Kamlesh Singh and Mohita Junnarkar
Globally about a billion people work in information technology (IT), however the sector still faces a shortfall of employees (Young, Marriott, & Huntley, 2008). India has established itself as the premier and de facto location for offshoring activities (National Association of Software and Service Companies and McKinsey & Company, 2005) and its booming IT industries have contributed to the rapid growth of the country’s economy since 1990. In 2006, India captured two thirds of the market share in IT development, maintenance, and support. The remaining market was shared by other countries such as Canada, Ireland, China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Brazil (Tholons Inc., 2006). Global changes and new managerial challenges have motivated organizational researchers to focus on employees’ health (physical and mental) and well‐being for further investigation.
Employees in many parts of the sector, particularly in the developing economies, face long working hours (up to 14 hours a day; Santhi & Sundar, 2012), which leads to physical health issues such as sleeping disorders, voice loss, ear problems, digestive disorders, sight problems (Kamp, 1992), and psychological distress (Guna Seelan & Ismail, 2008). Employees strive hard to achieve success and organizational objectives, and this affects their physical health, and social and psychological well‐being. The dynamic nature of the industry affects employees’ well‐being through job insecurity and increase in stress levels (Fatimah, Noraisha, Nair, & Khairuddin, 2012).
The empirical evidence indicates that IT employees face mental health and well‐being concerns, which are presented in five sections in this chapter. The first section discusses the theoretical construct of well‐being and different allied models such as quality of life, job/career satisfaction, and job/career commitment. Secondly, the chapter establishes the linkages between well‐being and different job‐related factors such as self‐efficacy, motivation to work, quality of work life, and work–home balance. The third section deliberates the factors that affect, correlate, and predict the well‐being outcomes of IT employees, and the fourth section discusses different initiatives that have positively enhanced well‐being among IT employees. The penultimate section of the chapter considers the future research agenda for this area, followed by a short conclusion.
In recent years, understanding and exploring the well‐being (psychological, social, and emotional) of different sections of society has become a central focus of positive psychology research with the aim of enhancing people’s lives (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999; Linley, Maltby, Wood, Osborne, & Hurling, 2009). The term well‐being represents a broader biopsychosocial construct that includes physical, mental, and social well‐being, and it is more than the mere avoidance of becoming physically sick (Tehrani, Humpage, Willmott, & Haslam, 2011). Well‐being has been defined in several ways such as “ability to fulfil goals” (Foresight Mental Capital and Well‐being Project, 2008), “happiness” (Pollard & Lee, 2003), and “life satisfaction” (Diener & Suh, 1998; Seligman, 2002).
Research on well‐being is based on two theoretical approaches. The hedonic tradition is focused on feelings of happiness, and the eudaimonic tradition emphasizes optimal functioning in individual and social life. The conceptualization of well‐being characterizing the hedonic tradition is also known as subjective well‐being, comprising the predominance of positive emotions compared to negative ones (hedonic balance) and cognitive judgment about one’s life satisfaction (Diener, et al., 1999; Linley et al., 2009). The eudaimonic tradition encompasses several constructs. The most prominent one is known as psychological well‐being. It was initially conceptualized by Ryff (1989) based on the work of humanistic and lifespan psychologists such as Carl Jung, Abraham Maslow, Gordon Allport, Carl Rogers, and Erik Erikson (Lamers, Westerhof, Bohlmeijer, Klooster, & Keyes, 2011). It includes six dimensions: self‐acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, positive relations with others, autonomy, and environmental mastery. Psychological well‐being reflects the challenges that individuals encounter as they strive to achieve an optimal level of functioning. Keyes (2002) stated that, when both these traditions of well‐being converge, mental health can be globally defined as the presence of emotional, psychological, and social well‐being. This definition is in accordance with the definition of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2004). According to WHO, mental health is “a state of well‐being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully and is able to make a contribution to his or her community” (WHO, 2004, p. 12). The definition consists of three core components, namely: well‐being, effective functioning in individual life, and effective functioning in community life.
