22
Positive Psychological Assessment for the Workplace

Aaron Jarden and Rebecca Jarden

Introduction

The workplace is rapidly and dramatically changing. This change is underpinned by accelerating technological advancement such as the influence of social media, and the desire for better working experiences. Recent books such as Reinventing Organizations (Laloux, 2014) and case studies of positive organizational practices (e.g., David, Boniwell, & Ayers, 2012; Dutton & Spreitzer, 2014) further fuel the desire for a “good day at work.” Increasing public debate regarding National Accounts of Well‐being (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2015; Weijers & Jarden, 2013) also contribute on a broader level to the desire for a better way of living and working.

Against this backdrop of increasing demand for positive change sit the related fields of Positive Organizational Scholarship (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003) and Positive Organizational Behavior (Luthans, 2002a; Nelson & Cooper, 2007). Research stemming from these fields, as well as from organizational (e.g., Luthans, 2002b) and positive psychologists (e.g., Steger, Dik, & Shim, in ) beginning to focus on well‐being at work, has demonstrated that work well‐being is good for the individual, the organization, and for society as a whole. Work well‐being is also good fiscally, with every organizational dollar invested into organizational well‐being providing a return of approximately 3 to 5 times the original investment (Goetzel & Ozminkowski, 2008; Rath & Harter, 2010).

Such findings, particularly at the organizational level, are driving organizations to investigate and then further invest in Workplace Well‐being Programs (henceforth WWPs).1 With such activity it is important to know how organizations and organizational consultants implementing WWPs assess the well‐being of employees, and how they evaluate the WWPs they implement in relation to their impacts on employee well‐being and important organizational performance indicators.

This chapter firstly summarizes the benefits of well‐being at work, and the case for well‐being assessments and the use of positive psychological assessment measures is made. Following this, we appraise current workplace well‐being assessment practices, drawing on various related literature. Then suggestions are provided as to both what should be assessed in organizations, and how this should be assessed. Lastly, a new framework for conceptually evaluating organizational well‐being research is briefly outlined, which is also a practically useful framework when obtaining commitment for WWPs and implementing them within organizations. The chapter ends with some suggestions for further research and conclusions.

The Benefits of Well‐Being at Work

Workplace stress is a chronic and pressing issue for organizations (Nixon, Mazzola, Bauer, Kruger, & Spector, 2011). Particularly in Western countries, there is a stark contrast between knowledge of the benefits of work well‐being for both the employee and the organization (see Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2002; or Lewis, 2011) and the high rates of unhappiness at work (e.g., 50%; Mercer, 2011). However, employees with high well‐being provide many benefits. For example, happier employees are healthier (Waddell & Burton, 2006), have fewer sick days (Bertera, 1990), earn more (Koo & Suh, 2013), and get promoted sooner (Boehm & Lyubomirsky, 2008). They are more effective (George & Bettenhausen, 1990) and productive (Bockerman & Ilmakunnas, 2012; Page & Vella‐Brodrick, 2009), display better organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ, 1988), inspire customer loyalty (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002), increase the well‐being of other employees (Christakis & Fowler, 2009; Totterdell, Kellett, Teuchmann, & Briner, 1998), stay in their jobs longer (Judge, 1993; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983), and can even increase an organization’s stock market value (Edmans, 2012). Of course happy employees have a place in society beyond their organizations as they spread their well‐being influence; happy employees are good for societal well‐being (Graham, 2010). The benefits of work well‐being are thus relatively well established. On the whole it is better for employees to be happier and satisfied at work than not, and these benefits accrue from the individual, to the organization, and to society.

The Potential Benefits of Well‐Being Assessment at Work

There are benefits beyond the results of the assessments themselves in conducting organizational well‐being assessments; the wider context of these assessments matters also. These benefits include aspects such as (1) the organization being perceived as caring towards employees (improving recruitment), (2) the organization being seen as an attractive place to work (making retention easier), (3) that the information obtained can be used to make important management decisions (e.g., how and when to restructure a division), or (4) that well‐being information can assist with managing both psychological and physical health more specifically and constructively (Lewis, 2011; Lopez & Snyder, 2003; Nelson & Cooper, 2007). However, more research on the impact of these more contextual factors is needed.

Current Workplace Well‐Being Assessment Practice

There is growing evidence that work well‐being is part of a bigger picture of better functioning individuals, organizations, and societies, and should be a priority target for organizations. How might organizations track progress toward well‐being targets though? That is, if work well‐being and knowledge of well‐being is a valued goal for employees and organizations, what do current workplace well‐being assessment practices look like?

Poor assessments in, and of, workplaces

Unfortunately there is scant data available on current positive psychological assessment practices in workplaces.2 There is, as such, no critical review or study of well‐being assessment practice presently available. In addition, as Spence (2015) notes, what data there are suggest that (1) very little assessment of organizational well‐being happens in practice, and (2) when it does happen, this assessment is typically superficial.

Regarding Spence’s first point, anecdotal reports from organizational consultants suggest that well‐being assessments usually happen in the context of an intended WWP. It does not seem to be the case that employee or organizational well‐being assessments are undertaken without any view toward increasing levels of employee or organizational well‐being. This point is important, because in countries such as Australia as few as 1,500 organizations (3.6% of the total workforce) provide formal, structured workplace health and well‐being programs (HAPIA, 2009). So, if very few workplace health and well‐being programs happen in the first instance, there is very little opportunity for well‐being assessments to occur if they only exist in the context of these programs. In addition, McCarthy, Almeida, and Ahrens (2011) reported that 46% of organizations implementing WWPs (in a sample of 319 Human Resources professionals) did not evaluate their WWPs. Of the remainder that did evaluate their WWPs, these assessments were largely limited to the usage of the program and overall satisfaction with the program, rather than the impacts of the program per se. Similar results have been reported elsewhere (e.g., in the UK: McGillivray, 2002). Such findings suggest that very little positive psychological assessment happens in workplaces.

Regarding Spence’s second point, when well‐being assessments do happen, they are not as psychometrically sound, rigorous, or appropriately focused as they should be, according to standard psychological assessment processes (see Shum, O’Gorman, Myors, & Creed, 2013). Instead well‐being assessments are more commonly limited by their small scale, with few questions asked (e.g., on overall job satisfaction), and they fail to measure the multidimensional nature of well‐being (Diener et al., 2015; Hone, Jarden, Schofield, & Duncan, 2014). So when they do happen, they seem to lack appropriate and rigorous evaluation.

