). Group morale is thought to be motivating, leading to perseverance and presumably success at group tasks, especially under trying circumstances (Manning, 1991). The lack of research into the antecedents and consequences of high morale is surprising. Peterson et al. (2008) maintain that morale has positive outcomes at both the individual and group levels.
Constructs that have been considered at the individual level may operate differently at the group or team level. For example, self‐efficacy has a different mediating effect on the relationship between transformational leadership and either job satisfaction or well‐being, at the individual or team level. In addition to both self‐ and team efficacy fully mediating the relationships between transformational leadership and well‐being, team efficacy also partially meditates the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction (Nielsen, Yarker, Randall, & Munir, 2009).
Alongside the individual study of work engagement at the individual level, researchers have also started to explore the construct at the team level (Costa, Passos, & Bakker, 2014). Team‐level work engagement is associated with task and team performance, group positive affect and efficacy, as well as with individual work engagement (Costa et al., 2014).
Bakker, Albrecht, and Leiter (2011) propose that team engagement (team vigor, team dedication, and team absorption) is perceived by individual employees and might exist due to emotional contagion (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994) among team members. This perspective on team‐work engagement highlights the affective dimension of the team construct, and not a cognitive or motivational one. Torrente, Salanova, Llorens, and Schaufeli (2012a) also state that emotional contagion could be the mechanism underlying team‐work engagement. Through structural equation modeling, and using 62 teams from 13 organizations, they reported evidence for a mediation role of team‐work engagement between social resources (supportive team climate, coordination, and team‐work) and team performance. This model builds on the individual JD‐R model (Bakker, 2011) to account for team‐level variables in explaining the existence of team‐work engagement and its relationship with team performance (Costa et al., 2014).
A group that is high in well‐being is characterized by positive relationships. A culture of psychological safety moderates the relationship between task conflict and performance in teams (Bradley, Postlethwaite, Klotz, Hamdani, & Brown, 2012).The reciprocal relationship between group‐ and individual‐level well‐being becomes apparent when examining the impact of team factors on individual outcomes. For example, a study examining team‐based working, team structure, and job design on employee job satisfaction and work stress found that team structure and job design were associated with employee satisfaction and lower stress (So, West, & Dawson, 2011).
There is also a reciprocal relationship evident between group‐level well‐being and individual level well‐being. Groups with high levels of morale enable positive traits like optimism, gratitude, and love that in turn contribute to individual well‐being (Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004). Positive groups (i.e., those with good morale) allow people to be more engaged and to find meaning (Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005). Furthermore, researchers posit that it is in social participation that people find pleasure and savoring of the good things that happen (Bryant & Veroff, 2006). Such findings highlight the limitations of adopting the individualistic fallacy to multiple‐level conceptualizations of organizational well‐being and emphasize the value of examining the reciprocity that may occur between levels. Individual and contextual factors in the psychosocial work environment (e.g., quality of leadership, influence at work, team climate, role ambiguity, and work pace) require multilevel models in order to understand complex organizational phenomena and outcomes (such as affective organizational commitment; Clausen & Borg, 2010).
Potential pathways to build teamwork and develop successful teams come from correlational research finding that team optimism predicts outcomes for teams that are newly formed, and that team resiliency and team efficacy predict outcomes for established teams (West, Patera, & Carsten, 2009).
Social network analysis provides an opportunity to examine relationships within groups (Baker, Cross, & Wooten, 2003; Cross, Baker, & Parker, 2003). However, the relationships examined tend to be based on individuals or dyads, not on the social network analysis of the group as a whole. This highlights, again, the lack of methodological tools to measure group‐level well‐being.
In examining team‐level engagement, Richardson and West (2010b) suggest that team engagement arises from the combined allocation of individual team members’ resources and the interaction processes that move the group toward their objectives. Richardson and West (2010a) propose a positive inputs–process–outputs model that identifies team inputs, team engagement, and team outcomes at the micro level. The key inputs to a positive team are: an inspiring team task (such that it encourages creative achievement through intrinsic motivation and meaningful purpose); valued team diversity (to enable the development of psychological safety, creativity and team learning [Edmondson, 1999; Hoffman & Maier, 1961]); clear and evolving roles (to promote growth and task engagement); positive team relationships (to meet the innate need in humans for positive social interaction); and positive team attachment (further generating a shared sense of belonging; Sparrow & West, 2002). Richardson and West (2010a) also discuss the macro level: organizational factors that include organizational climate, alignment of values and goals, and transformational leadership. Their model embraces the reciprocity that exists between the levels of team engagement and organizational factors. Indeed, researchers have found considerable evidence that social groups are important psychological resources that have the capacity to protect individual health and well‐being (Jetten, Haslam, Haslam, Dingle, & Jones, 2014) and to motivate individuals to achieve organizational outcomes (Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000), providing further support for the reciprocity of the multiple‐layered well‐being approach.