Positive psychology has promoted a shift of focus from negative aspects or what is wrong with people, to positive aspects or what is right with people. Keyes (2005, 2007) proposed a mental health model by analogy with the mental illness model, consisting of a syndrome of symptoms. He also used the term diagnosis to identify mental health categories such as flourishing, moderate mental health, and languishing (Keyes, 2005). In a similar vein, Seligman (2002) indicated three elements of well‐being: pleasure, engagement, and meaning. The recent development of this theory decomposes the construct of well‐being into five elements which are essential for people to experience lasting happiness, namely: positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment (PERMA; Seligman, 2011).
The application of these positive psychology theories in the work domain led to the development of positive organizational behavior (POB) research, aimed at enhancing the knowledge and investigating the intervention potentials of psychological resources such as hope (Snyder, 2002), resilience (Masten, 2001), optimism (Seligman, 1998), and self‐efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Studies in POB research have led to the identification of a higher‐order factor comprising the four components mentioned above, and labeled Psychological Capital (PsyCap; Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Larson, Norman, Hughes, & Avey, 2013).
Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio (2007, p. 10) defined PsyCap as:
an individual’s positive psychological state of development … characterized by (1) having confidence (self‐efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope); and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success.
A meta‐analytic study highlighted that PsyCap was positively correlated with desirable employee attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and psychological well‐being), desirable employee behaviors (citizenship), and multiple measures of performance (evaluated by the person, the supervisors, and through objective indicators). In contrast, it was negatively correlated with undesirable employee attitudes (cynicism, turnover intentions, job stress, and anxiety) and undesirable employee behaviors (deviance; Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011).
The quality of life model encompasses satisfaction with life and health, social relationships, psychological well‐being, physical health, and environmental health (WHO, 1996; Skevington, 2001). This model has been extended to the working class. Quality of work life (QoWL) is the level of happiness or satisfaction with one’s career. It also encompasses a relationship between employees and the total working environment that promotes the growth of employees along with organizational growth (Pugalendhi, Umaselvi, & Senthil, 2011; Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013a, b). Guna Seelan and Ismail (2008) stated that QoWL is a multidimensional construct that is closely associated with job satisfaction, job involvement, motivation, productivity, health, safety and well‐being, job security, competence development, and balance between work and nonwork life. The absence of QoWL results in job dissatisfaction. The QoWL construct considers that people are trustworthy, responsible, and capable of making a valuable contribution to their organization, and that they treat other people too with respect (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b).
The UK’s Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2006) stated that well‐being at work means creating an environment in the workplace to promote a state of contentment for employees to flourish and achieve their full potential for the benefit of themselves and their organization (Tehrani et al., 2011). According to Easton and Van Laar (2013), well‐being is conceptualized as influencing and being influenced by work. Well‐being is also conceptualized as a person’s overall subjective feeling of good or bad. The spectrum covers a range from positive feelings – such as pleased, satisfied, happy, energetic – to negative feelings – such as sad, depressed, stressed, and anxious (Bogdanova, Enfors, & Namovska, 2008; Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b).
Physically and mentally healthy employees are more likely to engage in work and contribute more at work. Employee engagement is observed to influence employee turnover and absence. Well‐being at work entails managing the physical and cultural environment and employees’ needs to achieve the optimum level of physical, mental, social, intellectual, and spiritual potential. Therefore, organizations need to actively assist employees to enhance their physical and mental health. The promotion of well‐being as a subjective experience involves practical measures such as the introduction of healthy food, gym facilities at the workplace, and organizing workshops for new employees so that organizational values and beliefs and the individual’s values and beliefs match. Employee well‐being needs to be embedded in the day‐to‐day business of the organization, (Tehrani et al., 2011). The Canadian Centre for Management Development (2002) stated that employee well‐being involves maintaining a healthy body by making healthy lifestyle choices with respect to diet, exercise and leisure, and developing an attitude that will enable employees to enhance self‐confidence and self‐respect, to become emotionally resilient, to develop a sense of purpose, fulfillment, and meaning, to possess an active mind that is alert, open to new ideas and experiences, curious and creative, and to possess a network of supportive and nurturing relationships.
Tehrani et al. (2011) mentioned that well‐being at work consists of five domains: physical, values, personal development, emotional, and work/organization, each with its own elements as illustrated in Table 25.1.