These points concerning the lack of well‐being assessment, and lack of rigor in assessments, add to the finding that WWPs themselves vary in quality. As a report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers mentions, WWPs when delivered are usually “a patchwork of uncoordinated programmes, often delivered by multiple vendors, with limited consistency or integration” (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2010, p. 21), which makes high‐quality, sound psychometric assessment even more challenging. Such diversity in programs delivered may then lead to insufficient or inappropriate measurement, as Mills, Fleck, and Kozikowski recently mentioned:

the operationalization of positive constructs has lurched forward so rapidly that their measurement in the workplace has proceeded without a proper foundation and with an insufficient assessment as to the appropriateness of the various measurement instruments used to assess such constructs. (2013, p. 160)

In other words, the choice of construct measure used may not be fit for purpose on all occasions, and this may be related to the quality of the WWP being delivered and then evaluated. More research, including a study and review of workplace well‐being assessment practice, is needed in order to fully understand the scale and scope of current well‐being assessments in organizations.3 At this point it is hard to draw any firm conclusions about current well‐being assessment practices in workplaces beyond the above points. Given that scant assessment practice data is available, and it seems that very little sound, rigorous, or multidimensional assessment of psychological well‐being happens in organizations when assessments do happen, it is beneficial then to investigate what positive psychological and well‐being assessment measures are used in well‐being promotion research, what measures are used in workplace well‐being research, and what measures are suggested by positive psychological assessment experts.

Assessment measures in applied research

Currently, it is difficult to identify, or even categorize, what measures are used in workplaces to assess employee and organizational well‐being and the impacts of WWPs, or the extent to which they are used at all. It is possible that organizations are using a myriad of idiosyncratic and proprietary measures, severely limiting what can be learned from organizationally embedded measures. We can more easily investigate research using published positive psychological assessment measures by focusing on research that tests interventions that aim to increase well‐being (similarly to the aims of WWPs), and with research on work well‐being in particular.

Well‐being promotion research

In 2015, Hone, Jarden, and Schofield identified 40 positive psychological intervention effectiveness trials targeting adults in real‐world settings, involving a total of 10,664 participants. These 40 articles reported which assessment measures (including positive psychological assessment measures) they used to assess the effectiveness of their positive psychological intervention programs. All studies needed to meet eight selection criteria (see Hone et al., 2015, p. 3), one of which was that: “Pre‐intervention and post‐intervention assessment using psychometrically sound measures of positive variables must be reported (such as positive emotions, subjective well‐being, psychological, optimism and/or resilience).” For the purpose of this chapter we explored further the assessment measures used in these 40 effectiveness trials,4 and this highlighted both which assessment measures, and to what extent those measures, are used in positive psychology intervention effectiveness trials. These results are displayed in Table 22.1, and sorted by most frequent use.

Table 22.1 Assessment measures used in 40 positive psychological intervention effectiveness trials.

Source: Author.

No. Measure Measure authors Construct/s Times used
1 Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin (1985) Life satisfaction 11
2 Scales of Psychological Well‐being (SPW) Ryff & Singer (1998) Well‐being 9
3 Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) Watson, Clark, & Tellegan (1988) Positive affect and negative affect 8
4 Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D) Radloff (1977) Depressed mood 6
5 Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DAS‐21) Lovibond & Lovibond (1995) Depression/Anxiety/Stress 5
6 Quality of Life Inventory (QoLI) Frisch (2004) Life satisfaction, life domains 4
7 Profile of Mood States (POMS) McNair, Lorr, & Droppelman (1981) Emotions 3
8 Workplace Well‐being Index (WWI) Page (2005) Workplace well‐being 3
9 Cognitive Hardiness Scale (CHS) Nowack (1990) Cognitive hardiness 2
10 Warwick‐Edinburgh Mental Well‐being Scale (WEMWBS) Tennant, Fishwick, Platt, Joseph, & Stewart‐Brown (2006) Well‐being 2
11 Clinical Interview for Depression (CID) Paykel (1985) Depression 2
12 SPF‐Index Level Scale (SPF‐IL) Nieboer, Lindenberg, Boomsma, & Van Bruggen (2005) Well‐being 2
13 Steen Happiness Index (SHI) Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson (2005) Happiness 2
14 Mental Health Continuum – Short Form (MHC‐SF) Keyes (2005) Well‐being 1
15 Authentic Happiness Inventory (AHI) Peterson (2005) Happiness 1
16 Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) Lyubomirsky & Lepper (1999) Happiness 1
17 Life Orientation Test‐Revised (LOT‐R) Scheier, Carver, & Bridges (1994) Optimism 1
18 Short Happiness and Affect Research Protocol (SHARP) Stones et al. (1996) Happiness 1
19 Job‐related Affective Well‐being S scale (JAWS) Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, & Kelloway (2000) Work affect 1
20 Self‐developed self‐efficacy scale based on Bandura (2012) Ouweneel, Le Blanc, & Schaufeli (2013) Self‐efficacy 1
21 Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova (2006) Work engagement 1
22 EuroQol Group 5‐Dimension Self‐Report Questionnaire (EQ‐5D) EuroQol Group (1990) Health outcome 1
23 Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7‐item scale (GAD‐7) Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, & Löwe (2006) Anxiety 1
24 SF‐36 Health Survey (SF‐36) Ware & Sherbourne (1992) Health status 1
25 Hopkins Symptom Checklist‐25 (HSCL‐25) Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Covi (1974); Anxiety/Depression 1
26 Self‐Management Ability‐Scale (SMAS‐30) Schuurmans et al. (2005) Self‐management ability 1
27 PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ) Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman (2007) Psychological capital 1
28 World Health Organization Quality of Life Inventory – Brief (WHOQOL‐BREF) WHOQOL Group (1998) Quality of life 1
29 Flourishing Scale (FS) Diener et al. (2009) Flourishing 1
30 WHO‐5 Well‐being Index (WHO‐5) Primack (2003) Quality of life/Well‐being
31 Personal Well‐being Index (PWI‐A) International Wellbeing Group (2006) Well‐being 1
32 Assessing Emotions Scale (AES) Schutte et al. (1998) Emotions 1
33 Affective Well‐being Scale (AWS) Daniels (2000) Emotions 1
34 Orientations to Happiness Questionnaire (OTHQ) Peterson, Park, & Seligman (2005) Well‐being 1

Across these 40 trials, 34 measures (e.g., Satisfaction with Life Scale, Scales of Psychological Well‐being) were used to capture 17 constructs (e.g., positive affect and negative affect, well‐being). This review of measures used in positive psychological intervention research highlights that:

  1. There are only a few relatively frequently used measures (e.g., only 6 measures were used 4 or more times), and 20 of the 34 measures were only used once.
  2. Many of the measures used are not traditional “positive measures,” nor do they assess “positive variables,” but rather measure more clinical type variables (e.g., depression, anxiety, stress).
  3. Only one specific workplace well‐being measure was used.
  4. Many hedonic measures of emotions and affect were used.