Group‐level analysis can be described as the difference between saying “I have a lot of energy and enthusiasm” versus “There is a lot of energy and enthusiasm in my workgroup” (Cotton & Hart, 2003). However, even this description talks of individual constructs within a workgroup, thereby relying on the individualistic fallacy, and not giving ontological status to a group. Rather this approach relies on aggregating individual‐level constructs (in this instance, energy). Here we are considering the collective energy of individuals rather than the group as a whole. A better descriptive statement might be “My workgroup has a lot of energy and enthusiasm.” An analogy to consider here is the family unit: How do we say that a family is functioning well? There are different constructs that apply to the family unit as a whole, rather than to individuals, within a family.
The research described above demonstrates some of the key criticisms of group‐level research and analysis of the well‐being construct. Most of the research purporting to examine group‐level constructs relies on individual responses that have been aggregated to a group. Few researchers discuss the reciprocity of well‐being elements between the individual and group contexts. We see this as a key area for future research, elucidating the reciprocal relationships and impacts that the three levels of well‐being (individual, group, and organizational) can have on each other.
There is a deal of confusion regarding the term “well‐being” at the organizational or workplace level. Some definitions refer specifically to the well‐being of individuals within organizations – such as the definition put forward by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. In this definition, organizational well‐being is defined as providing employees with meaningful and challenging work, and giving them an opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge in effective working relationships with colleagues and managers, in a safe and healthy environment (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2007). The term “organizational well‐being” is also often used to refer to an employer‐sponsored program to increase individual well‐being within an organization. In this chapter we define organizational well‐being as addressing the overall well‐being of the organization as an entity itself. Nevertheless, a discussion of organizational well‐being must also look at the organizational impact and outcomes of individual well‐being.
Organizations with happier employees demonstrate better outcomes, including on key financial indicators (Edmans, 2012). Harter and colleagues demonstrated that employees’ positive workplace perceptions and emotions were associated with higher customer loyalty, higher profitability and productivity, and lower turnover (Harter et al, 2002). As far back as 1958, researchers have sought to explore the concept of a psychologically healthy organization and have questioned the value of traditional indices such as absenteeism, turnover, and productivity in measuring organizational health (Argyris, 1958). Various frameworks and models have been proposed to describe the relationship between individual and organizational elements and characteristics.
Danna and Griffin (1999) proposed a framework examining health and well‐being in the workplace. In their framework they described three antecedent factors – the work setting, personality traits, and occupational stress – and two sets of consequences – individual physical, psychological, and behavioral consequences; and organizational consequences (including health insurance costs, productivity, absenteeism, and litigation costs). They pointed out that organizational consequences are not orthogonally related to individual consequences, flagging the complexity of the relationships between the three different levels of well‐being and highlighting the need for a more nuanced examination of these relationships.
The Organizational Health Framework (OHF) was proposed as an alternative theoretical perspective to the stressors and strains approach to occupational stress, which typically fails to take into account the broader organizational context (Cotton & Hart, 2003). The stressors and strains approach tends to reinforce the view that stress is an individual employee issue rather than an organizational one that should be addressed systematically (Hurrell, 1995). In addition, occupational stress has rarely been linked to organizational performance outcomes, resulting in the further marginalization of stress in the broader management and organizational behavior literature (Hart & Cooper, 2001; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000).
The OHF has as its starting point a systematic focus on the dynamic interactions between people and their environment. It is a theory‐based approach delineating how individual and organizational factors interact to determine employee well‐being and organizational performance (Cotton & Hart, 2003). Well‐being must be linked to outcomes that affect organizational performance, for example job satisfaction leads to higher discretionary effort that contributes to customer satisfaction (Hart et al., 2002). One way in which the OHF extends organizational theory beyond the “happy worker hypothesis” is that it recognizes that the relationship between individual and organizational characteristics occurs in a broader context depending on the level of analysis applied. One aspect of this relationship between individual and organizational characteristics can be found in discussions of organizational climate.