Table 25.1 Five domains and elements of well‐being.
Source: Based on Tehrani et al. (2011).
| Domain | Elements |
| Physical | Physical health, mental health, working environment, physical safety, and accommodation |
| Values | Ethical standards, diversity, psychological contract, and spiritual expression |
| Personal development | Autonomy, career development, lifelong learning, and creativity |
| Emotional | Positive relationships, resilience, emotional intelligence, and social responsibility |
| Work/organization | Change management, work demands, autonomy, and job security |
Diedericks and Rothmann (2014) investigated flourishing among information technology professionals. They found that flourishing influenced job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior directly as well as indirectly. In addition, job satisfaction strongly affected organizational commitment (positively) and turnover intention (negatively), and had a moderate negative effect on counterproductive work behavior. What was also interesting was that flourishing affected turnover intention indirectly and negatively via organizational commitment. These results indicate that flourishing individuals engage in citizenship behavior – that is, they do things for the organization and other individuals outside of the parameters of their jobs – whereas languishing employees engage in less citizenship behavior.
A high QoWL helps to reduce absenteeism, accidents, and attrition and, on the other hand, it improves production, organizational effectiveness, and employee morale (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Mayo (1960) was the first researcher who used the term ‘quality of work’ in the literature. Subsequently, many researchers have conceptualized and proposed models for QoWL. Hackman and Oldham (1974) suggested that psychological growth is composed of task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback, and it is important for any worthwhile attempt to increase QoWL. On the other hand, Taylor, Cooper, and Mumford (1979) suggested that extrinsic factors, such as wages, hours and working conditions, and intrinsic factors associated with the nature of work, such as employee participation in management, fairness, social support, self‐development and social relevance, formed the different facets of QoWL. Warr, Cook, and Wall (1979) demonstrated correlations between factors such as work involvement and job satisfaction, intrinsic job motivation and job satisfaction, and perceived intrinsic job characteristics and job satisfaction. As the literature and research in this field has grown, a list of possible sub‐factors such as equal employment opportunities, administrative system, work‐role ambiguity, turnover intentions, relevance of training, supervision, job enrichment, equitable pay, flexible work schedules, and integrated socio‐technical systems have also emerged (Cunningham & Eberle, 1990; Katzell, 1983; Mirvis & Lawler, 1984).
Different models such as the transfer model or spillover effect (Kavanagh & Halpern, 1977), the compensation model (Schmitt & Mellon, 1980), the segmentation model (George & Brief, 1990), and the accommodation model (Lambert, 1990) were studied by Martel and Dupuis (2006) and synthesized in a new conceptualization of QoWL. As the research has unfolded in this area, there have been conceptual refinements that have led to the development of the WRQoL (work‐related quality of life) scale. The WRQoL scale seeks to measure the quality of life of employees (Edwards, Webster, Van Laar, & Easton, 2008) through different dimensions such as job and career satisfaction (JCS), general well‐being (GWB), stress at work (SAW), control at work (CAW), home–work interface (HWI), and working conditions (WC). In a research study conducted at the University of Huddersfield, UK, by administering the QoWL questionnaire it was demonstrated that healthy well‐being and low stress levels among staff improve working practices and encourage changes in Human Resources (HR) to improve management (Wolff, 2009).
Motivation too can be hypothesized to affect the quality of work life. Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) proposed a two‐factor theory of motivation. The theory proposes that at work employees have two types of needs: hygiene needs (satisfied by certain conditions called hygiene factors, such as supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, salary, company policies and administrative practices, benefits, and job security) and motivator needs (achievement, recognition, the work task assigned, responsibility, and advancement). Hygiene factors result in a neutral state of satisfaction, and they do not cause satisfaction or dissatisfaction among employees. In contrast, positive motivator factors contribute to positive gains in job satisfaction.
Thus, the well‐being of employees is highly dependent upon their motivation in the work place and their QoWL. However, several factors such as self‐efficacy, work–home balance, social environment, physical health, and psychological environment also affect well‐being. These are discussed in detail in the next section.