Workplace well‐being research

Next, for the purpose of this chapter we conducted a systematic review to investigate which positive psychological measures are used to evaluate the effectiveness of a workplace well‐being intervention. Electronic databases (OVID: psych INFO, psych TESTS, Cochrane library, AMED, Health and psychosocial instruments, MEDLINE; EBSCO Health Databases: MEDLINE, CINHAL Plus with Full Text; Scopus; Proquest) were searched without date limiters up to December 2015 to identify primary research studies that investigated which positive psychological measures are used to evaluate the effectiveness of a workplace intervention. Database search terms included “positive psych*” OR well‐being OR “well being” AND assessment OR measure* AND worker OR workplace OR organi* AND intervention AND effect* OR effic* OR outcome* OR evaluat*. Forward and backward citation searches were carried out on any studies included following the electronic database searches. Studies were eligible if they measured the efficacy5 of a workplace positive psychological intervention using an assessment measure. The two chapter authors independently screened the reports for inclusion, looking first at title and abstracts. Full text articles were obtained for studies that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria, or studies where a definite decision could not be made. Studies were then individually reviewed and each assessment tool used to measure efficacy of a workplace positive psychological intervention was identified. Database searches identified 350 articles, with 5 additional records from citation searches. Following removal of duplicates and title and abstract screening, 56 full text articles were assessed and met the selection criteria: see the PRISMA diagram in Figure 22.1. This process identified 56 articles that utilized 111 measures in total (or selected a subset of questions from an established measure). Of these 111 measures, 17 were used in 2 or more of the 56 studies and are displayed in Table 22.2, and sorted by most frequent use.

Image described by caption and surrounding text.

Figure 22.1 PRISMA diagram showing the selection process for articles in the review.

Source: Author.

Table 22.2 Assessment measures used 2 or more times in 56 workplace well‐being research articles.

Source: Author.

No. Measure Authors Construct/s Times used
1 General Health Questionnaire (GHQ‐12) Goldberg & Hillier (1979) Health 10
2 Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) Cohen & Williamson (1988) Stress 8
3 Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS) Warr, Cook, & Wall (1979) Job satisfaction 7
4 Malach Burnout Scale (MBS) Malach‐Pines (2005) Burnout 6
5 Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova (2006) Work engagement 5
6 Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) Diener et al. (1985) Life satisfaction 4
7 Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) Watson et al. (1988) Positive affect and negative affect 4
8 Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D) Radloff (1977) Depressed mood 4
9 Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) Buysse, Reynolds, Monk, Berman, & Kupfer (1989) Sleep 3
10 Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) Brown & Ryan (2003) Mindfulness 3
11 Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (CPQ) Kristensen, Hannerz, Hogh, Borg (2005) Psychosocial work environment 3
12 Vitality Scale (VS) Ryan & Frederick (1997) Vitality 3
13 Job Demands (JD) Wall, Jackson, & Mullarkey (1995) Job demands 2
14 Organizational Commitment Scale (OCS) Cook & Wall (1980) Organizational commitment 2
15 State/Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) Spielberger (1972, 1983) Anxiety 2
16 SF‐12 Health Survey (SF‐12) Ware, Kosinski, & Keller (1996) Health 2
17 Work Ability Index (WAI) Ilmarinen (2007) Work ability 2

This review of measures used in workplace well‐being research highlights that:

  1. There are only a few relatively frequently used measures (e.g., only 8 of the 111 measures were used 4 or more times) with most (n = 94) of the 111 measures only used once.
  2. Many of the measures used are not traditional “positive measures,” nor do they assess “positive variables,” but rather measure clinical type variables (e.g., depression, anxiety, stress), or health variables.
  3. The Satisfaction with Life Scale, the most used measure in the review of effectiveness trials, was only used in 4 of the 56 studies.

Measures suggested by positive psychological assessment experts

In their 2015 paper, Owens, Magyar‐Moe, and Lopez suggested a list of 23 areas of positive psychological assessment (e.g., emotions, gratitude, strengths, well‐being, optimism, mindfulness, etc.) and 58 specific measures (e.g., Flourishing Scale, Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale) capturing constructs in these areas of positive psychological assessment. These authors are experts in practice and in positive psychological assessment. For example, Lopez was one of the editors of the key text on positive psychological assessment (Lopez & Snyder, 2003), and Owens and Magyar‐Moe have both published on positive assessment in particular (e.g., Keyes & Magyar‐Moe, 2003). These 58 measures are presented as “standardised positive psychological measures” for children, adolescents, and adults which are “an extensive, but not exhaustive, list of measures available, largely from the 1990s to the present” (Owens et al., 2015, p. 649). The measures which overlap with Owens et al.’s recommended list of 58 and with either the above 34 that have been used in well‐being promotion research (Table 22.1) or with the 17 measures used two or more times in workplace well‐being research (Table 22.2) include the following nine:

  1. Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)
  2. Scales of Psychological Well‐being (SPW)
  3. Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)
  4. Quality of Life Inventory (QoLI)
  5. Steen Happiness Index (SHI)
  6. Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS)
  7. Life Orientation Test‐Revised (LOT‐R)
  8. Flourishing Scale (FS)
  9. Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)

In other words, these nine include one of the measures suggested by Owens et al. that was also relatively popular in well‐being promotion research or workplace well‐being research. Taking this one step further, including measures that were popular in both well‐being promotion research (Table 22.1) and with the 17 measures used two or more times in workplace well‐being research (Table 22.2), this list would then include two more:

  1. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)
  2. Centre for Epidemiological Studies, Depression Scale (CES‐D)

For further detail of how these were identified, see Appendix . Psychometric properties aside,6 these 11 measures, because of their popularity across two of the three data sources, are likely good candidates for potential use in positive psychological assessment practices in workplaces.

