Psychological well‐being at work: Research evidence and current 

issuesProfessor Ivan RobertsonRobertson Cooper Ltd

&Leeds University Business School

Overview

• Psychological Well‐Being (PWB) – what is it?

• How is it measured?

• What factors (probably) determine PWB – and what do we know about their relationship with PWB?

• Correlates (consequences & causes) of PWBfor Individuals for Organisations 

• Current issues

Current issues

• Employee engagement

• Management & leadership behaviour 

• Presenteeism 

• Interventions to improve psychological well‐being

The elements of psychological well‐being?

• Experiencing pleasant events …feeling good … maximising pleasure ..? 

(Hedonic)

• Doing what is worth doing … achieving a goal … feeling good about oneself ..?

(Eudaimonic)

Psychological well‐being: Emotional aspects

• Positive emotional experiences

– Fredrickson’s (1998) Broaden & Build theory

• Purposeful aspects of well being

“… finding positive meaning may be the most powerful leverage point for cultivating positive emotions during times of crisis.” (Fredrickson et al., 2003, p 374).

Psychological well‐being: Emotional aspects

• Happiness

Life satisfaction (e.g. Diener et al., 1985)

Happiness (e.g. Oxford Happiness Inventory/Questionnaire, Hills & Argyle, 2002)… cognitive evaluations of well‐being

Psychological well‐being: Purposeful aspects

• (Carol Ryff, e.g. Ryff & Keyes, 1995)

AutonomyEnvironmental mastery Personal growth Positive relations with others Purpose in life and Self‐acceptance 

Measuring psychological well‐being

• Psychological (Ill) health e.g. General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg and Williams, 1988)

Constant irritability, Difficulty in making decisions, Loss of sense of humour, Constant tiredness, Feeling unable to cope(ASSET, Faragher et al., 2004)

• Positive/negative emotions e.g. PANAS (Watson et al., 1988); Cropanzano & Wright (1999)

Feeling…excited, depressed or unhappy, on top of the world, scared…

Measuring psychological well‐being …at work

• The affective state that people experience at work 

• The extent to which people experience a positive sense of purpose in their work

• Time frame – to distinguish between

Mood, Disposition and Trait

Measuring psychological well‐being …at work

• Positive Psychological Well‐being (Emotional component):For the terms below, indicate the extent to which you have felt like this during the last three months at work

• very slightly or not at all…a little…moderately…quite a bit…very much

• Inspired • Alert• Excited• Enthusiastic• Determined• Happy• Contented

Measuring psychological well‐being …at work

• Key elements of goal‐setting theory*:

• Goals and objectives are clear

• Goals are challenging but achievable

• People are committed to achieving goals

• Goals are felt to be worthwhile

*Locke & Latham, 2002

Measuring psychological well‐being …at work

• Positive psychological well‐being (Sense of Purpose)

• My current job goals are specific

• My job goals and objectives are clear

• I am committed to achieving the goals of my job 

• My job goals are challenging

• My job goals are worthwhile

What factors influence psychological well‐being at work?

Person SituationWorkNon-work

(Five Factor Model)• Openness

intellectually curious, open to new activities, prefer variety and novelty, fantasy & imagination

• Conscientiousnessdependable, prudent, methodical, achievement striving

• Extraversiongregarious, active, assertive, positive emotions

• Agreeablenesssympathetic to others, cooperative, trusting

• Neuroticismemotionally unstable, anxious, irritable, depressed

Factors outside work

• Respite and recoveryDemanding work ConflictPositive and negative spill over

• Factors that (can) interfere Frequent travelPoor family relationshipsDual career…

• Factors that (can) enhancePositive social or family activitiesLeisure pursuits and hobbies…

What workplace factors influence psychological well‐being?

• Demands

• Control

• Support

Johnson & Hall, 1988; De Lange et al., 2003; O’Driscoll & Brough, 2010

Workplace factors and well‐being

– Demands

– Control

– Relationships

– Change

– Role

– Support

• Resources & Communication 

• Control and autonomy

• Work relationships• Work life balance;

Workload• Job security & 

change• Pay, benefits & job 

conditions

- Demands- Control- Support - Change- Role- Reward & contribution

(Individual) Correlates of psychological well‐being

• higher cardiovascular risk

• higher weight and waist‐hip ratios

• higher HbAlc (marker for diabetes)

• lower HDL “good”cholesterol

• poorer neuro‐endocrine regulation

• higher salivary cortisol throughout the day

• poorer immune function

• higher inflammatory markers (IL‐6)

• poorer sleep ‐ longer duration REM ‐ less body movementRyff, Singer and Love, Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society of London, 2004

Correlates of psychological well‐being

Positive psychological well‐being associated with:

