human resources7
letsgo!
Well-beingintheworkplace.pdf
EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Well-being in the workplace through interaction between individual characteristics and organizational context
GIANLUCA BIGGIO, Professor1 & CLAUDIO G. CORTESE, PhD Professor2
1Department of Communication Sciences, University of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy and 2Department of Psychology, University of
Turin, Turin, Italy
Abstract Well-being in the workplace is considered by many authors to be the outcome of the interaction between individual characteristics and those of the working and organizational environment. This study aims to understand the significance attributed to the concept of well-being in the workplace by employees, its influencing factors, and, among those, the role of individual psychological characteristics. The research was conducted on a sample of 72 employees using a qualitative approach based on focus groups and individual interviews. Data analysis was performed by a paper and pencil technique. The focus groups and interviews collected 628 statements, which were divided into three main areas: meaning of well-being in the workplace (248), any kind factors that affect well-being in the workplace (158), and individual characteristics that affect well-being in the workplace (222). The individual characteristics identified by the participants as capable of influencing well-being in the workplace include being positive, communication, management of difficulties and conflicts, socio-emotional skills, and values. The research was limited by the participants involved and by the sole use of the paper and pencil technique of data analysis. Results highlight that well-being in the workplace does not depend exclusively on external conditions in terms of the working and organizational environment within which the individual operates: so, it could be promoted not only from above, through actions by management, but also from below, influencing individual traits and behaviours. Results would be useful for developing training, workplace counselling, and organizational development activities aimed to support small groups, leaders, and other strategic players in the construction of the subsystems of well- being in the workplace.
Key words: Communication, emotion in organizations, employee attitudes, organizational behaviour, organizational
psychology, organizational well-being, personality, work environment
(Accepted: 22 December 2012; Published: 18 February 2013)
The theme of well-being in the working environment
can be observed from a particular point of view,
stemming from which well-being itself is recogniz-
able as the result of interaction between the char-
acteristics of the individual and those of the working
context. In other words, contrary to the assumption
according to which well-being in the workplace
depends exclusively on external conditions in terms
of the working and organizational environment
within which the individual operates (Burke, 1993;
Guest, 2002; Lawson, Noblet, & Rodwell, 2009),
the point of view referred to suggests that individual
characteristics can play an active part in the devel-
opment of well-being.
Exploring the views of the authors who have dealt
with well-being as a result of the interaction between
subjective factors and characteristics of the work-
place, it is possible to recognize a common root in
interactional theories, which considers a person� organization fit as being crucial in generating well-
being (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Cable & Judge,
1996; Mininni, Manuti, Scardigno, & Rubino,
2010), and three main aspects of study in which
this general approach has declined: the study of
job satisfaction, positive emotions, and relational
interaction.
Job satisfaction
An initial approach, which has permitted the analysis
of the relationship between well-being in the
workplace and subjectivity, was the study of job
(page number not for citation purpose)
Correspondence: Claudio G. Cortese, Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università degli Studi di Torino, Via Verdi 10, IT-10124 Torino, Italy. E-mail:
Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being
#2013 G. Biggio & C. G. Cortese. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial
3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013, 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823
satisfaction (Harris, Daniels, & Briner, 2003;
Judge, Heller, & Klinger, 2008; Ter Doest, Maes,
Gebhardt, & Koelewijn, 2006). According to Harter,
Schmidt, and Keyes (2003), two lines of research
characterize this approach. The first is connected to
the theory of the person�environment fit (French,
Caplan, & Van Harrison, 1982), in which well-being
is connected to the presence of appropriate requests
to the individual by the organization. A second line of
research*the closest to our hypothesis*relates the
performance and the quality of life of people with
the presence of positive emotional states and satisfy-
ing relationships within the work environment (Isen,
1987; Warr, 1999). When their environment en-
courages people to seek out challenging or significant
tasks, according to Csikszentmihályi (1997), optimal
conditions exist for mutual well-being between
individuals and the work environment. The assump-
tion in this method of framing the problem is that
well-being in the workplace is related to job satisfac-
tion, and this, in turn, is stimulated by the subjective
ability to find a positive personal equilibrium within
organizational interaction.
Brunstein, Schultheiss, and Grässmann (1998)
emphasize the importance of the willingness to
define suitable personal objectives (goals) with the
scope of encouraging personal well-being. However,
the subjective capacity to establish a satisfactory
psychological contract with the organizational en-
vironment seems to be linked with well-being in the
workplace (Guest & Conway, 2002); according to
these authors, in fact, the psychological contract that
people are able to subjectively maintain has become
a formula widely used in research and has pro-
ven useful to explain many employees’ behaviours,
including attitudes towards health and well-being.
Positive emotions
A second way of viewing the relationship between
individual characteristics and well-being in work
settings has as its cornerstone, the hypothesis that
positive emotions generate well-being (De Neve &
Copper, 1998; Fineman, 2006; Hochwarter &
Thompson, 2010; Linley, Harrington, & Garcea,
2010). Assuming that interaction between a person’s
subjective aspects and the organization can have posi-
tive outcomes (O’Brien-Wood, 2001), we can make
reference to ample documentation that examines the
issue of self-confidence as a resource both for the
well-being of the individual and the organization
(Pierce & Gardner, 2004; Zapf, 2002).
Di Nuovo and Zanchi (2008) confirm that
employee participation in the company’s mission,
positive emotions, emotional climate, and the
sense of belonging within the organization are
interdependent. Other authors (Feldt, Mäkikangas,
& Aunola, 2006; Kalimo, Pahkin, & Mutanen, 2002;
Pulkkinen, Feldt, & Kokko, 2006), referring to the
theory of control of the emotions (Gross, 1998,
2006), highlight how emotional control based on a
sense of coherence, optimism, and self-esteem plays
a developmental role with respect to a series of social
interactions, including work. Their longitudinal
studies on emotive control have found that positive
emotions in adolescence have a beneficial effect on
scholastic and subsequent workplace integration.
Custers and Aarts (2005) argue that positive
affection plays a key role as a motivator in the
unconscious disposition towards the pursuance of
objectives, thereby contributing to a better relation-
ship with the working environment, as reported on
the relationship between job satisfaction and well-
being by Wright, Cropanzano, and Bonett (2007).