Over a period of years, different studies have identified different constructs of QoWL. For instance, Rose, Beh, Uli, and Idris (2006a) stated that career satisfaction, career achievement, and career balance are significant predictors of the career‐related dimensions that affect QoWL. In contrast, in a study of Italian health workers Argentero, Miglioretti, and Angilletta (2007) identified professional relationships, work organization, taking care of patients, professional ability, and professional growth as indicators of QoWL, putting significant emphasis on professional relationships. Reddy and Reddy (2010) suggested health and well‐being, job security, job satisfaction, competence development, and balance between work and nonwork life as emerging dimensions of QoWL. Several research studies have employed Walton’s eight major conceptual categories: adequate and fair compensation, safe and healthy working conditions, immediate opportunity to use and develop human capacities, opportunity for continued growth and security, social integration in the work organization, constitutionalism in the work organization, work and total life space, and social relevance of work life relating to QoWL (Bolhari, Rezaeean, Bolhari, Bairamzadeh, & Soltan, 2011; Sofi, Razzaghi & Hajelo, 2012; Tabassum, 2012). Swapna and Gomathi (2013) proposed six dimensions for QoWL: job and career satisfaction, working conditions, general well‐being, home–work interface/work–life balance, career prospects and compensation, and training development.
Vijaimadhavan and Raju (2013b) undertook an extensive study to identify the factors which influence the quality of the work life of IT professionals. The results of the study indicated that job satisfaction (employee relationships, work nature, job autonomy, and job security), working conditions (work environment, social environment, and psychological environment), general well‐being (physical health, depressive symptoms, and work stress), work–life balance (work to family interference and family to work interference), career prospects and compensation (motivation, career satisfaction, interpersonal communication, and efforts by employer), and training and development (training specified to job purpose and self‐efficacy) were the components of QoWL. The different dimensions of QoWL are discussed in further detail below.
Employee relationship is correlated with job purpose, job autonomy, work nature, job security, self‐efficacy, social environment, motivation, career satisfaction, and efforts by the employer (Erwee, 1990; Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Zhang and Huang (2013) stated that close interpersonal relations with managers make subordinates more productive and more willing to accept and give feedback. Interpersonal relationships facilitate developing and maintaining smooth group work, whereas the lack of interpersonal harmony hinders teamwork that requires contribution from all members to achieve organizational objectives.
Work nature is positively correlated with job autonomy, job security, social environment, training specified to job purpose, motivation, career satisfaction, self‐efficacy, efforts by the employer, interpersonal communication, physical health, work environment, family to work interference and work to family interference (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Similarly, Erwee (1990) found that the nature of the work had a significant influence on job autonomy. Warr (2010) too reported a positive relationship between job autonomy, job security, specific job purpose competencies, self‐efficacy, and work nature.
Job autonomy shows a high and positive correlation with job security, motivation, social environment, career satisfaction, training specified to job purpose, interpersonal communication, self‐efficacy, and efforts by the employer, whereas positive moderate correlations were observed with physical health, work environment, and family to work environment. In contrast, a negative correlation was observed between job autonomy and depressive symptoms and work stress (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Holz‐Clause, Koundinya, Nancy, and Borich (2012) found that job autonomy and control significantly contribute to sustaining and improving employee contribution to the organization, and job autonomy is also essential for creating a supportive work environment.
Job security is positively correlated with social environment, motivation, career satisfaction, interpersonal communication, training specified to job purpose, efforts by the employer, self‐efficacy, physical health, and work environment, and it is negatively correlated with work stress and depressive symptoms (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Job security, especially in the case of women employees, depends on the social environment that includes exposure to and action against harassment, and the issue of giving up leisure time or other activities for work. Sinha (2012) states that even though employers are unable to promise job security, they can aid in maintaining and enhancing the skills that are essential for the job market. It can be noted that job security has a greater impact on the job autonomy of IT professionals. Job security comprises job tenure and the fear of losing one’s job. Erwee (1990) too reported a relationship between job security and job autonomy among women employees.