• Reduced mortality in healthy and sick populations

• Lower rate of mortality from heart disease

• Lower rate of mortality in patients with other diseasesMeta‐analysis of 35 studies

Chida & Steptoe, Psychosomatic Medicine 2008

Psychological well‐being: risks‐benefits to individuals

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

% Colds

Positive W/beingscoresModerateW/Being scoresLow W/Beingscores

Cohen et al., Psychosomatic Medicine, 2003

Organisational risks‐benefits

• Boorman review (2009)*Health & well‐being related to: MRSA, Patient satisfaction, Agency spend

• Harter, Schmidt and Keyes (2003) Nearly 8,000 separate business units in 36 companies engagement/well‐beingcorrelated with business unit performance (sickness‐absence, customer satisfaction, productivity, employee turnover, etc…)

*www.nhshealthandwellbeing.org/FinalReport.html

Organisational risks‐benefitsSome studies:

• Donald et al., (2005) –almost a quarter (23%) of variance in employee productivity (sample of 16,000UK employees) is explained by ‐ Psychological well‐being‐ Perceived commitment of organisation to employee‐ Resources and communications

• Cropanzano and Wright (1999) Five year longitudinal study of psychological well‐being and performance. Strong correlation between well‐being and work performance

Organisational outcomesProductivityLow sickness absenceLow employee turnoverAttractive to recruitsCustomer/user/patient satisfaction

Individual outcomesProductivity & satisfactionGood citizenshipHealth & well-being

Key workplace factors that influence

psychological well-being?

•Psychological well-being (& Employee engagement)

Resources and Communication

Control

Work Relationships

Work Life Balance; Workload

Job Security& Change

Pay, Benefits & Job conditions

Psychological well-being

&coping

behaviour

Outcomes

ProductivityLow sickness

absenceLow employee

turnoverAttractive to

recruitsCustomer/user/

patient satisfaction

How does it work?

People higher on psychological well‐being• Show greater flexibility and originality• Respond better to unfavourable feedback • Make more positive judgements about others• Show higher levels of “Engagement”• Are more productive• Are likely to live longer … be sick less often … and have happier work and home life

e.g. Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005

The Well-Being Reservoir

Respect & attention

Learning & Development Fair rewards

Resources & communications

Work relationships

Balanced Workload

Job Security & Change

Job conditionsControl & Autonomy

Current issues

• Employee engagement 

• Management & leadership behaviour 

• Presenteeism 

• Interventions to improve psychological well‐being

Employee engagement – Work involvement (“Flow”) models

Researchers – Schaufelli et al.

• Absorption (full concentration, happily engrossed in work)

• Vigour (high energy and mental resilience)

• Dedication (sense of significance, pride, challenge)

Employee engagement – positive job & work attitude models

Practitioners ‐ Towers Perrin (David Macleod)

• Harnessing Discretionary Effort

• “Going the extra mile”

Researchers – Robinson et al.

• Organisational citizenship

• Organisational commitment

• Job/role commitment

A narrow view of engagement

Discretionary effort

Organisational citizenship

Commitment

Attachment

Sense of purpose

A wider view

Discretionary effort Psychological

well-being

Organisational citizenship

Positive emotions

Sense of purpose

Commitment

Energy

Attachment

Resilience

Energy

Results: Engagement & PWB

Productivity“Narrow” Engagement (Job Satisfaction, Commitment, Citizenship, Attachment)

(.20)

(.41)Productivity“Sustainable”

Engagement(i.e. including psychological well-being) N~9,000 people – across 12 different

organisations

Management & leadership

• Quality of relationship with manager predicts employee turnover (Griffeth et al., 2000 – meta‐analysis)

• Management/leadership behaviour related to:BurnoutHealth complaintsPsychiatric disturbance“…this provides additional evidence that supervisor behaviour can affect employee well‐being and suggests that those seeking to create healthier workplaces should not neglect supervision.” (Gilbreath and Benson, 2004)

Study design

• SampleTotal N = 800Leaders=79

• MeasuresLeaders:(i) Personality NEO‐PI‐R (Five factor model)Workgroups:(i) Workplace factors (ii) Psychological well‐being 

• Research questions

(i) Relationships between leader personality and workgroup PWB

(ii) Mechanism for leader personality influencing workgroup PWB

Leader personality and workgroup psychological well‐being (PWB)

• Leader Extraversion (Domain) and workgroup PWB r=0.40E1 Warmth  r=0.28E4 Activity  r=0.35E6 +ve emotions  r= 0.30

• Neuroticism (Domain) and workgroup PWBN3 Depression r=‐.31** relationship is negative

• Combined in a multiple regression model

R=0.47 

Possible models

Leader personality

Workgroup well-beingLeader

personality

Resources & Communication Control and autonomyWork relationshipsWork life balance;WorkloadJob security & changePay, benefits & job conditions