An additional contribution to the hypothesis of
positive emotions as generators of well-being in the
workplace comes from the cultural analysis of
Alvesson and Willmott (2002): their study under-
lines how a sense of internal coherence and a positive
self-regard are factors which facilitate a positive
process of organizational control, resulting in an
improvement in the climate of the working environ-
ment. Another perspective on positive emotions is
also underlined by the American school of counsel-
ling. Beginning with the social learning theory
(Bandura, 1986), counselling has developed a vision
of social and cognitive satisfaction within scholastic
contexts and later in the employment context. These
authors provide a theoretical perspective that shows
the integration between cognitive, social, and per-
sonality variables, the latter related to the tendency
to express positive emotions, as being effective in
promoting well-being within specific areas of life
such as work and school (Lent, 2004, 2008; Lent &
Brown, 2006; Sheu & Lent, 2009). Furthermore,
Lent and Fouad (2011) also support a correlation
between positive emotions which are present in the
self and an appropriate cognitive and social devel-
opment of the individual.
Relational interaction
A third approach that theorizes the possibility of
an individual to generate well-being in the work-
place is connected with the study of interpersonal
skills (Bambacas & Patrickson, 2008; Fligstein,
1997; Purkiss, Rossi, Glendon, Thompson, &
Myors, 2008) and especially with the attitude to-
wards extroversion and active relational interaction.
Kamdar and Van Dyne (2007) have observed that
social exchange supported by sociability produces
effects of organizational citizenship, improving
G. Biggio & C. G. Cortese
2 (page number not for citation purpose)
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823
employees’ performance of tasks. Ryan and Deci
(2000) have verified that the innate psychological
needs for competence, autonomy, and openness
in relationships, if met, will provide greater self-
motivation and, if obstructed, can lead to a decrease
in motivation and well-being. Butler and Waldroop
(2004) identified four relational dimensions within
the work (influence, interpersonal facilitation, rela-
tional creativity, leadership, and team) highly corre-
lated in creating satisfaction, performance, and
organizational ability at work.
Hughes (2005) reported a study that showed that
extroverts experienced less fatigue and stress at work.
Some authors emphasize the relationship between
the Big Five traits (including extroversion, agreeable-
ness, openness) and psychological well-being (Grant,
Langan-Fox, & Anglim, 2009; Haslam, Whelan, &
Bastian, 2009). As noted previously, individual
psychological well-being may contribute to the wel-
fare of the organization by improving job perfor-
mance and group atmosphere. Kumar, Bakhshi, and
Rani (2009) explore*using the Big Five*the link
between personality and organizational citizenship
behaviours (OCBs), finding that extroversion and
agreeableness in interpersonal relationships support
OCBs.
George and Jones (1997) sustain that extra role
behaviour, such as spontaneity in interpersonal
relationships, helps to create an isomorphic relation-
ship of spontaneity and well-being, including at the
organizational level. According to Ferris, Perrewé,
Anthony, and Gilmore (2000) and Perrewé, Ferris,
Funk, and Anthony (2000) extroversion, open-
ness, respect, confidence, trust, and sincerity are
political skills that will improve relations within the
team by reducing stress in the workplace and are
predictive of ability for success in a wide range of
jobs in highly dynamic organizational environments
that require flexibility.
Openness to emotional expression and the capa-
city to create a playful group identity are connected
to well-being in temporary groups (Terrion &
Ashforth, 2002), while the ability to have open
relationships and express one’s personal character-
istics is seen as a factor in subjective well-being and
at the same time as a factor capable of increasing the
productivity of those who work in social service
organizations (Graham & Shier, 2010, 2011).
Objectives
This research has proposed three different objec-
tives: (a) explore the meaning attributed to the
concept of well-being in the workplace by a group
of employees, (b) identify which factors of any kind
are perceived as capable of influencing well-being
in the workplace, and (c) verify whether individual
characteristics are perceived as capable of influen-
cing well-being in the workplace and which appear
to have greater power to do so.
Method
Procedure
The research, given its descriptive purposes, was
carried out from a qualitative perspective and was
based both on the use of focus groups (Krueger
& Casey, 2000) and semi-structured individual
interviews (Gabriel, 2000; Murray, 2002).
Focus groups, lasting 3 h each, were conducted by
a pair formed of an interviewer and an observer,
using a set of three open-ended questions that
explored the perception of the group in relation
to three aspects: (a) the meaning of well-being in the
workplace (‘‘What does ‘well-being in the in the
workplace’ mean to you? How could you describe
it?’’), (b) the factors that affect well-being in the
workplace (‘‘What are the any kind factors that you
believe can influence the creation of well-being in
the workplace?’’), and (c) the presence of (other)
individual characteristics, besides those mentioned
above, which can affect well-being in the workplace
(‘‘Do you particularly believe individual character-
istics exist that may influence the creation of well-
being in the workplace? If you agree, which are
they?’’).
As can be seen, the second question left the
participants free to indicate, among the factors that
influence well-being in the workplace, both organiza-
tional and individual characteristics, while the third
question led subjects to specifically consider the
characteristics of the individual type. In the event
that this had already been mentioned in the answers
to the second question, the participants were asked
to be more specific and possibly mention others.
If on the other hand such characteristics had not
been mentioned, they were asked if they were
deemed capable of influencing well-being, and*if
affirmative*to specify and describe.
In total, seven focus groups were carried out,
which took place in a meeting room, protected from
external interference, within two organizations.
Individual interviews, lasting an hour and half,
were conducted by a pair composed of an inter-
viewer and an observer using the same questions of
the focus groups. In addition, during the interviews,
the interviewer asked the participants to provide
examples of stories related to events of particular
relevance to their well-being, in order to clarify their
statements. In total, nine individual interviews
were carried out, which took place within a third
Well-being in the workplace
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823 3 (page number not for citation purpose)
organization in a quiet meeting room far from
company operations.
The focus groups and interviews were recorded
and transcribed in full, except for information that
could lead to the recognition of the participants.
Participants gave their informed consent to partici-
pation in the research and were assured anonymity
in the data which emerged. In addition, focus groups
and interviews were made with the consent of the
Human Resources Directors of the three organiza-
tions in which research was conducted and also of
the participants’ managers.
Participants
Sixty-three participants took part in the focus group:
36 employees of the National Health Service (four
focus groups) and 27 employees of a private company
(three focus groups). Nine individual interviews were
carried out with nine employees of a multinational
company. The companies were chosen randomly
within a set of organizations, located in central Italy,
which had expressed their interest, so as to favour the
plurality of working contexts investigated. Manage-
rial roles were excluded and the subjects were
composed of professional employees (e.g., doctors,
nurses, and human resources employees) and team
leaders (e.g., coordinators, personnel administrators,
and corporate project leaders). The socio-demo-
graphic characteristics of the 72 subjects who took
part in the research are shown in Table I.