Work environment was correlated positively and moderately with family–work interference, depressive symptoms, physical health, work–family interference, work stress, job purpose‐focused training, social environment, self‐efficacy, efforts by the employer, motivation, career satisfaction, and interpersonal communication. However, a negative correlation was noted between work environment and psychological environment (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Bogdanova et al. (2008) demonstrated that job performance influenced the work environment. Kiriago and Bwisa (2013), in a study on work environment and its effect on quality of life, demonstrated that poor safety, physical health, work pressure or stress, and provision of inadequate working tools are the environmental aspects that bring about experiences of poor QoWL.
Social environment is positively correlated with job purpose‐focused training, motivation, career satisfaction, self‐efficacy, efforts by the employer, interpersonal communication, physical health, family–work interference, and work–family interference, and negatively correlated with the social environment and psychological environment (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Such correlations indicate that the work‐based identity of the collective labor force has an indirect and significant impact on organizational performance. Ahmad (2011) stated that higher satisfaction and performance of the subordinate depend upon the superior–subordinate relationship, supporting the positive correlation between social environment and training specified to job purpose.
Psychological environment is the set of work environment characteristics that affect how the worker feels, thinks, and behaves (Briner, 2000). Psychological environment was found to be significantly correlated with work–family interference, family–work interference, work stress, depressive symptoms, physical health, job purpose‐focused training, motivation, and self‐efficacy (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Healthy occupations and workplaces contribute to individual’s physical, psychological, and social well‐being through benefits such as higher levels of satisfaction, and lowers level of absenteeism and health issues. At the same time, they allow the organization to reduce its turnover and improve employees’ job performance (Graham, 2005).
Physical health is one of the most important factors that enhance well‐being. Sickness absence rates across sectors are remarkable. In 2013, in the sectors of finance, banking, and insurance, it was estimated that over a 3‐month period, sickness absence accounted for 6.1, 7.4, and 7.4 days per employee respectively. Hence, even the proverb “Health is wealth” proves that physical health is important for employees’ contribution to an organization. Employees’ physical health has an impact on company turnover and customer relations. Physical health is moderately yet significantly correlated with family–work interference, training specified to job purpose, work–family interference, motivation, depressive symptoms, efforts by the employer, self‐efficacy, interpersonal communication, work stress, and career satisfaction (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). However, contradictory findings were reported in other studies (Beutell, 2010), showing a negative correlation between physical health and family–work interference.
Depressive symptoms are positively correlated with work stress, work–family interference, and family–work interference, but negatively correlated with career satisfaction, interpersonal communication, and efforts by the employer (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Stress is related to a wide variety of health‐related problems including anxiety, headaches, depression, influenza, coronary disease, and substance abuse (De Bruin, 2006). In a survey, IT employees reported that they experienced minor health problems (such as sleep problems) that affected their work performance, stress, inability to achieve a work–family balance, inability to overcome difficulties, and depression (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b).
Work stress is defined as “a situation wherein job‐related factors interact with the worker to change (i.e. disrupt or enhance) his or her psychological and/or physiological condition such that the person (i.e. mind–body) is forced to deviate from normal functioning” (Newman & Beehr, 1979, pp. 1–2). Ivancevich and Matteson (1980) defined job stress as “an adaptive response, mediated by individual differences and/or psychological processes, that is a consequence of any external (environmental) action, situation, or event that places excessive psychological and/or physical demands upon a person” (pp. 24–25). Finally, the European Commission (1999) defined work‐related stress as “the emotional, cognitive, behavioural and physiological reaction to aversive and noxious aspects of work, work environments and work organizations. It is characterised by high levels of arousal and distress and often by feelings of not coping” (quoted in Levi, 2002, pp. 5). The definition of work‐/job‐related stress illuminates that stress, as an emotional, cognitive and behavioral response to an event, is highly influenced by a person’s adaptive strategies (Sugumar, Kumaran, Raj, & Xavier, 2013). The multiple roles played by an individual in family, work, and community often create conflicting demands and expectations. It can be hypothesized that work stress would follow the law of optimal arousal (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). This law states that performance increases with physiological or mental arousal up to an optimal point; when the levels of arousal further increase beyond this point, performance decreases. This relationship is represented through an inverted‐U‐shaped curve. The law finds its application in the context of work stress. A certain level of stress would bring out work efficiency in an employee, but at the same time if the employee’s stress crosses his or her optimal threshold level, then work efficiency is likely to decline. Pai, Yeh, and Huang (2012) stated that 40% of IT employees were worried about job security and experienced higher stress levels at work, engaging in long working hours. Moreover, work stress adversely affects the professional commitment of employees. The stress levels were also seen to be higher in females as compared to males. Stress is inversely correlated to work–family interference and family–work interference (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). A study conducted among African employees highlighted that respondents aged 26–30 faced stress related to work, behavior, and health, and reported the highest level of stress compared to other age groups, whereas respondents aged 31–35 faced high levels of psychological stress (Sugumar et al., 2013). Gender differences were observed as well; while males reported higher levels of overall stress, females had high levels of psychological stress. In another study, it was observed that inactive participation in the stage of process change caused stress and strain on IT employees and reduced their satisfaction levels (Korunka & Vitouch, 1999). Qualitative data in the form of in‐depth interviews confirmed the exposure of IT professionals to a huge amount of work stress that arises from heavy workload, inadequate staffing, role ambiguity which affects their family life, time pressure, role conflict, and a high attrition rate. The employees’ coping strategies included involving themselves in some form of recreation that is personally enjoyable or rewarding (Dhar & Dhar, 2010).