Workgroup well-being

Step 1ASSET factorsR= .73ControlWork Life Balance

PWB

Step 2PersonalityNo increment in R

ASSET factors fully mediate the impact of leader personality on PWB

PWB (mediated) multiple regression analysis

Types of pressure

• Hindrance pressuresRole ambiguityWork RelationshipsJob insecurity

• Challenge pressuresWorkload Time pressure Job scope Responsibility

Pressure

Type of

Pressure

Strain Job satisfaction

Commitment Turnover Withdrawal

Hindrance 0.48

Challenge 0.21

Pressure

Type of

Pressure

Strain Job satisfaction

Commitment Turnover Withdrawal

Hindrance 0.48 ‐0.66 ‐0.63 0.25 0.23

Challenge 0.21 0.24 0.29 ‐0.06 ‐0.02

Podsakoff et al., Jour Appl Psych, 2007

Presenteeism

• Sickness presenteeism

“Attending work while ill” (Johns, 2009)

“Going to work despite feeling unhealthy” (Dew et al., 2005)

• Wider aspects of presenteeism

Working elevated hours … putting in face time”(Worrall et al., 2000)

“Reduced productivity due to …events that distract one from full productivity” (Whitehouse, 2005)

Some questions about presenteeism

• How can it be measured?

• How common is it?

• What factors are associated with presenteeism?What are the “causes”

• How can presenteeism be managed?

Measuring presenteeism

• Indirect measurese.g. Stanford Work Limitations Questionnaire

• Direct measurese.g. “In the past 3 months, have you ever not felt well enough to perform your duties to your normal standard, but  attended work regardless?”

• Inferential measurese.g.Health – “Not good” “Good”Sickness absence from work “Yes” “No”

Prevalence

• Several studies in Scandinavia and elsewhere – e.g. Australia Prevalence:One episode ~ 60%More than one ~ 35%

• Only one UK study (Work Foundation – Ashby & Mardon, 2010) 510 Axa PPP employees – 45% of employees one or more day of sickness presence in the last four weeks. 

UK: Prevalence of PresenteeismStudy 1

• Analysis carried out on data set of 6,309 participants from 7 organisations over the last 18 months.

• Presenteeism measured using the following question:

“In the past 3 months, have you ever not felt well enough to perform your duties to your normal standard, but  attended work regardless?”

• And the results showed:

Yes – 59.7%

No – 40.3%

Presenteeism – an Inferential measureHealth “Good” Health “Not 

good”

No absences Healthy & present Unhealthy and present

“Sickness Presentees”

Some absences Healthy and not always present

Unhealthy and not always present

UK prevalence of presenteeismStudy 2

Health “Good”

Health “Not good”

No absences 35% 28%

Some absences

13% 24%

N=39,000 employees from general working population (UK)

Presenteeism and productivityStudy 2

Health “Good” and present

Health “good” and absent

Presentees Health –“Not good” and absent

Productivity

(previous three months)

90% 88% 84% 82%

What is the real productivity loss for presentees?A loss of 6%?A gain of 2%?A gain of 84% (on days when someone would otherwise be absent)

Factors associated with presenteeismStudy 1&2

FactorSignificant 

relationship?Findings

Marital StatusHighest presenteeism levels when widowed or separatedLowest when single or married

Length of Service Presenteeism steadily increases with LOS

Exercise Higher presenteeism for those who don’t take exercise.

Workload Higher presenteeism for those working more than 50 hours

Sources of PresenteeismStudy 1

• Respondents also asked where the pressure to attend work whilst ill comes from:

(% showing ‘firm agreement’ – i.e. either ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Presenteeism Group

Non‐Presenteeism Group

More trou

bled

Workplace factorsStudy 1

Outcomes associated with poor psychological well‐being (Study 1 & 2)

FactorSignificant 

relationship?Findings

Productivity Reduced productivity

Physical healthPoor physical health

Presenteeism Higher presenteeism

Absenteeism Higher absenteeism

Presenteeism worse than absenteeism?Study 1

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

0 days off through illness

1 day off through illness

2‐5 days off through illness

6 or more days off through illness

Presenteeism Group

Poorer Physical H

ealth

Presenteeism worse than absenteeism?Study 1

Poorer Psychological Health

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

0 days off through illness

1 day off through illness

2‐5 days off through illness

6 or more days off through illness

Presenteeism Group

Managing presenteeism

• Attendance management practices may increase presenteeism* 

• Presenteeism increased during downsizing process** – “the evidence here suggested that employees were substituting more than half of legitimate sickness absences with sickness presence”. 