Data analysis
The content analysis of material collected through
focus groups and interviews was conducted using a
paper and pencil technique. This analysis took place
in three distinct phases: (a) in the first phase, the
perceptions of the meaning of well-being in the
workplace were searched out; (b) in the second
phase, the general perceptions of factors influencing
well-being were searched out; (c) in the third phase,
the perceptions of individual characteristics influen-
cing well-being were searched out. (Kyngas &
Vanhanen, 1999).
Initially, a database of statements relating to each
of the three aspects was created. Each statement was
encoded by identifying the central element in the
classification (e.g., ‘‘reduction of hierarchical bar-
riers’’). The encoding was made independently by
each of the three researchers who participated in the
study. In this way, each researcher had read all of the
material gathered through research. The encodings
of the three researchers were compared in order to
reach a final result. In the event of disagreement, the
case in question was discussed, in order to achieve a
convergence of views.
Various elements emerged (14 for the perception
of the meaning of well-being in the workplace, 9 for
the perception of factors influencing well-being in
the working context and 14 for the perception of
individual characteristics that influence well-being in
work contexts), which were subsequently moved to
the more general categories to which they belonged
(e.g., ‘‘participatory hierarchy’’). This step was
carried out independently by each of the three
researchers, who then compared their categorizations
to reach a final agreed choice. Two weeks after the
conclusion of the data analysis, transcriptions from
two focus groups and an interview were once more
encoded, again independently by the three research-
ers, with a categorical confirmation of stability.
Finally, the analysis of illustrative stories told by
the subjects during the interviews made it possible to
make some considerations about the dynamics of the
concept of well-being in the workplace.
Results
The focus groups and interviews collected 628
statements, which were divided into three areas:
(a) the significance of well-being in the workplace
(248 statements), (b) every kind of factors that affect
well-being in the workplace (158 statements), and
(c) individual characteristics that affect well-being in
the workplace (222 statements).
As shown in Tables II, III and IV, the perceptions
expressed through a set of categories have been listed
in each area. For each category, moreover, it was
possible to further differentiate specific elements
that provide a more detailed description of the
perceptions of individuals.
The meaning of well-being in the workplace
The analysis of the responses from 72 subjects
identified 248 statements referring to the first issue
Table I. Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants.
Characteristic n %
Age Up to 34 12 16.7 35�39 17 23.6 40�44 19 26.4 45�49 16 22.2 50 and above 8 11.1
Gender Female 37 51.4 Male 35 48.6
Role Team leader 24 33.3 Professional employee 48 66.7
G. Biggio & C. G. Cortese
4 (page number not for citation purpose)
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823
that flow into four main categories articulated in 14
more specific elements (see Table II).
Acceptance of the rules. The first category that stands
out is the acceptance of the rules (76 statements). In
general, it is stated that a clear definition and
acceptance of the rules constitutes a fundamental
basis of well-being in the workplace. In specific
terms, there are four elements.
Transparency in communication between colleagues (26
statements). This affirms that when employees
openly exchange information in their possession
they can work under better conditions both in per-
sonal and organizational terms. ‘‘Well-being is clear
and undistorted communication . . . sometimes you
clash with reality in which the other person instead
of streamlining the procedures tends to make them
more complicated.’’
Staying within the boundaries (20 statements). Well-
being in the workplace depends on clarity and
respect for role boundaries in order to avoid
duplications and frictions. In other words, the ability
to reduce overlaps and conflicts promotes mutual
acceptance and well-being. ‘‘Well-being is to be clear
about one’s role in the organization.’’
Clarity in the definition of rights and duties by the
company (16 statements). Ideally an organization
should put in place a system that allows easy
recognition of the rights and the duties of each
person regardless of their role; it is believed that this
could be a source of guidance and both ethical and
operational support, steering relationships within the
workforce towards a comfort zone. ‘‘The organization
is one entity and should not leave room for ambi-
guity, there is a certain protocol to be followed. They
say that what matters is the result, but things should
be done according to certain criteria. There must
be strict compliance with protocol, clarity of what
you should and you can do, all this leads to worker
well-being.’’
Avoidance of disputes in business relationships (14
statements). It has to be achieved intentionally for
the greater good of the company: getting along
together, recognizing the unifying aspects rather
than those which divide, appreciating differences,
Table II. The meaning of well-being in the workplace.
Category n Specific elements (n)
Acceptance of the rules
76
Transparency in communication between colleagues (26) Staying within the boundaries (20) Clarity in the definition of rights and duties by the company (16) Avoidance of disputes in business relationships (14)
Participatory hierarchy
67
Sharing the company vision (22) Participatory leadership (18) Reduction of hierarchical barriers (15) Leading by example (12)
Positive relations and working climate
58 Knowing how to listen (23) Being able to rely on the group (19) Mental flexibility (16)
Appreciation of the value of work
47 Being motivated by work content (20) Economic reward (16) Job rotation and change in routine role (11)
Table III. Factors which influence organizational well-being.
Category n Specific elements (n)
Values 59 Respect (24) Humility (19) Transparency and exchange of information (16)
Organizational functioning
54 Fluid organization (22) Clarity and strategy sharing (18) Synergy between the levels (14)
Physical environment
45 Comfort (15) Equipment (13) Common areas (7)
Table IV. Individual characteristics that influence organizational
well-being.
Category n Specific elements (n)
Being positive 76
Being proactive (24) Confidence in one’s own abilities (17) Openness towards the new (14) Valuing differences (12) Self-motivation and energy (9)
Communication 69
Openness (23) Leadership (19) Collaborative relationships (16) Knowing how to defuse situations (11)
Management of difficulties and conflicts
48 Showing tenacity and refusing to give up (18) Striking a balance in tense situations (16) Tolerating uncertainty (14)
Socio-emotional skills
29 Creativity (16) Empathic communication (13)
Well-being in the workplace
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823 5 (page number not for citation purpose)
are examples of forms of relationships pursued in the
name of a common good. ‘‘Well-being is remaining
calm without clashing with others’’ or ‘‘It is important
to find a way to spend the day trying to interact
positively with everyone.’’
Participatory hierarchy. The second category of
meaning is represented by participatory hierarchy
(67 statements), divided into four specific elements.
Sharing the company vision (22 statements). It
includes a series of statements that highlight the
importance of a hierarchy capable of listening and
sharing the organizational vision as well its stan-
dards. ‘‘Well-being is internal communication at all
levels from top to bottom in order to understand the
objectives is fundamental to working well.’’