Ideal Organizational Well‐Being Assessments

The case that well‐being should be assessed in the workplace relies on employees and organizations first realizing the benefits and value of high well‐being in a work context. If it is the case that well‐being is a goal for employees and organizations (i.e., it is seen as a commodity that should be developed and increased as the research suggests), then well‐being should be assessed soundly. The management adage that “you can only manage what you measure” applies equally well to psychological well‐being in organizations. As Nobel Prize‐winning economist Joseph Stiglitz mentioned, “What we measure affects what we do; and if our measurements are flawed, decisions may be distorted” (Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009, p. 7). If organizations do not assess well‐being rigorously, it is difficult for employees, organizational consultants, and organizations to then determine the need, appropriate type, scale, and effectiveness over time of WWPs. Assuming that sound well‐being assessments are the first step toward considering WWPs, the important questions then become, “What should be assessed?” and “How should it be assessed?” In addressing these two questions it is of foremost importance to be mindful of the goals of assessment (at least from the perspective of management), which usually includes the obtainment of high‐quality information that directly leads to actionable decisions. For example, a finding that employees are highly stressed may lead to investment in a stress‐reduction program or workload changes, or the finding that employees are not utilizing their strengths may lead to investment in a strengths program or team reconfigurations.

What should be assessed? Putting together a dream list of measures

Although the nature and conceptualization of psychological well‐being itself is contentious (Diener, 2009; Warr, 2013), the field of positive psychological assessment (see Lopez & Snyder, 2003) is reaching consensus that a dashboard of metrics are needed to capture the multidimensional nature of well‐being (Diener et al., 2015; Hone et al., 2014). As such, this chapter proposes 11 measures that have been identified by a review of research and by experts, and in addition we propose an additional 16 measures. Together these 27 assessment measures provide both global and evaluative well‐being information (i.e., they largely address the question “What is the level of well‐being in our organization?”) as well as information on more specific drivers and enablers of work well‐being (i.e., they largely address the question “What are the contributing factors to our organization’s level of well‐being?”).7 These additional 16 measures suggested by us are to fill exactly this balance gap between global well‐being and well‐being drivers. Nonetheless, the correct battery of assessment measures for each specific organization will depend on that organization’s situation and requirements, and in addition organizations are likely to want to assess relevant indicators related to employee well‐being (e.g., turnover, sick days, performance). The 16 measures listed below were chosen according to the following eight criteria:8

  1. They are not included in the 11 measures identified above.
  2. They provide information that is actionable.
  3. They provide a mixture of assessing what is going right (e.g., hope, self‐efficacy) and what is going wrong (e.g., resilience), at both global and well‐being driver levels.
  4. They are relatively short and quick to administer.
  5. Some are work‐specific (e.g., the Work and Meaning Inventory) and some global (e.g., the Meaning in Life Questionnaire).
  6. Some are free to use, and for the rest permission is relatively affordable and accessible.
  7. They all have acceptable and validated psychometric properties (some slightly better than others) and are well utilized in practice and/or research.9
  8. They align well with likely WWPs (e.g., a hope program is aptly assessed with the Adult Hope Scale, a meaning program is aptly assessed with the Work and Meaning Inventory).

Thus the two well‐being outcome and 14 well‐being driver measures listed below are proposed as potentially valuable components of an organizational well‐being assessment, although they are by no means definitive or exhaustive, and in conjunction with consideration of the above 11 represent a “good first step” in the direction of better organizational well‐being assessment and toward capturing the multidimensional nature of organizational well‐being:

  1. Global outcome measures:Warwick‐Edinburgh Mental Well‐being Scale (Tennant et al., 2007)
  2. Workplace Well‐being Index (Page, 2005)
  3. Measures of drivers of well‐being:Adult Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991)
  4. Work and Meaning Inventory (Steger, Dik, & Duffy, 2012)
  5. Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006)
  6. Subjective Vitality Scale (Ryan & Frederick, 1997)
  7. Strengths Use and Knowledge Scale (Govindji & Linley, 2007)
  8. Gratitude Scale (McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002)
  9. Curiosity and Exploration Inventory – II (Kashdan et al., 2009)
  10. General Self‐Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995)
  11. Brief Resilience Scale (Smith et al., 2008)
  12. General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979)
  13. Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen & Williamson, 1988)
  14. Job Satisfaction Scale (Warr, Cook, & Wall, 1979)
  15. Malach Burnout Scale (Malach‐Pines, 2005)
  16. VIA (Values In Action) strengths (Peterson & Park, 2009; Peterson & Seligman, 2004)

It should also be pointed out that some drivers are more apt to drive global well‐being, and some drivers more apt to drive work well‐being. For example, Hamling, Jarden, and Schofield (2016) found that different occupational groups (e.g., managers vs. sales workers vs. laborers etc.) had different drivers for global well‐being (i.e., flourishing) than for aspects of work well‐being (e.g., job satisfaction). Here aspects such as “work–life balance” and “engagement” were large drivers of work well‐being, whereas aspects such as a sense of “meaning and purpose” and “self‐esteem” were larger drivers of global well‐being.

In summary, measuring global well‐being outcomes provides valuable information to decision‐makers, especially if the outcomes are sensitive enough to be tracked over time (although some constructs, such as cognitive judgments of life satisfaction, are relatively stable over time, other constructs, such as emotions, are much less so; e.g., see Sheldon, Jose, Kashdan, & Jarden, 2015). In addition, measuring drivers and enablers of well‐being also provides valuable information toward decisions if they are sensitive enough to be tracked over time. The research literature indicates that increasing aspects of any of these drivers is good not only for organizational performance, but also for employees’ well‐being. For example, the strength of curiosity is not only beneficial for goal attainment (e.g., reaching key performance indicators at work), but also provides increased well‐being benefits from goal attainment per se (Sheldon et al., 2015).

Given these 16 assessment measures covering a range of constructs, what is missing from this battery of suggested measures? What else might an organization wish to measure in a well‐being assessment? Firstly, there is no good measure (according to the eight criteria we listed earlier) of positive leadership (see also MacKie, this volume).10 Secondly, given the emerging and important relationship between physical health and subjective well‐being (Seligman, 2008), a more detailed measure of employee health indicators than the GHQ‐12 may be beneficial (e.g., such as health conditions).11 These, positive leadership and health, are two areas organizations are likely to want to assess.

In summary, a variety of methods (i.e., review of well‐being promotion research, review of workplace well‐being research, expert opinion) have been used to identify possible assessment measures for use in well‐being assessment in organizations. In addition, we have suggested additional measures based on rational criteria and that fill the balance gap between global well‐being and well‐being driver measures. In making such suggestions we believe this above dream list of 27 measures is a good battery to draw from in the first instance, depending on each organization’s particular context.