Organizational climate is a subset of organizational culture. Schein (1990) defined culture as “a pattern of basic assumptions … that are … invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration” (p. 111). Schein added that these assumption had to have worked well enough to be considered valid and “therefore be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 111). Organizational climate refers to employees’ perceptions about how their workplace functions and the policies and practices that guide behavior. Research has found that organizational climate exerted the strongest influence on morale (group‐level construct) and occupational well‐being among a sample of police officers and teachers (Hart, 1999; Hart & Cotton, 2003; demonstrating the key role of organizational climate in influencing occupational well‐being). Further evidence that there is a reciprocal link between organizational and individual‐level well‐being includes the finding that organizational climate is the strongest indicator of individual overall well‐being, whereas personality is the strongest determinant of employee withdrawal behavior intentions (Cotton & Hart, 2003). The impact that organizational climate has on occupational well‐being is found across different occupational groups and has been found to be more important than job‐specific stressors (Cotton & Hart, 2003).
According to De Smet, Loch, and Schaninger (2007), conceptualizing the health of organizations emerges out of a metaphor of “performance and health.” This metaphor symbolizes the health of the organization as improving when cared for and deteriorating when ignored, thus signifying the importance of employees’ well‐being for business profitability. Adkins (1999) proposed the organizational health concept as an extension of occupational health psychology with a clear organizational focus, and Danna and Griffin (1999) related employee well‐being to organizational effectiveness and functioning. Lowe (2003, 2010) defines a healthy organization as one whose culture, climate, and practices create an environment that promotes employee health and safety as well as organizational effectiveness. However, this definition does not refer to possible measures of organizational health such as profitability, productivity, or shareholder value.
Traditionally, good financial performance and productivity measures have been deemed indicators of a healthy organization (Raya & Panneerselvam, 2013). However, writers have argued that accounting‐based financial measurements are insufficient to measure the health of organizations (e.g., Schneider, Hanges, Smith, & Salvaggio, 2003). Schneider et al. (2003) also raised the issue of using individual‐level measures to analyze group‐ or organizational‐level constructs. Schneider et al. cite several studies that provide preliminary evidence that aggregated employee attitudes are related to organizational performance (operationalized as customer satisfaction), productivity (Ryan, Schmitt, & Johnson, 1996), teacher turnover and student academic achievement (Ostroff, 1992), and short‐term financial performance (Denison, 1990).
In a review of employee well‐being and the human resource management (HRM)–organizational performance relationship, Van De Voorde, Paauwe, and Van Veldhoven (2012) made the distinction between two indicators of organizational performance: operational outcomes (such as productivity and quality) and financial outcomes (such as returns on invested capital and shareholder return). They posited that the effects of HRM interventions targeting employee well‐being might show a greater impact on operational performance indicators than on financial performance indicators, characterizing these as proximal and distal outcomes respectively. A range of stressors may affect employee well‐being – job control, role overload, social support, and supervisor behavior. Researchers have long argued that human resources practices and HRD professionals can improve employees’ well‐being and contribute to organizational effectiveness by focusing on these concerns (Gilbreath & Montesino, 2000). Clarke and Hill (2012) explored the relationship between employee well‐being and service quality and suggest that both can be improved with targeted HRM strategies such as learning and development, employee voice, and involvement in workplace health and safety. In a study examining the effects of HRM practices on employee well‐being at work and performance in the public sector, Baptiste (2008) found that line management support and trust were pivotal to good relations between managers and employees, and that these factors subsequently promoted employee well‐being at work.
De Smet et al. (2007) describe a healthy organization as one which demonstrates five overarching characteristics: resilience (proactively putting the organization into a bracing position to be able to withstand disasters; Burnard & Bhamra, 2011), execution (ability to make sound and timely decisions, forecasting skills, employee who understand their roles and responsibilities), alignment (cohesiveness of purpose), renewal (expanding into well‐chosen markets where existing assets and competencies provide leverage, ability to generate ideas and adapt to change), and complementarity (of organizational practices, such as hiring policies and “consistent and mutually reinforcing behavioral incentives”).
Another concept related to organizational autonomy is that of dynamic capabilities. Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) define a dynamic capability as the ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address changing environments (Helfat, 2007). Dynamic capabilities are different from operational capabilities, which pertain to the current operations of an organization. This definition of dynamic capabilities draws on an organization’s environmental mastery and autonomy and the extent to which an organization demonstrates dynamic capabilities may indicate organizational well‐being.
Further evidence that there is a reciprocal link between organizational and individual level well‐being includes the finding that organizational climate is the strongest indicator of individual overall well‐being whereas personality is the strongest determinant of employee withdrawal behavior intentions (Cotton & Hart, 2003). The impact that organizational climate has on occupational well‐being is found across different occupational groups and is more important than job‐specific stressors (Cotton & Hart, 2003).