Participatory leadership (18 statements). It comprises
a series of statements concerning the organization’s
ability to foster participatory styles of influence
aimed at actively involving employees. ‘‘Well-being
is the possibility to work with a leader that knows
how to inspire people.’’
Reduction of hierarchical barriers (15 statements).
It is the organization’s ability to be direct, open,
and transparent in the exchange of information.
There is also a critical reference to a personalized
or paternalistic approach, which contrasts with an
expectation of the common definition of goals. ‘‘The
door should always be open’’ or ‘‘The problem is the
presence of two players with equal dignity: we must
lower the barriers and well-being comes out.’’
Leading by example (12 statements). It calls for
consistent behaviour, which reinforces the provision
for clarity and consistency with common codes in
opposition to individualism. ‘‘It is not fair to have to
put up with arrogant people who act as if they owned
the company, each in his own way must lead by
example.’’
Positive relations and working climate. The third
category of meaning that emerges consists of positive
relations and working climate (58 statements). This
category contains three specific elements.
Knowing how to listen (23 statements). This element
refers to a general ability in mutual listening skills
and attention to others as a practice that creates
positive working conditions. ‘‘Well-being is that
everyone listen to everyone else.’’
Being able to rely on the group (19 statements).
Constructive relationships can prevail and a positive
climate can be created within the working groups.
‘‘To experience well-being everyone needs to work in
a collaborative group to achieve their goals.’’
Mental flexibility (16 statements). It describes an
arrangement which simplifies problems, by reducing
barriers and streamlining interaction which may
otherwise be too formal. ‘‘Well-being depends on
people’s mental elasticity. If one is elastic well-being
is improved; if one is rigid well-being is adversely
affected.’’
Appreciation of the value of work. The fourth and last
category of meaning consists of the appreciation of the
value of work (47 statements). This category contains
three specific elements.
Being motivated by work content (20 statements).
A part of well-being depends on satisfaction with
what employers do. ‘‘Well-being is a state of personal
growth that occurs when you enjoy what you do.’’
Economic reward (16 statements). A fair economic
reward for the skills and commitment provided
fosters the perception of well-being. ‘‘If everyone is
paid in proportion to what they give you create well-
being’’ or ‘‘A just economic reward means feeling
valued and recognized.’’
Job rotation and change in routine role (11 statements).
It refers to the ability to vary the experience to avoid
the monotony of work. ‘‘If you are not lucky enough
to have a challenging career the only way to protect
well-being is by job rotation.’’
Factors that affect well-being in the workplace
The analysis of the responses from 72 subjects
identified 158 statements referring to the second
issue, that flow into three main categories articulated
into nine more specific elements (see Table III).
Values. The first category was defined as values (59
statements), which contains three specific elements.
G. Biggio & C. G. Cortese
6 (page number not for citation purpose)
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823
Respect (24 statements). It’s the acceptance of
mutual responsibilities, both professional and per-
sonal, as well as acceptance of the value of the
organization itself. ‘‘Well-being exists where people,
organization, principles, and values are respected as
a basis for work.’’
Humility (19 statements). It refers to the definition
of a non-judgmental stance towards others and a
willingness to communicate regardless of the posi-
tions of power, from top to bottom and vice versa.
‘‘People are often very proud, they are often lacking
in humility . . . the least competent tend to argue and
create problems.’’
Transparency and exchange of information (16
statements). It is the importance of sharing informa-
tion in the general interest: if everyone used this
method the quality of corporate life would be
improved. ‘‘An effort must be made to be objective
and tolerant in order to understand others, including
customers’’ or ‘‘Information should be shared, for
example, in meetings how many bosses have basic
information.’’
Organizational functioning. The second category of
meaning that emerges is organizational function-
ing (54 statements), which includes three specific
elements.
Fluid organization (22 statements). It is required in
order to define a quality of organizational processes
that are linear, without procedural dysfunctions and
rigid personal interpretations. ‘‘A shared a common
goal without too much punctiliousness has a positive
effect on the smooth running of the organization.’’
Clarity and strategy sharing (18 statements). It refers
to the organization’s ability to place the demands
made on individuals within a clear overview and
perspective. ‘‘There are two levels, managerial and
professional: there must be aims and rules which
have been agreed at the two levels.’’
Synergy between the levels (14 statements). It is the
organization’s general ability to facilitate action over
roles. This synergy should result from the motivation
of the individual and the organization’s desire for
achievement. ‘‘If I for one understand the dynamics
by which the other acts friction is avoided.’’
Physical environment. The third category of meaning
that emerges is defined as the physical environment
(45 statements), divided into three specific elements.
Comfort (15 statements). It’s a set of factors (light,
heat, space, etc.) that improve the physical quality of
permanence in the workplace. ‘‘Well-being is also
the environment, air, light’’ or ‘‘To have changed
location has changed our lives, now we have heat,
light, the bathroom.’’
Equipment (13 statements). It refers to the working
instruments which promote both well-being and work
activity. ‘‘Sometimes details such as the efficiency
of computers, the seating position, are important for
good health.’’
Common areas (seven statements). A set of condi-
tions that promote physical well-being through
the facilitation of social interaction. ‘‘The coffee
break with conversation between colleagues is a
very important moment’’ or ‘‘The fact that we eat
together is positive.’’
Individual characteristics that affect well-being in the
workplace
The analysis of the responses from 72 subjects, all
in agreement that individual characteristics may
influence well-being in the workplace, identified
222 statements referring to the third issue, that
flow into four main categories articulated in 14 more
specific elements (see Table IV).
Being positive. The first category was defined as being
positive (76 statements). Positivity is an individual
attitude that expresses a force arising from self-
esteem, confidence and consistency, features that
allow a person to contribute to the opening of new
horizons, optimism and organizational reliability.
In reference to this category five specific elements
emerge.
Being proactive (24 statements). It refers to a pro-
active approach towards others and the organization,
an active and confident disposition in proposing
actions and solutions. ‘‘An individual’s proactive
response tips the balance . . . provides a positive
stimulus.’’
Confidence in one’s own abilities (17 statements). Self-
esteem sustained by acquired abilities and by
individual competency is described as an attribute
Well-being in the workplace
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823 7 (page number not for citation purpose)
that promotes well-being in the workplace. ‘‘Feeling
able to do the job makes not only me feel good but
also others, which leads to respect, meritocracy,
rewards from the organization.’’