Once “What should be assessed?” has been addressed, the question then becomes “How should well‐being be assessed?,” that is, what is the best way to conduct an organizational well‐being assessment?

Implementing well‐being assessment in organizations

There are many methods one can use in work well‐being assessment (e.g., Juniper, White, & Bellamy, 2009) and psychological assessment (see Shum et al., 2013) including both paper‐based and online psychometric tests, self‐monitoring, direct observation, physiological measures (e.g., heart rate, skin conductivity), interviews, and using existing records. In regard to well‐being specifically, there are also the Experience Sampling Method (ESM: Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983) and the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM: Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2004). However, by far the most popular are psychometric tests, mostly due to the increased cost, level of experience, specialist equipment, and time associated with other methods. When comparing paper‐based and online tests, research indicates that there are no significant differences in the psychometric properties of measures completed online compared to paper‐based versions (Lewis, Watson, & White, 2009; Riva, Teruzzi, & Anolli, 2003), which is one reason why the use of web‐based research methods is increasing (Reips, 2006). Online testing is also quicker, provides greater confidentiality, and scoring is automated (Shum et al., 2013). For all of the above reasons we advocate the use of online assessment methods.

Although a selection of the 27 measures listed above can be self‐administered by organizations via standard web‐based survey software (e.g., survey monkey, survey gizmo, survey pro), two currently available online well‐being assessment tools are now briefly highlighted, both capturing a combination of outcome‐ and driver‐level well‐being indicators.

Work on Wellbeing 12 (www.workonwellbeing.com) is an online assessment tool specifically developed to assess and track employee well‐being over time in organizations. The assessment comprises 50 questions and takes on average nine minutes to complete. Consisting of a collection of validated psychometric measures from the psychology literature, the assessment has four main modules: an assessment of Global Well‐being (e.g., life satisfaction); an assessment of Domain Well‐being (e.g., satisfaction with intimate relationships); an assessment of Workplace Well‐being (e.g., autonomy at work); and an assessment of Component Well‐being factors underpinning well‐being that are related to a workplace context (e.g., physical health indicators, resilience). In addition, organizations can add their own specific questions to the assessment, and select to add further construct measures from a list of 50 additional validated measures (such as work engagement, burnout, stress, hope, meaning, mindfulness). At the end of the assessment, employees are presented with real‐time, benchmarked and contextualized well‐being reports. Both organizational account holders and employees are provided with aggregate, anonymous organizational‐level well‐being reports at the end of the organization’s assessment period. These reports can also be tailored for subgroup‐level reporting (i.e., teams).

The Happiness at Work Survey (www.happinessatworksurvey.com) is an online work well‐being assessment tool comprised of 48 questions which takes on average 10 minutes to complete. The survey measures four dynamic and interrelated categories that impact happiness at work: (1) personal resources, (2) the organization itself, (3) the work itself, and (4) thoughts and emotions at work. Employees receive real‐time reports, and results identify highlights and lowlights in a dynamic model that encourages discovery. Organizational‐level results are aggregated and anonymous, and available at subgroup levels (i.e., teams). Questions are benchmarked against national samples, and presented so that participants can take action to increase their happiness at work.

In addition to these two well‐being assessment tools, other options may include Moodscope (www.moodscope.com), Tiny Pulse (www.tinypulse.com), or the Gallup Wellbeing Finder (www.gallup.com), and there are many others (although very few that easily allow the tracking of well‐being over time). Regardless of survey tool, it is important to note that (1) assessments should use multiple methods (e.g., survey plus observation) rather than just one piece of information, (2) assessments should be undertaken regularly (e.g., pre, during, and post WWPs), and (3) regular conversations regarding well‐being are one key pathway to increasing workplace well‐being, and frequent assessment points provide the opportunity to instigate these conversations (Dutton & Spreitzer, 2014).

So given this outline of both what should be assessed and how, we now briefly outline a new framework – the Me, We, Us framework – for conceptually evaluating organizational well‐being which is, importantly, also a practically useful framework when obtaining commitment for WWPs and implementing them within organizations. This model provides organizations with a rationale and reminder that multiple levels of assessment and intervention may be needed to maximize performance and well‐being across an organization, and thus a focus on assessing constructs at an individual level may not be sufficient. The previously suggested measures that provide a “good first step” are almost exclusively at the individual level.

The ‘Me, We, Us’ Framework

Although the benefits of high psychological well‐being impact individuals, organizations, and the whole of society, WWPs largely target the organization (i.e., individuals at work), and to a lesser extent the individual (i.e., individuals outside of work). When focusing specifically on organizational well‐being, well‐being assessments and WWPs can happen at three distinct levels regardless of organizational structure or size. These three levels include the individual level (Me), group level (We), and the organizational level (Us), as depicted in Figure 22.2.

Diagram of Me (individual), We (group), and Us (organizational) levels of well?being intervention depicted by three hexagons linked by arrows.

Figure 22.2 Me, We, and Us levels of well‐being intervention.

Source: Author.

Individual‐level well‐being initiatives include strategies and tasks that employees can do by themselves, such as learning about and utilizing their strengths mindfully (Niemiec, 2013), or undertaking a mindfulness program (Kabat‐Zinn, 2005). Such “Me” initiatives do not require the involvement of others within the organization. Group‐level well‐being initiatives include strategies and tasks that involve an employee working on their well‐being with either their manager, their direct team, or other employees with whom they are in frequent contact within the work setting. These activities either have influence on a small group or are undertaken in a group format, and cannot be undertaken by employees themselves as they require cooperation and input from others, for example the employee’s manager or team members. Examples of “We” initiatives include strategies and tasks such as job crafting (Wrzesniewski, 2014) or building high‐quality connections (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). Organizational‐level well‐being initiatives include strategies and tasks that aim to have an impact over the whole of the organization, or are designed to trickle down from the top of the organization (ideally to all employees). Examples of such “Us” initiatives include strategies and tasks such as creating an organizational well‐being policy (HAPIA, 2009), directing resources toward one‐off or smaller scale well‐being initiatives, or whole of organization well‐being assessments or WWPs such as appreciative inquiry summits (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Additionally, these levels of Me, We, and Us can also be integrated. For example, an employee (Me) can choose to work on their strengths, a team (We) can choose to focus on team members’ strengths in the deployment of team projects, and the organization (Us) can choose to invest in a strengths program for all employees.