Work–family interference positively correlates with family–work interference, training specified to job purpose, motivation, self‐efficacy, interpersonal communication, and efforts by the employer (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Work–family and family–work interference is strongly associated with job demands. Another aspect related to this factor is work–life balance, that refers to setting priorities between “work” (career and ambition) on the one hand and “life” (pleasure, leisure, family, and spiritual development) on the other (Santhi & Sundar, 2012). This balance affects employees’ attitudes toward their organization and, when achieved to an optimum level, it can enhance their performance at work and at home. As specifically concerns women working in the IT sector, their work–life balance is affected by several factors, such as support system, child care facilities, benefits, relocation, working hours, recreation, and job environment (Santhi & Sundar, 2012).
Family–work interference is correlated positively with specific job purpose‐focused training, self‐efficacy, motivation, and interpersonal communication (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Especially among female employees, high levels of home pressure, negative feelings, and a lack of autonomy at home were found to affect their work domain (Van Aarde & Mostert, 2008). The energy drained at the workplace does not get replenished at home, giving rise to a vicious cycle of allostatic load.
Motivation is positively correlated with career satisfaction, job purpose‐focused training, employer efforts, interpersonal communication, and self‐efficacy (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b), and it strongly contributes to achieving career satisfaction (Adnan & Mubarak, 2010).
Career satisfaction consists of the individual’s comparison between his or her career and life expectations and those offered by the work context (Rose, Beh, Uli, & Idris, 2006b). It is significantly and positively correlated with interpersonal communication, training specified to job purpose, efforts by the employer, self‐efficacy (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b), and professional commitment (Pai et al., 2012). Supervisors who have a clear vision and facilitate the acceptance of group goals foster employees’ career satisfaction, at the same time enhancing the quality of the relationship between supervisor and employee (Adnan & Mubarak, 2010). Incentives and positive rewards enhance employees’ career growth and compensation, as well as supervisors’ satisfaction. However, in the case of poor performance, the same factors that enhance career satisfaction may reduce it (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Career satisfaction is considered an indicator of career commitment and turnover among information centers’ personnel (Gupta, Guimaraes, & Raghunathan, 1992).