Openness towards the new (14 statements). It is a
willingness to use knowledge to further new experi-
ences. This element also expressed the employees’
confidence in their ability to improve organizational
functioning. ‘‘It is always the individual that im-
proves the organization, because otherwise you
would become exhausted . . . There must always be
room for novelty.’’
Valuing differences (12 statements). The appreciation
of people with different opinions, or who commu-
nicate within different roles is seen as an important
aspect of being positive, a variant of the openness
towards the new which has declined in the context of
interpersonal relationships. ‘‘Differences are of value
within the organization, the inherent rudeness in
not respecting the opinions of others is a form of
insecurity.’’
Self-motivation and energy (nine statements). The
ability to find one’s own stimulus to fuel motivation
is seen as a vital factor that reflects positively on
well-being. ‘‘If a person is radiant and positive, love
and passion reflect on well-being’’ or ‘‘An indi-
vidual characteristic that favours well-being is self-
motivation in the sense of caring for the things
you do.’’
Communication. The second category is communi-
cation (69 statements). The word communication
is used numerous times and across all dimensions:
good communicator is a multi-attribute which excites
many expectations. In an attempt to focus on a
more specific dimension related to the organizational
context, four specific elements emerge.
Openness (23 statements). It is a dynamic character-
istic of sociability and helpfulness in work relation-
ships. ‘‘Well-being arises from communication,
being able to communicate, sitting around a table
with colleagues is important because the discussions
often lead to a solution.’’
Leadership (19 statements). Subjects use this word to
describe the ability to influence and lead the group
in a positive manner, and also to define authorita-
tive behaviour. ‘‘If each in his own small way
exercised leadership it would benefit everyone’’ or
‘‘Being open but self-confident, not backing down
in front of obstacles means not immobilizing the
organization.’’
Collaborative relationships (16 statements). It refers to
the disposition towards listening to and understand-
ing others in the search for common solutions. ‘‘It’s
important to find a way to spend the hours of the day
trying to interact well, the way we relate to others
affects everyone . . . We should be ready to help, be
polite.’’
Knowing how to defuse situations (11 statements). It is
the tendency, even jokingly and/or self-deprecatingly,
to diminish problems without denying their exis-
tence. ‘‘An important attribute is an individual’s
capacity for fearless self-criticism’’ or ‘‘A joke reduces
conflict and barriers! I would also like to think with
joy of work.’’
Management of difficulties and conflicts. The third
category of meaning that emerges refers to the man-
agement of difficulties and conflicts (48 statements).
Stamina and the ability to manage on the occa-
sions when requirements appear to exceed resources
creating the inevitable tensions are described as
attributes that help an individual go through organi-
zational life generating positivity and protecting
basic well-being. Three specific elements emerge.
Showing tenacity and refusing to give up (18
statements). To be determined and not to become
discouraged are described as individual character-
istics that ensure the rewards of well-being. ‘‘There
are times when if you give up your objectives, you
will collapse, it is better to be reactive.’’
Striking a balance in tense situations (16 statements).
The ability to mediate is described as being positive
both for the employees and the company, it means
being an active participant without being drawn
into conflicts or tensions. ‘‘We must be able to clear-
up group tensions and misunderstandings. We must
never lose hope in the power of communication.’’
Tolerating uncertainty (14 statements). This element
is described as the ability to maintain a positive
response to the working environment even in con-
ditions of relative discomfort and accept uncer-
tainty whilst awaiting new opportunities. ‘‘Well-being
G. Biggio & C. G. Cortese
8 (page number not for citation purpose)
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823
means being able to stay calm, not being under
pressure and offering the same thing to others.’’
Socio-emotional skills. The fourth category of mean-
ing that emerges is that of socio-emotional skills (29
statements). This is an area that refers to features
perceived as specials: these features have in common
a facilitating role of individual and group functions.
Within this category two specific elements can be
found.
Creativity (16 statements). It refers to the use of
imagination in dealing with problems and the ability
to see problems from new angles. ‘‘An individual
that has creativity can assist the organization, can
open doors and consequently facilitate the disclosur-
ing of the other as persons.’’
Empathic communication (13 statements). It is de-
scribed as the subjects’ ability to express a closeness
that catches the sense and rearranges emotionally the
dynamic field of the individual-group-organization
interaction. ‘‘We need to identify with the person
in front of us to understand their needs. Well-being is
a closeness between me and the other person.’’
Additional considerations that emerged from individual
interviews
The nine individual interviews, as well as providing
material for the three research questions discussed
so far, allowed for the introduction of additional
analysis that called into question the dynamics of the
concept of well-being. In particular, the analysis of
the sample episodes narrated by the subjects allowed
us to focus on two aspects.
The first aspect is referred to the conviction that
well-being in the workplace is a phenomenon in which
two directions of organizational operation are dynami-
cally integrated. The first direction*using a partici-
pant’s words*is the ‘‘Organization as a structure
that exists regardless of each individual’’, that is, a
top-down direction formed by structures, decisions,
and a work ethic built-up over time. The second
direction is formed by the organizational actions of
individuals and groups, or a bottom-up direction
that could*if embraced by many individuals* become long-term well-being. ‘‘If it’s true that
organization is something that you receive from
others is also true that it is something you can offer
to others: this promotes general well-being’’ or
‘‘You construct well-being yourself, but if you have
worked successfully those who come after you will
recognize it.’’
The second aspect is referred to the conviction
that niches of prosperity can be created individually
through people who make up the working groups, for
example, a participant said he was rather bewildered
when he first arrived at the company and had only
begun to ‘‘Breathe an air of good management’’
when he actually met, in the section in which he
worked, people with whom he could collaborate
constructively.
Furthermore, it is evident that if some people tend
to represent well-being in a dichotomous manner,
separating an ideal from a real dimension, so that
judgment may tend to focus on one of these two
polarities forgetting the other, some others are able
to overcome this simplification asserting that the
well-being is dynamically placed between the level of
what should be and the level of what is. ‘‘One cannot
truly understand well-being without an overview
because it always works on two levels, that of desires
and that of possibilities.’’
Discussion
The results obtained from the study are consistent
with the indications in literature about both the
interaction between individual and organization in
the construction of well-being in the workplace
and indication of some individual characteristics as
cooperating in the formation of well-being (Graham
& Shier, 2011; Hodkinson et al., 2004). Data are
also consistent with the recognized importance of
social constructivism in research concerning the
individual in the corporate context (Loftus & Higgs,
2010) and also confirm Allcorn’s hypothesis (1995)
concerning the use of subjective points of view
for understanding well-being in the workplace and
the projected change of organizational culture in a
direction favourable to the creation of well-being.