On the whole, at all levels of Me, We, and Us, high well‐being from a positive psychology perspective is about employees and organizations shifting their perspective from predominately focusing on what is wrong, to building on what is going right and working, to capitalizing on the good and building and seeding the enabling conditions for high well‐being (Jarden & Jarden, 2015; Lewis, 2011). Workplace well‐being programs across these three levels are about helping employees to use their strengths, enhance their relationships, and find more meaning and engagement at work so that both employees and the organization as a whole can achieve their, and its, true potential.13

To date, arguably, well‐being assessments and WWPs have focused on the individual (Me) level. However, well‐being activities at the group (We) level (e.g., soft relationship and communication skills for managers) are a prime target for WWPs, and well‐being assessment metrics at the We level are largely non‐existent. While there is no measure, scale, or tool which holistically accounts adequately for all three Me, We, and Us levels at present (including tools like Work on Wellbeing, Happiness at Work Survey, and others), further consideration of the We and Us levels is needed – both in practice, and from a research intervention and assessment perspective. This recommendation is based on the realization that the vast majority of work well‐being research to date has been on the benefits at the individual level. Obviously research and validation of the Me, We, Us framework per se, and its integrated levels, is needed.

Future Research

To maximize the potential of positive psychological assessment for workplace well‐being and health promotion, various avenues of research are now suggested.

Firstly, there is a need for expanded reporting on current assessment practice. A study and review of current workplace well‐being assessment practice and reporting across countries is needed that isolates what specific assessment measures are used, when, why, by whom, and how they are used. This will also highlight aspects such as whether the current choice of measures is fit for purpose, or whether well‐being assessment is commonly aligned with yearly engagement surveys, with specific health and wellness initiatives, or with a particular additional organizational objective (e.g., restructure) rather than as a primary objective in itself. More research is needed in order to fully understand the scale and scope of current well‐being assessments in organizations and to establish firmer baseline usage and characteristics as a basis for change.

Secondly, the potential barriers and challenges to undertaking well‐being assessment at work need further exploration. For example, from the chapter authors’ perspective these can include aspects such as: (1) employees feeling burnout from many and various types of assessments or surveys within the organization; (2) previous bad experiences of engagement surveys where information is embargoed or results withheld, or lack of subsequent commitment or change associated with the results; (3) fear that sensitive and personal well‐being data will not be anonymous or secure; or (4) practicalities of implementing the assessments (e.g., obtaining experts in positive psychological assessment, or with the technology or research expertise to deliver them appropriately). These challenges span and apply to the employee, the organization, and to society, and are likely different in every context. However, we currently do not know the extent to which these barriers and challenges impact well‐being assessments. More research is needed in order to substantiate such contextual aspects which may limit positive psychological assessment practices.

Thirdly, more research is needed into the potential benefits, beyond the results of the assessments themselves, of conducting organizational well‐being assessments. These wider contextual benefits can include aspects such as the beneficial impacts of the organization being perceived as caring toward employees, the organization being seen as a great place to work, that well‐being assessment information can be used to make important management decisions, or that well‐being information can assist with managing both psychological and physical health more constructively. We simply do not know the full extent of the influence of these more contextual aspects that are related to well‐being assessments. More research is needed in order to substantiate such contextual aspects.

Lastly, further investigation of the Me, We, Us framework and its utility, and in particular the ‘We’ and ‘Us’ levels is needed – from a research intervention and assessment perspective. This recommendation is based on the realization that the vast majority of work well‐being research to date has been on the benefits at the individual level.

Conclusions

The business case for organizational well‐being is accruing, both academically and fiscally. It is therefore only a matter of time before knowledge of the benefits of high work well‐being become widespread, and WWPs and positive psychological assessments become common. Although it seems as if very little positive psychological assessment happens in workplaces at present, now is the opportunity to gather more information on current organizational well‐being practices, particularly of the positive psychological assessment measures used and how they are used, to take a “good first step” toward improving organizational well‐being assessments, and think more conceptually about levels of well‐being intervention and assessment. It is also the time to establish firmer guidelines and recommendations regarding what these assessments should include, what they should accomplish, and how they should happen if they are to be the basis for change, consistency, and comparability. Further research is needed to inform such recommendations.

It is our view that high‐quality psychological well‐being information can be used to create positive workplaces where employees are able to do meaningful and enjoyable work that taps into their greatest strengths and their most important goals. With such assessment information organizations can capitalize on the unique intellectual and personal strengths of each employee. It is possible to focus less on getting employees to do their work, but rather on how to enable them to do good work; their best work. Organizations can go beyond fixing problems and into promoting excellence. Advances such as these are under way, and will start addressing employee’s desires for better working experiences, helping to create a “good day at work,” and moving society toward a better way of living.

Appendix A: Positive psychological measures used in two or more data sources

We have identified 11 measures that are popular in research and that are recommended by positive psychology assessment experts.

Assessment measures used in two or more data sources.

No. Measure Measure authors Construct/s Well‐being promotion research (Table 22.1)a Work well‐being research (Table 22.2)b Expert recommendsc
 1 Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) Diener et al. (1985) Life satisfaction ✓ ✓ ✓
 2 Scales of Psychological Well‐being (SPW) Ryff & Singer (1998) Well‐being ✓ ✓
 3 Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) Watson, Clark, & Tellegan (1988) Positive affect and negative affect ✓ ✓ ✓
 4 Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D) Radloff (1977) Depressed mood ✓ ✓
 5 Quality of Life Inventory (QoLI) Frisch (2004) Life satisfaction, life domains ✓ ✓
 6 Steen Happiness Index (SHI) Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson (2005) Happiness ✓ ✓
 7 Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) Lyubomirsky & Lepper (1999) Happiness ✓ ✓
 8 Life Orientation Test‐Revised (LOT‐R) Scheier, Carver, & Bridges (1994) Optimism ✓ ✓
 9 Flourishing Scale (FS) Diener et al. (2010) Flourishing ✓ ✓
10 Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) Schaufeli et al. (2006) Work engagement ✓ ✓
11 Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) Brown & Ryan (2003) Mindfulness ✓ ✓

a Used one or more times.

b Used two or more times.

c Owens et al. (2015).