Career commitment is the degree to which someone identifies with and values his or her profession or vocation (Blau & Lunz, 1998). It comprises three components: affective, normative, and continuance commitment (Cho & Huang, 2012). IT professionals need to develop sophisticated expertise that requires them to be constantly devoted to the related activities for a long period of time. Individuals who possess a high career commitment tend to show less intention of leaving their jobs, and they spend more time in developing skills that are reflected in better performance (Wright & Bonett, 2002). However, in the IT sector it is not very easy for employees to commit to their career. Work exhaustion and stress, unexpected ever‐changing user demands, unrealistic deadlines, and struggling to keep up with ever‐advancing technology are common experiences among IT professionals; these sources of pressure and uncertainty make job commitment difficult (Major, Morganson, & Bolen, 2013; Shih, Jiang, Klein, & Wang, 2013). Shropshire and Kadlec (2012) reported that IT employees who suffer from stress or burnout, or are concerned about the security of their jobs, are more likely to consider a career change. Career commitment is also positively related to job satisfaction (Duffy, Dik, & Steger, 2011; Reid, Riemenschneider, Allen, & Armstrong, 2008) and job involvement (Reid et al., 2008). Fu and Chen (2015) confirmed previous results showing that IT professionals’ career commitment is determined by career satisfaction. Loh, Sankar, and Yeong (1995) demonstrated that the relationship between technical orientation and job satisfaction was mediated by professionals’ job perception (occupation fairness, occupational advancement prospects, organizational progressiveness posture, and organizational cohesiveness). Among Pakistani IT professionals, it was observed that employees’ professional compensation, training and development, and supervisor support were significantly correlated with organizational and career commitment (Naqvi & Bashir, 2015).
Interpersonal communication refers to the quality of interaction and relationships, as well as the employer’s efforts toward employees. Conflicts in interpersonal communication may cause lose–lose situations and barriers to global success (Zhang & Huang, 2013). A positive correlation was identified between interpersonal communication and interpersonal relationships, and interpersonal communication and efforts by the employer, specific job purpose‐focused training, and self‐efficacy (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b).
Efforts by the employer were found to correlate positively with training specified to job purpose and self‐efficacy (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Additional efforts by employers in terms of on‐the‐job training were shown to influence employees’ wage growth and job performance. These results suggest that training efforts undertaken by employers have a positive impact on the job.
Self‐efficacy refers to an individual’s belief that he or she is capable of performing a task. Self‐efficacy is the foundation and motive power in producing and increasing the autonomy of working motivation, and it plays an important role in enhancing human performance (Paraskeva, Mysirlaki, & Choustoulakis, 2009). Although high self‐efficacy may lead to high motivation in positive and negative ways, low self‐efficacy always leads to low motivation. Higher levels of self‐efficacy lead to higher levels of confidence to succeed in a task. Self‐efficacious employees are more likely to take efforts to complete a task and will engage in the task for a longer time (Hees, Koeter, de Vries, Ooteman, & Schene, 2010). Individuals who lack self‐efficacy in difficult situations are more likely to lessen their effort or give up altogether, while those with high self‐efficacy will try harder to master the challenge. Furthermore, it was observed that specific job purpose training was found to be positively correlated with self‐efficacy that represents one’s own perceived ability to complete tasks and reach goals (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013b). Employees’ self‐efficacy and level of education play a key role in how employees discharge their duties and responsibilities, and they also affect employees’ QoWL (Mensah & Lebbaeus, 2013).
Well‐being initiatives targeted at employees aim to lower negative well‐being facets such as stress, depression, and anxiety, and enhance positive well‐being dimensions such as quality of life, social relationships, social well‐being, psychological well‐being, emotional well‐being, physical health, environmental health, self‐efficacy, interpersonal communication, and so on. Following Kerr and Boyd (2012), Vijaimadhavan and Raju (2013a) suggested that well‐being initiatives could be classified into four categories: HR policy, training programs, corporate social responsibility, and health promotion.
HR policy consists of initiatives aimed at promoting workers’ well‐being through health and safety improvement measures, career development and talent management, career breaks, flexible working, special leave and child care vouchers, and welfare support services. These initiatives include providing equal opportunities for people with disabilities, preventing bullying and harassment, managing attendance and performance, and conducting staff attitude surveys and stress surveys (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013a).
Training programs include first aid, time management, stress awareness management, assertiveness, people management, leadership development, managing attendance, coaching and mentoring, change management, conflict management, and team building (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013a).
Health promotion includes events and seminars providing information on health promotion, as well as interventions to improve the safety and hygiene of workplaces, and to build exercise or gym spaces (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013a). Sharma and Majumdar (2010) conducted a study showing that to decrease the ailments caused by occupational postures, employees should avoid sitting for long hours, take frequent breaks for walking and stretching, and involve themselves in physical activity.
Corporate social responsibility includes community outreach, blood donation, charitable fundraising, recycling, family days, and sporting events (Vijaimadhavan & Raju, 2013a).