More specifically, the research was divided into
three parts. The answers to the first research ques-
tion, the meaning of well-being in the workplace,
showed a perception of well-being characterized as
interaction between people and organizations, in
accordance with the claims made by some authors
(Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Mininni et al., 2010).
The first category highlighted*acceptance of the
rules*clearly expresses a perception that corporate
rules are described as a source of well-being if
there is interplay of transparency and organizational
behaviour. The second category*participatory
hierarchy*emphasizes that the lack of barriers,
sharing and involvement in hierarchical relation-
ships is seen as an element of well-being. The third
category*positive relations and working climate* returns once again to the perception of well-being
as a positive quality of interpersonal relationships,
Well-being in the workplace
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823 9 (page number not for citation purpose)
regardless of the rules and position held. The fourth
category*appreciation of the value of work*shows
that structural factors are linked to employee satis-
faction towards the content of their job, towards
their salaries, and towards social and cognitive
stimulation. In this category we find a relation
between job satisfaction and well-being as described
by many authors (Harris et al., 2003; Ter Doest
et al., 2006). Overall, we can see that well-being is
perceived not only as an interaction between indivi-
duals and the organization, but is strongly related to
the quality of the relationship between individuals.
This is in agreement with what is said by Settoon
and Mossholder (2002), who described how the
quality of relationships in the working environment
is predictive of results-oriented OCBs and respect
for the individual, and by D’Amato and Zijlstra
(2008), in a study conducted in Europe on the staff
of 406 hospitals which revealed how individual
characteristics linked to the working environment
and to self-efficacy were a prerequisite for satisfac-
tory results and a consequent increase in well-being.
The second research question, factors that influ-
ence well-being in the workplace, was deliberately
placed in general terms, so as to allow participants
the freedom to decline the definition of the factors
influencing well-being in objective or subjective,
individual, organizational, or structural terms.
The first category that emerged*values*can be
seen as a set of ethical and communicational features
that the individual and the group would have to be
encouraged to express in order to benefit overall
well-being. This seems to confirm existing positions
on the importance of individual values on job sat-
isfaction and on the working environment (Bulger,
Matthews, & Hoffman, 2007; Burke, 2000; Diskienė
& Goštautas, 2010). The second and the third
categories*organizational functioning and physical
environment*refer to more objective elements of
the organization, although some specific elements
such as clarity and common strategies and common
spaces refer instead to aspects of communication.
The third research question, individual char-
acteristics that affect well-being in the workplace,
has confirmed several previous studies concerning
individual factors considered to be favourable to
well-being.
In particular, in the category being positive, the
perception that an active and trusting attitude in
proposing solutions and positive action is a feature
which affects well-being is in line with the results
of studies that describe the link between positive
emotions, the ability to achieve satisfaction at work,
and the ability to be open to organizational change
(De Neve & Copper, 1998; Fineman, 2006; Lent,
2004; Linley et al., 2010). The specific elements that
arose regarding confidence in the respondents’ own
resources and self-motivation are consistent with the
literature that examines the issue of self-esteem as a
resource for well-being of both the individual and
the organization (Feldt et al., 2006; Kalimo et al.,
2002; O’Brien-Wood, 2001; Pierce & Gardner,
2004; Pulkkinen et al., 2006).
Similarly, in the second category communication,
the perception of respondents agrees with recent
literature concerning interaction as an area linked to
relational well-being. The perception that openness
in relationships and collaborative relationships are
factors influencing well-being in the workplace is in
line with that stated by Butler and Waldroop (2004),
Kamdar and Van Dyne (2007), and Kumar et al.
(2009) about extroversion and pleasantness in inter-
personal relationships as factors supporting OCBs.
In turn, the perception that leadership is influential
with regard to well-being agrees with research con-
ducted by Purkiss et al. (2008). Finally, the ability
to defuse a situation is consistent with that de-
scribed by George and Jones (1997) concerning
the positive effect of certain extra role behaviours in
the workplace.
In the third category management of difficulties and
conflicts, resilience or the ability to cope with con-
flicting tensions or difficulties of different kinds is
described as a characteristic that aids a person
during their working life, generating positivity or at
least protecting their basic well-being. This percep-
tion agrees with the importance of political skills in
adapting positively to the workplace (Ferris et al.,
2000; Perrewé et al., 2000). The quality of persever-
ance, as well as the ability to remain well-balanced in
a dispute are considered both within the context of
political skills and as a personality traits favouring
OCBs (Borman & Penner, 2001). In addition, all
three elements which emerged in this category
confirmed the most recent views on resilience as a
promoter of well-being in the workplace (Cooper,
2010; Ferguson, 2009; Magrin, 2008).
The fourth category of socio-emotional skills is
instead connected with characteristics perceived as
specials. This peculiarity seems to stem from a
facilitating function performed by these capacities
in respect of the working environment, as is referred
to, for example, in a definition (‘‘Knowing how to
‘wash away’ the problems within the organization’’)
contained in a statement relative to this item of
empathic communication. This category appear to
find confirmation in literature only in an indirect
sense, such as occurs with the empathy necessary to
improve the relationship with a patient (and conse-
quently between the members of staff) in health care
services (Hojat, 2009).
G. Biggio & C. G. Cortese
10 (page number not for citation purpose)
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823
Finally, the considerations which emerged con-
cerning the niches of well-being in the individual
interviews are consistent with the observations of
Van De Vliert (2008) when he says that ‘‘at the
lowest levels, each employee adapts his or her own
well-being to a mosaic of working conditions, group
characteristics, and organizational circumstances,
which is perhaps hardly shaped climate and wealth’’
(p. 524).
Conclusions
The research results provide feedback as to how each
variable is perceived by the individual as a useful
resource for improving well-being in the workplace.
These findings could define people as activators of
well-being and can be placed in supplementary
terms compared to the vision of people considered
as receptors of well-being from the external environ-
ment. In that sense, well-being in the workplace
could be promoted not only from above through
objective action by management, for example, the
promotion of organizational welfare policies, but
also from below, through the transformation of
individual traits and behaviours that are manifested
in people’s activities (Graham & Shier, 2010;
Hodkinson et al., 2004; Loftus & Higgs, 2010).
At an applied level, the data obtained through the
research confirms the possibility of active involve-
ment by people in the construction of well-being,
within this organizational vision that is capable of
integrating bottom-up and top-down processes.
More precisely, it is possible to identify three areas
of intervention.