References

  1. Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42‐item and 21‐item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 176–181.
  2. Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of self‐efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38, 9–44.
  3. Bertera, R. L. (1990). Du Pont: The effects of workplace health promotion on absenteeism and employment costs in a large industrial population. American Journal of Public Health, 80(9), 1101–1105.
  4. Bockerman, P., & Ilmakunnas, P. (2012). The job satisfaction–productivity nexus: A study using matched survey and register data. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 65, 244–262.
  5. Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Does happiness lead to career success? Journal of Career Assessment, 16(1), 101–116.
  6. Brown, K., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well‐being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.84.4.822
  7. Buysse, D. J., Reynolds, C. F., Monk, T. H., Berman, S. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (1989). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Research, 28, 193–213. doi:10.1016/0165‐1781(89)90047‐4
  8. Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler.
  9. Caza, A., & Cameron, K. (2008). Positive organizational scholarship: What does it achieve? In S. Clegg, & C. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational behavior: Vol. 2. Macro approaches (pp. 99–117). London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781849200455.n6
  10. Christakis, N., & Fowler, J. (2009). Connected: The amazing power of social networks and how they shape our lives. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Company.
  11. Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont Symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 31–67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  12. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non‐fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52.
  13. Cooperrider, D., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler.
  14. Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of five aspects of affective well‐being at work. Human Relations, 53, 275–294.
  15. David, S. A., Boniwell, I., & Ayers, A. C. (Eds.) (2012). The Oxford handbook of happiness. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  16. Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self‐report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science, 19(1), 1–15.
  17. Diener, E. (2009). Assessing well‐being: The collected works of Ed Diener (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Springer.
  18. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
  19. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2015). National accounts of subjective well‐being. American Psychologist, 70(3), 234–242.
  20. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim‐Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas‐Diener, R. (2010). New measures of well‐being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 39, 247–266.
  21. Dutton, J., & Heaphy, E. (2003). The power of high quality connections. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 263–278). San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler.
  22. Dutton, J. E., & Spreitzer, G. (Eds.) (2014). How to be a positive leader: Small actions, big impacts. San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler.
  23. Edmans, A. (2012). The link between job satisfaction and firm value, with implications for corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 1–19. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0046
  24. EuroQol Group (1990). EuroQol: A new facility for the measurement of health‐related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.
  25. Frisch, M. B. (2004). Use of the QoLI or quality of life inventory in quality of life therapy and assessment. In M. R. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment: Vol 3. Instruments for adults (pp. 749–798). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  26. George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698–709.
  27. Goetzel, R. Z., & Ozminkowski, R. J. (2008). The health and cost benefits of work site health‐promotion programs. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 303–323.
  28. Goldberg, D. P., & Hillier, V. F. (1979). A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine, 9, 139–145.
  29. Govindji, R., & Linley, P. A. (2007). Strengths use, self‐concordance and well‐being: Implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 143–153.
  30. Graham, C. (2010). Happiness around the world: The paradox of happy peasants and miserable millionaires. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  31. Hamling, K., Jarden, A., & Schofield, G. (2016). Recipes for occupational wellbeing: An investigation of the associations with wellbeing in New Zealand workers. New Zealand Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(2), 151–173.
  32. HAPIA. (2009). Best practice guidelines: Workplace health in Australia. Sydney: Health and Productivity Institute of Australia.
  33. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business‐unit‐level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279. http://dx.doi.org 10.1037/0021‐9010.87.2.268
  34. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). Well‐being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (pp. 205–224). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  35. Hone, L., Jarden, A., & Schofield, G. (2015). An evaluation of positive psychology intervention effectiveness trials using the re‐aim framework: A practice‐friendly review. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(4), 303–322.
  36. Hone, L., Jarden, A., Schofield, G. M., & Duncan, S. (2014). Measuring flourishing: The impact of operational definitions on the prevalence of high levels of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 4(1), 62–90. doi:10.5502/ijw.v4i1.1
  37. Ilmarinen, J. (2007). The Work Ability Index (WAI). Occupational Medicine, 57, 160.
  38. International Wellbeing Group (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.
  39. Jarden, A., & Jarden, R. (2015). Applied positive psychology in higher education. In M. Henning, C. Krägeloh, & G. Wong‐Toi (Eds.), Student motivation and quality of life in higher education (pp. 37–44). London, UK: Routledge.
  40. Judge, T. A. (1993). Does affective disposition moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 395–401.
  41. Juniper, B., White, N., & Bellamy, P. (2009). Assessing employee wellbeing: Is there any other way? International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 2(3), 220–230.
  42. Kabat‐Zinn, J. (2005). Guided mindfulness mediation [audiobook]. Louisville, CO: Sounds True.
  43. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The Day Reconstruction Method (DRM). Science, 306, 1776–1780.
  44. Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F. (2009). The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory‐II: Development, factor structure, and initial psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 987–998.
  45. Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548.
  46. Keyes, C. L. M., & Magyar‐Moe, J. L. (2003). The measurement and utility of adult subjective well‐being. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 411–426). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  47. Koo, J., & Suh, E. M. (2013). The influence of happiness on future income and job performance. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 27, 17–36.
  48. Kristensen, T. S., Hannerz, H., Hogh, A., & Borg, V. (2005). The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire: A tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 31(6), 438–449.
  49. Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing organizations. Brussels, Belgium: Nelson Parker.
  50. Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983). The experience sampling method. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science, 15, 41–56.
  51. Lewis, I., Watson, B., & White, K. M. (2009). Internet versus paper‐and‐pencil survey methods in psychological experiments: Equivalence testing of participant responses to health‐related messages. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(2), 107–116.
  52. Lewis, S. (2011). Positive psychology at work: How positive leadership and appreciative inquiry create inspiring organizations. Oxford, UK: Wiley‐Blackwell.
  53. Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  54. Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Psychology Foundation.
  55. Luthans, F. (2002a). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57–72.
  56. Luthans, F. (2002b). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.
  57. Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572.
  58. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.
  59. Malach‐Pines, A. (2005). The burnout measure, short version. International Journal of Stress Management, 12, 78–87.
  60. McCarthy, G., Almeida, S., & Ahrens, J. (2011). Understanding employee wellbeing practices in Australian organizations. International Journal of Health, Wellness and Society, 1(1), 181–197.
  61. McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112–127.
  62. McGillivray, D. (2002). Health promotion in the workplace: A missed opportunity? Health Education, 102(2), 60–67.
  63. McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. (1981). Manual for the profile of mood states. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