The intervention strategies primarily aim to reduce employees’ stress and increase their productivity. The productivity of employees is dependent on their psychosocial well‐being. Stress, as reviewed earlier, has adverse effects on employees’ physical health, work performance, social life, and relationships with co‐workers and family members. Stressors and their consequences need to be understood at both the individual and organizational levels. Since workplace stress incidence is highly common among employees, organizations should undertake initiatives to prevent stress, as well as to train employees through stress reduction techniques. An extensive review article (Deshpande, 2012) highlighted the potential of yoga, meditation, and soothing humor as an antidote to workplace stress. The major outcome of the review was that work‐related stressors (interpersonal, role‐related, task‐control related, and derived from organizational‐physical environment), nonwork stressors (time‐based, strain‐based, role‐based, etc.), and individual differences (health, knowledge skills, coping skills, resilience, and work holism) caused stress which was exhibited in the form of physiological problems (heart disease, ulcers, high blood pressure, headaches, sleep disturbance, and increased illness), psychological problems (job dissatisfaction, low commitment, exhaustion, depression, moodiness, and burnout), and behavioral problems (low job performance, more accidents, faulty decisions, higher absenteeism, workplace aggression, and turnover). The practice of coping strategies like yoga, meditation, and soothing behavior at individual and organizational levels benefited the organization by having stress‐free employees who could perform better and work harder, were happier than before, and gave long‐term commitment to the organization as compared to their counterparts who did not adopt these techniques. Findings showed that yoga, meditation, and soothing behavior promoted feelings of euphoria, tranquility and relaxation, delay in the aging process, increased energy levels, reduced fatigue, decreased anxiety and depression, and improved learning ability and memory among the employees.
Mental health programs aim to reduce stress in the workplace, improve working conditions, and build resilience. Work‐based health promotion intervention programs have reduced depression and anxiety among employees. Some of the mental health intervention programs in organizations focus on increasing physical activity, reducing work stress through problem‐solving techniques and changes to the work environment, motivational interviewing, improving knowledge in respect of mental health, counseling, and meditation. These interventions bring about positive effects on mental well‐being, and contribute to reducing depression and anxiety among employees (City of London Corporation, 2014).
The different well‐being initiatives devised by researchers for companies highlight that flexibility, individuality, shared benefits, accountability, values at the workplace (honesty, trust, openness, and justice), positive and open two‐way communication, and work with fun and excitement enhance employees’ well‐being. Well‐being does not require big actions or steps to be undertaken by organizations, but small steps based on the holistic approach of catering to the mental, emotional, social, and physical health of employees. When organizational well‐being initiatives are translated into expected behavior and actions from the top management of the organization, they are valued and rewarded more by all employees.
The current research on the well‐being of IT employees focuses on work‐related quality of life, stress, organizational climate, job satisfaction, career satisfaction, self‐efficacy, work–home balance, social environment, physical health, and psychological environment. As discussed earlier, various models of well‐being exist but the work‐related quality of life model is extensively researched. However, there is a scarcity of research using recently developed models such as the Mental Health Continuum (MHC) and PERMA in measuring employees’ well‐being. Future studies need to explore these models of well‐being in the IT sector, and to identify correlates and predictors of employees’ well‐being at the individual, work, and organization levels. Some of the key research gaps in this area are listed below.
Guna Seelan and Ismail (2008) stated that an unstrained work environment ensures good health and psychological conditions that enable employees to perform job‐related and non‐job‐related functions without inhibitions, thus leading to a less stressful work environment. A healthy lifestyle can help to combat stress, depression, and anxiety through a proper balanced diet, physical activity, and attunement with one’s biological clock. Vijaimadhavan and Raju (2013b) suggested the relevance of good sleep to employees’ health, productivity, and safety. Altogether, from the above review it can be concluded that a variety of factors, ranging from work environment to organizational climate and work–family balance, play an important role in promoting well‐being and/or reducing stress in an employee. However, future research with more scientific rigor and exploration of new well‐being models would allow us to better delve into this complex issue, and design intervention strategies that may enhance the mental health and well‐being of IT employees.