The first area is represented by the continuous
training about well-being in the workplace as a
result of constructive collaboration between the
individual, group, and organization. This issue
could also enhance a series of bottom-up initiatives
focused on organizational climate, avoiding in this
respect initiatives in which the individual is per-
ceived as a mere passive recipient, but rather by
exploiting the approach of action research.
A second area may consist of organizational devel-
opment initiatives aimed at small groups, leaders
and other strategic players in the construction of the
subsystems of well-being in the workplace. Further-
more, workplace counselling initiatives can be con-
templated, aimed at reducing stress and improving
proactive adaptation to the workplace.
Finally, a third area of action consists of research
aimed at investigating perceptions of well-being
among the different roles in order to provide useful
monitoring to the human resources management
team and instigate organizational change. In this
case also a qualitative approach, capable of encoura-
ging participation through projects of investiga-
tion that use interviews and focus groups, can be
regarded as more consistent with the results of the
study presented here.
It should be remembered that the research was
limited by the participants involved and by the
sole use of the paper and pencil technique of data
analysis. In this sense, future studies could be
undertaken in other organizational contexts with
the object of enriching the data base available to
scholars and facilitate the identification of further
individual characteristics which contribute to well-
being in the workplace. Furthermore, a more ample
data base could facilitate the use of software for
the analysis of the content (e.g., ALCESTE) and
enabling the comparisons between the perceptions
of groups composed of participants where distinc-
tion is made according to their organization of
belonging, their role, and other socio-demographic
characteristics.
Conflict of interest and funding
The authors have not received any funding or bene-
fits from industry or elsewhere to conduct this study.
References
Allcorn, S. (1995). Understanding organizational culture as the
quality of workplace subjectivity. Human Relations, 48(1),
73�96. doi: 10.1177/001872679504800105
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as
organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual.
Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619�644. doi: 10.
1111/1467-6486.00305
Bambacas, M., & Patrickson, M. (2008). Interpersonal commu-
nication skills that enhance organisational commitment.
Journal of Communication Management, 12(1), 51�72. doi:
10.1108/13632540810854235
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall.
Borman, W. C., & Penner, L. A. (2001). Citizenship performance:
Its nature, antecedents, and motives. In B. W. Roberts, &
R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace.
Decade of behaviour (pp. 45�61). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grässmann, R. (1998).
Personal goals and emotional well-being: The moderating
role of motive dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(2), 494�508. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.
2.494
Bulger, C. A., Matthews, R. A., & Hoffman, M. E. (2007). Work
and personal life boundary management: Boundary strength,
work/personal life balance, and the segmentation-integration
continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(4),
365�375. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.4.365
Burke, R. (1993). Organizational-level interventions to reduce
occupational stressors. Work & Stress: An International Journal
of Work, 7(1), 77�87. doi: 10.1080/02678379308257051
Burke, R. (2000). Do managerial men benefit from organizational
values supporting work-personal life balance? Women in
Well-being in the workplace
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823 11 (page number not for citation purpose)
Management Review, 15(2), 81�87. doi: 10.1108/
09649420010319606
Butler, T., & Waldroop, J. (2004). Understanding ‘people’ people.
Harvard Business Review, 13(3), 78�86.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job
choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294�311.
Cooper, C. L. (2010). The happiness agenda. Stress and Health,
26(5), 349. doi: 10.1002/smi.1376
Csikszentmihályi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of
engagement with everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2005). Positive affect as implicit
motivator: On the nonconscious operation of behavioral
goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(2),
129�142. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.129
D’Amato, A., & Zijlstra, R. H. (2008). Psychological climate and
individual factors as antecedents of work outcomes. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(1), 33�54.
doi: 10.1080/13594320701307420
De Neve, K. M., & Copper, H. H. (1998). The happy personality:
A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-
being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197�229.
Di Nuovo, S., & Zanchi, S. (2008). Work well-being: A study
on satisfaction and positive emotions in job. Giornale di
Psicologia, 2(1�2), 7�18.
Diskienė, D., & Goštautas, V. (2010). Relationship between
individual and organizational values and employees. Job
satisfaction Business, 5(2), 295�320. doi:10.5200/1822-
9530.2010.13
Feldt, T., Mäkikangas, A., & Aunola, K. (2006). Sense of coher-
ence and optimism: A more positive approach to health. In
L. Pulkkinen, J. Kaprio, & R. Rose (Eds.), Socioemotional
development and health from adolescence to adulthood (pp.
286�305). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ferguson, D. (2009). Resilience: What you need to know about
personal wellbeing. Teacher, 198, 6�13.
Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., Anthony, W. P., & Gilmore, D. C.
(2000). Political skill at work. Organizational Dynamics,
28(4), 25�37. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00007-3
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counter-
points. The Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 270�291.
doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.20208680
Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory.
American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397�405. doi: 10.1177/
0002764297040004003
French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1982). The
mechanism of job stress and strain. New York, NY: Wiley.
Gabriel, Y. (2000). Storytelling in organizations: Facts, fictions, and
fantasies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity
in context. Human Performance, 10(2), 153�170. doi: 10.
1207/s15327043hup1002_6
Graham, J. R., & Shier, M. L. (2010). Social work practitioners
and subjective well-being: Personal factors that contribute to
high levels of subjective well-being. International Social Work,
53(6), 757�777. doi: 10.1177/0020872810368394
Graham, J. R., & Shier, M. L. (2011). Mindfulness, subjective
well-being, and social work: Insight into their interconnec-
tion from social work practitioners. Social Work Education,
30(1), 29�44. doi: 10.1080/02615471003763188
Grant, S. L., Langan-Fox, J., & Anglim, J. (2009). The big five
traits as predictors of subjective and psychological well-
being. Psychological Reports, 105(1), 205�231. doi: 10.2466/
pr0.105.1.205-231
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation:
An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3),
271�299. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Gross, J. J. (2006). Handbook of emotion regulation. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Guest, D. (2002). Human resource management, corporate
performance and employee wellbeing: Building the worker
into HRM. Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 335�358.
doi: 10.1111/1472-9296.00053
Guest, D., & Conway, N. (2002). The psychological contract at
work and its effects on health and well-being. In M.
Schabracq, J. Winnubst, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook
of Work and Health Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 143�158).
Chichester: John Wiley.