  64. Mercer. (2011). “What’s Working” survey. Retrieved from http://www.hreonline.com/pdfs/07012012Extra_Mercer.pdf
  65. Mills, M. J., Fleck, C. R., & Kozikowski, A. (2013). Positive psychology at work: A conceptual review, state‐of‐practice assessment, and a look ahead. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 153–164. doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.776622
  66. Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1146–1164. doi:10.1016./j.leaqua.2011.09.008
  67. Nelson, D. L., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.) (2007). Positive organizational behavior. London, UK: Sage.
  68. Nieboer, A., Lindenberg, S., Boomsma, A., & Van Bruggen, A. C. (2005). Dimensions of well‐being and their measurement: The SPF‐IL Scale. Social Indicators Research, 73, 313–353.
  69. Niemiec, R. (2013). Mindfulness and character strengths: A practical guide to flourishing. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Publishing.
  70. Nixon, A. E., Mazzola, J. J., Bauer, J., Kruger, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Can work make you sick? A meta‐analysis of the relationships between job stressors and physical symptoms. Work and Stress, 25(1), 1–22.
  71. Nowack, K. (1990). Initial development of an inventory to assess stress and health risk. American Journal of Health Promotion, 4, 173–180.
  72. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome: Issues in organization and management series. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
  73. Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Do‐it‐yourself: An online positive psychology intervention to promote positive emotions, self‐efficacy, and engagement at work. Career Development International, 18(2), 173–195. doi:10.1108/CDI‐10‐2012‐0102
  74. Owens, R. L., Magyar‐Moe, J. L., & Lopez, S. J. (2015). Finding balance via positive psychological assessment: Recommendations for practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 43(5), 634–670.
  75. Page, K. (2005). Subjective wellbeing in the workplace. Unpublished honours thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
  76. Page, K., & Vella‐Brodrick, D. (2009). The “what,” “why” and “how” of employee wellbeing: A new model. Social Indicators Research, 90, 441–458.
  77. Paykel, E. S. (1985). The clinical interview for depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 9, 85–96.
  78. Peterson (2005). Authentic Happiness Inventory (AHI). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  79. Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2009). Classifying and measuring strengths of character. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 25–33). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  80. Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25–41.
  81. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; and Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  82. PriceWaterhouseCoopers. (2010). Workplace wellness in Australia: Aligning action with aims: Optimising the benefits of workplace wellness. Sydney, Australia: Author.
  83. Primack, B. (2003). The WHO‐5 wellbeing index performed the best in screening for depression in primary care. Evidence Based Medicine, 8, 155. doi:10.1136/ebm.8.5.155
  84. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES‐D scale: A self‐report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
  85. Rath, T., & Harter, J. (2010). The economics of wellbeing. Washington, DC: Gallup.
  86. Reips, U. D. (2006). Web‐based methods. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 73–85). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  87. Riva, G., Teruzzi, T., & Anolli, L. (2003). The use of the internet in psychological research: Comparison of online and offline questionnaires. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6(1), 73–80.
  88. Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 429–438. doi:10.1037/0021‐9010.68.3.429
  89. Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well‐being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.
  90. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.
  91. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. A cross‐national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
  92. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self‐mastery, and self‐esteem): A re‐evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.
  93. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–177.
  94. Schuurmans, H., Steverink, N., Frieswijk, N., Buunk, B. P., Slaets, J. P. J., & Lindenberg, S. (2005). How to measure self‐management abilities in older people by self‐report? The development of the SMAS‐30. Quality of Life Research, 14, 2215–2228.
  95. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self‐Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: Nfer‐Nelson.
  96. Seligman, M. E. P. (2008). Positive health. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 3–18.
  97. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421.
  98. Sheldon, K. M., Jose, P. E., Kashdan, T. B., & Jarden, A. (2015). Personality strengths, effective goal‐striving, and enhanced well‐being: Comparing 12 candidate keystone constructs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 575–585. doi:10.1177/0146167215573211
  99. Shum, D., O’Gorman, J., Myors, B., & Creed, P. (2013). Psychological testing and assessment (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  100. Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200.
  101. Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., … Harney, P (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual‐differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570–585.
  102. Spence, G. (2015). Workplace wellbeing programs: If you build it they may NOT come … because it’s not what they really need! International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(2), 109–124.
  103. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
  104. Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Conceptual and methodological issues in anxiety research. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research (pp. 481–492). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  105. Spitzer, R., Kroenke, K., Williams, J., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD‐7. Internal Medicine, 166, 1092–1097.
  106. Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The Work as Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 322–337. doi:10.1177/1069072711436160
  107. Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Shim, Y. (in press). Assessing meaning and satisfaction at work. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology assessment (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  108. Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80–93.
  109. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris, France. Retrieved from http://www.stiglitzsen‐fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm
  110. Stones, M. J., Kozma, A., Hirdes, J., Gold, D., Arbuckle, T., & Kolopack, P. (1996). Short Happiness and Affect Research Protocol (SHARP). Social Indicators Research, 37, 75–91.
  111. Tennant, R., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., & Stewart‐Brown, S. (2006). Monitoring positive mental health in Scotland: Validating the Affectometer 2 scale and developing the Warwick‐Edinburgh Mental Well‐being Scale for the UK. Edinburgh, Scotland: NHS Health Scotland.
  112. Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, P., Joseph, S., Weich, S., … Stewart‐Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick‐Edinburgh Mental Well‐being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(63), 1–13.
  113. Totterdell, P., Kellett, S., Teuchmann, K., & Briner, R. R. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1504–1515.
  114. Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job‐related Affective Well‐being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219–230.
  115. Waddell, G., & Burton, A. K. (2006). Is work good for your health and well‐being? London, UK: The Stationery Office.
  116. Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Mullarkey, S. (1995). Further evidence on some new measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 431–455.
  117. Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–223.
  118. Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36): Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–83.
  119. Warr, P. B. (2013). How to think about and measure psychological well‐being. In R. R. Sinclair, M. Wang, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Research methods in occupational health psychology (pp. 76–90). New York, NY: Routledge.
  120. Warr, P. B., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well‐being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129–148.
  121. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegan, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
  122. Weijers, D., & Jarden, A. (2013). The science of happiness for policymakers: An overview. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 4(2), 21–40.
  123. WHOQOL Group (1998). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL‐BREF Quality of Life Assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551–558.
  124. Wrzesniewski, A. (2014). Engage in job crafting. In Jane Dutton and Gretchen Spreitzer (Eds.), How to be a positive leader: Insights from leading thinkers on positive organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler.

Notes