Positive organizational scholarship (POS) theorists propose the concept of organizational virtuousness as a way of thinking about positive activities and deviance within organizations. Organizational virtuousness is characterized by three key principles: human impact (actions are undertaken to ensure positive human impact), moral goodness (virtuousness possesses inherent goodness), and social betterment (creates social value that produces benefits to others without expectation of reciprocity or reward) (Cameron, 2003). POS differentiates between virtuousness in organizations (relating to the behavior of individuals), and virtuousness through organizations (relating to enablers within organizations that foster and perpetuate virtuousness [Cameron, 2003]). While Cameron predicts that virtuousness through organizations is likely to be associated with positive performance, he admits little empirical evidence has been conducted to test this hypothesis at the organizational level (Cameron, 2003).
Much has been written in the management literature and popular press of the need for organizations to define and communicate a purpose to their stakeholders in order to galvanize action toward achieving that purpose. Organizational purpose links to individual employee well‐being, for example staff training and retention is an important step along the way of reaching organizational goals (Steger & Dik, 2010). The more visibility and alignment there are between organizational and individual goals and purpose, the more effectively they will be achieved. Individual well‐being is linked to feeling a sense of contribution toward meaningful goals (e.g., Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009). Organizations that focus on promoting their goals, values, and purpose are more likely to foster meaningfulness in employees (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Similarly, visionary leadership practices that foster idealistic organizational goals create meaning for employees by appealing to and resonating with the individual’s sense of identity and belonging (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Meaning can be created by organizations that build organizational communities either through developing family‐like dynamics at work, or emphasizing a mission based on values beyond mere profit (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). A further concept is that of the learning organization.
A learning organization is one whose individuals continually increase their capacity to learn new patterns of thinking and behaving in order that the organization can continue to transform itself, adapt, and create results (Senge, 1990). The concept of the learning organization relates to growth as one of Ryff’s six psychological well‐being dimensions (2008).
In keeping with the positive psychology movement, “amplition” is based on the principle of improvement, rather than fixing what appears to be broken (the traditional problem‐based psychological model). Within an organizational context, amplition also refers to positive interventions that promote and increase employee well‐being (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2010). Amplition is based on the notion that improving employee well‐being is a long‐term goal requiring sustained and conscious effort. Schaufeli and Salanova (2010) argue that organizations need to focus on both positive individual‐ and organizational‐based interventions to ensure their ongoing profitability and sustainability, thereby recognizing the reciprocity between these two levels within organizations.
While understanding the well‐being of individuals in the workplace is an appropriate approach, supported by increasing empirical evidence, multilevel conceptualizations are needed to understand the complexity of well‐being in and of organizations. Complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory (see Anderson 1999; Miller & Page, 2009) offers a fertile conceptual, methodological, and empirical foundation within which to consider workplace well‐being and organizational well‐being.
CAS theory suggests that a process that appears to occur by chance when examined at the individual level can be predictable at the whole society level (e.g., rates of suicide). This phenomenon is known as “emergence.” If we move beyond causality at the individual level to the behavior of the system as a whole, global patterns of behavior may become apparent. However, this eliminates the ability to understand causality at the individual level (Lansing, 2003). Thinking about organizations as complex adaptive systems (Dooley, 1997; Schneider & Somers, 2006) allows us to become aware of more global patterns of behavior at the system, or organizational, level.
In addition to further research of well‐being at the individual level in the workplace, complex and adaptive approaches combined with tools such as system dynamics, agent‐based simulation modeling (see Borshchev & Filippov, 2004; Sterman, 2000, 2001) allow the modeling of interactions across individual, team, and whole of organization functioning. Future individual and organizational well‐being research will be well served by moving beyond the individualist fallacy – that is, the organization, and more specifically organizational well‐being, is more than the aggregate of the well‐being of happy workers.
For example, if an employee has high levels of individual well‐being, within a team that has a moderate level of well‐being, what is the likely impact on organizational well‐being? Is organizational well‐being an emergent property of the other levels? These are key guiding questions for future well‐being related research in the workplace and for the organization writ large.
This chapter proposed that organizational theory needs to move beyond the happy worker hypothesis and conceptualize well‐being beyond the individual level. A three‐level conceptualization of well‐being referred to as the workplace and organizational well‐being model (WOWM) was examined: (1) well‐being at the individual level, (2) well‐being at the team/group level, and (3) well‐being at the organizational level. Systems theory and methods were recommended to explore the interaction of well‐being at different levels of the organization, and can enable the discovery of new places to intervene and leverage points to improve organizational functioning. Table 15.1 illustrates the many different constructs of well‐being at the three different levels within organizations, underscoring the importance of adopting a multilevel approach to well‐being.
Table 15.1 Existing constructs relevant to different levels of well‐being in an organizational context.
Source: Author.
| Individual‐level well‐being constructs |
|
| Team‐level well‐being constructs |
|
| Organizational‐level well‐being constructs |
|