Harris, C., Daniels, K., & Briner, R. B. (2003). A daily diary
study of goals and affective well-being at work. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 401�410. doi:
10.1348/096317903769647256
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. (2003). Well-being in
the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes:
A review of the Gallup studies. In C. Keyes, J. Haidt, &
M. Seligman (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the
life well-lived (pp. 205�224). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Haslam, H., Whelan, J., & Bastian, B. (2009). Big Five traits
mediate associations between values and subjective well-
being. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(1), 40�42.
doi: org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.001
Hochwarter, W. A., & Thompson, K. R. (2010). The moderating
role of optimism on politics-outcomes relationships: A test of
competing perspectives. Human Relations, 63(9), 1371�1394.
doi: 10.1177/0018726709357250
Hodkinson, P., Hodkinson, H., Evans, K., Kersh, N., Fuller, A.,
Unwin, L., et al. (2004). The significance of individual
biography in workplace learning. Studies in the Education of
Adults, 36(1), 6�24.
Hojat, M. (2009). Ten approaches for enhancing empathy in
health and human services cultures. Journal of Health and
Human Services Administration, 31(4), 412�450.
Hughes, J. (2005). Bringing emotion to work emotional intelli-
gence, employee resistance and the reinvention of character.
Work Employment & Society, 19(3), 603�625. doi: 10.1177/
0950017005055675
Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social
behaviour. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 203�253). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Klinger, R. (2008). The dispositional
sources of job satisfaction: A comparative test. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 57(3), 361�372. doi:
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00318.x
Kalimo, R., Pahkin, K., & Mutanen, P. (2002). Work and
personal resources as long-term predictors of well-being.
Stress and Health, 18(5), 227�234. doi: 10.1002/smi.949
Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of
personality and workplace social exchange relationships in
predicting task performance and citizenship performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1286�1298. doi: 10.
1037/0021-9010.92.5.1286
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kumar, K., Bakhshi, A., & Rani, E. (2009). Linking the big five
personality domains to organizational citizenship behavior.
International Journal of Psychological Studies, 1(2), 73�81.
Kyngas, H., & Vanhanen, L. (1999). Content analysis as a
Research Method. Hoitotiede, 11(1), 3�12.
Lawson, K. J., Noblet, A. N., & Rodwell, J. J. (2009). Promoting
employee wellbeing: The relevance of work characteristics
and organizational justice. Health Promotion International,
24(3), 223�233. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dap025
G. Biggio & C. G. Cortese
12 (page number not for citation purpose)
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823
Lent, R. W. (2004). Toward a unifying theoretical and practical
perspective on wellbeing and psychosocial adjustment.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 482�509. doi: 10.1037/
0022-0167.51.4.482
Lent, R. W. (2008). Understanding and promoting work satisfac-
tion. An integrative view. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent
(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp.
462�480). New York, NY: Wiley.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). Integrating person and
situation perspectives on work satisfaction: A social-cognitive
view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(2), 236�247. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2006.02.006
Lent, R. W., & Fouad, N. A. (2011). The self as agent in social
cognitive career theory. In P. J. Hartung, & L. M. Subich
(Eds.), Developing self in work and career (pp. 71�87).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Linley, P. A., Harrington, S., & Garcea, N. (2010). Oxford
handbook of positive psychology and work. New York, NY:
Oxford library of psychology.
Loftus, S., & Higgs, H. (2010). Researching the individual in
workplace research. Journal of Education and Work, 23(4),
377�388. doi: 10.1080/13639080.2010.495712
Magrin, M. E. (2008). From resistance to resilience: Promoting
wellbeing in the workplace. Giornale Italiano di Medicina del
Lavoro ed Ergonomia, 30(1), A11�A19.
Mininni, G., Manuti, A., Scardigno, R., & Rubino, R. (2010).
Subjective wellbeing between organizational bonds and
cultural contaminations. World Futures: The Journal of Global
Education, 66(6), 387�397. doi: 10.1080/02604027.2010.
489456
Murray, M. (2002). Connecting narrative and social rep-
resentation theory in health research social sciences.
Social Science Information, 41(4), 653�673. doi: 10.1177/
0539018402041004008
O’Brien-Wood, C. P. (2001). Coping with organizational change:
Adaptiveness versus trait and change-related coping in predict-
ing employee well-being (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
December 21, 2012, from http://library.villanova.edu/Find/
Summon/Record?id�FETCH-proquest_dll_7263546811
Perrewé, P. L., Ferris, G. R., Funk, D. D., & Anthony, W. P.
(2000). Political skill: An antidote for workplace stressors.
Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 115�123. doi:
10.5465/AME.2000.4468071
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the
work and organizational context: A review of the organiza-
tion-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management,
305, 591�622. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2003.10.001
Pulkkinen, L., Feldt, T., & Kokko, K. (2006). Adaptive behavior
in childhood as an antecedent of psychological functioning
in early middle age: Linkage via career orientation. Social
Indicators Research, 77(1), 171�195. doi: 10.1007/s11205-
005-5558-8
Purkiss, R. B., Rossi, R. J., Glendon, A. I., Thompson, B. M., &
Myors, B. (2008). Sense of community: A vital link between
leadership and wellbeing in the workplace. In A. Glendon,
B. M. Thompson, & B. Myors (Eds.), Advances in organisa-
tional psychology (pp. 281�296). Bowen Hills: Australian
Academic Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. D. (2000). Self-determination theory and
the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68�78. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality
and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-
focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 255�267. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.
255
Sheu, H.-B., & Lent, R. W. (2009). A social cognitive perspective
on well-being in educational and work settings: Cross-
cultural considerations. International Journal for Educational
and Vocational Guidance, 9(1), 45�60. doi: 10.1007/s10775-
008-9147-7
Ter Doest, L., Maes, S., Gebhardt, W. A., & Koelewijn, H.
(2006). Personal goal facilitation through work: Relation-
ships with employee satisfaction and wellbeing. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 55(2), 192�219. doi:
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00232.x
Terrion, J. L., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). From ‘I’ to ‘we’: The
role of putdown humor and identity in the development
of a temporary group. Human Relations, 55(1), 55�88. doi:
10.1177/0018726702055001606
Van De Vliert, E. (2008). Climato-economic niches of employee
well-being. In S. Cartwright, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of organizational well being (pp. 523�541).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Warr, P. (1999). Well-being and the work place. In D. Kahneman,
E. Deiner, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of
hedonic psychology (pp. 302�412). New York, NY: Russell
Sage.
Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The
moderating role of employee positive well being on the
relation between job satisfaction and job performance.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 93�104.
doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.93
Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being:
A review of the literature and some conceptual considera-
tions. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 237�268.
doi: 10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00048-7
Well-being in the workplace
Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8: 19823 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.19823 13 (page number not for citation purpose)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