• Work factors are significantly correlated with presenteeism**• Presenteeism correlates with health more strongly than 

absenteeism**

*Munir, 2008**Calverly, 2007

Interventions

• Primary, secondary and tertiary levels

• Evaluating what works(NICE, Graveling et al., 2008)

• Good work, good management, emergent rather than prescriptive solutions seem most successful

ReferencesFredrickson et al., 2003

Fredrickson, B.L. (1998) What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300‐319.

Fredrickson et al., 2003, p 374Fredrickson, B.L., Tugade, M.M.,Waugh, C.E. and Larkin, G.R. (2003) What Good Are Positive Emotions in Crises? A Prospective Study of Resilience and Emotions Following the Terrorist Attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365‐376

Life satisfaction (e.g. Diener et al., 1985)Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffin, G. (1985) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, pp. 94‐105

Hills & Argyle, 2002Hills, P. and Argyle M. (2002) The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of psychological well‐being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1073–1082

Carol Ryff, e.g. Ryff & Keyes, 1995Ryff, C.D. and Keyes, C.L.M. (1995) The structure of psychological well‐being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719‐727 

ReferencesGoldberg, D.P. and Williams, P. (1988) The users’ guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Slough: NFER 

Nelson

ASSET, Faragher et al., 2004Faragher, E.B., Cooper, C.L. and Cartwright, S. (2004) A shortened stress evaluation tool (ASSET). Stress and Health, 20, 189‐201.

Watson et al., 1988Watson, D., Clark, L. A., and Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of a brief measure of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063‐1070.

Cropanzano & Wright (1999)Cropanzano, R. and Wright, T.A. (1999). A 5‐year study of change in the relationship between well‐being and performance. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51, 252‐265.

Locke EA, Latham GP. (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35‐year odyssey. American Psychologist. 2002;57:705‐717.

Ryff, C.D., Singer, B.H. and Love, G.D. (2004) Positive health: connecting well‐being with biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 359, 1383‐1394

ReferencesChida, Y. and Steptoe, A. (2008) Positive psychological well‐being and mortality: A quantitative review of 

prospective observational studies. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70, 741‐756.

Cohen et al., Psychosomatic Medicine, 2003Cohen, S., Alper, C. M., Doyle, W. J., Treanor, J.J., Turner, R. B. (2006) Positive Emotional Style Predicts Resistance to Illness After Experimental Exposure to Rhinovirus or Influenza A Virus. Psychosomatic Medicine. 68, 809‐815.

Harter, Schmidt and Keyes (2003) Harter, J., K, Schmidt, F.L. and Keyes, C.L.M. (2003) Well‐being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C.L.M. Keyes and J Haidt (Eds) Flourishing, Positive Psychology and the Life Well‐lived. Washington DC, USA: American Psychological Society.

Donald et al., (2005)Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S. and Robertson, S. (2005). Work environments, stress and productivity: An examination using ASSET. International Journal of Stress Management, 12, 409‐423.

Lyubomorsky, S., King, J. and Diener, E. (2005) The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.

ReferencesGriffeth et al., 2000 – meta‐analysis

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta‐analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.

Gilbreath and Benson, 2004Gilbreath, B. and Benson, P. G.  (2004) The contribution of supervisor behaviour toemployee psychological well‐being. Work & Stress, 18, 255‐/266

Worrall et al., 2000

Worrall, L., Cooper, C.L., Campbell, F.K. (2000). Surviving redundancy: The perceptions of UK managers.  Journal of Managerial Psychology 15 (5), pp. 460‐476

NICE, Graveling et al., 2008 – available on NICE website

(Johns ; Dew, Keefe et al. 2005; Whitehouse 2005; Caverley, Cunningham et al. 2007; Munir, Yarker et al. 2008; Ashby and Mardon 2010)

ReferencesAshby, K. and M. Mardon (2010). Why do employees come to work when ill? An investigation into sickness 

presence in the workplace. London, UK, The Work Foundation.

Caverley, N., J. Cunningham, et al. (2007). "Sickness presenteeism, sickness absenteeism, and health following restructuring in a public service organization." Journal of Management Studies 44(2): 304‐319.

Dew, K., V. Keefe, et al. (2005). "'Choosing' to work when sick: Workplace presenteeism." Social Science & Medicine 60(10): 2273‐2282.

Johns, G. "Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda." Journal of Organizational Behavior31(4): 519‐542.

Munir, F., J. Yarker, et al. (2008). "Sickness absence management: Encouraging attendance or 'risk‐taking' presenteeism in employees with chronic illness?" Disability and Rehabilitation: An International, Multidisciplinary Journal 30(19): 1461‐1472.

Whitehouse, D. (2005). "Workplace presenteeism: How behavioral professionals can make a difference." Behavioral Healthcare Tomorrow 14: 32.