Since the 1930s there has been a countlessarrangement of interest in the relationship between employee well-being and productivity. Hersey (1932) reported a positive relationship between daily emotions and performance, whereas Kornhauser and Sharp (1932) reported that worker attitudes (more cognitive valuations of happiness) were altogether unrelated to efficiency. Knowing whether or not happiness in the workplace promotes productivity has important inferences for management and strategies for workplace improvements.
SWB is also comprehensive term comprised of numerous, empirically distinct theories. For example, emotional experience (often operationalized as the independent dimensions of positive affect and negative affect) is correlated with, yet separate from, more cognitive appraisals of subjective well-being such as life happiness (at a global level) or various field satisfactions, such as job satisfaction (see Diener 2005; Kim-Prieto et al. 2005).
For years, organizational psychologists deliberated the idea that happy workers would be better performers and more productive. It makes some instinctive sense, right? If you are feeling positive, it appears like you’d be more motivated to get things complete and go through your day with a decent attitude. However, the results around this idea were slightly mixed until people started speaking about the alteration between job satisfaction and well-being.
1.2 Are happy workers really more productive?
Happy employees are more productive … it’s common sense, right? This assumption that “happy = productive” underpins so many current working strategies, so it is hoped that it is correct. Companies around the world invest millions in their working environment to optimize conditions and promote employee well-being, convinced that this will help achieve the great business goal of improved productivity.
Which data is this assumption actually based on? When one goes deeper, very few studies clearly show the direct link between the employee’s happiness and productivity. Although there is evidence that better-performing companies have happier employees, much less research has been done into whether satisfied employees actually contribute to better business performance. It is true that they may be more motivated and perhaps more loyal to their benevolent employer, but that does not automatically translate into improved performance and productivity.
That is why this article by Eugenio Proto is so interesting. Several previous studies in the field of psychology, social sciences, economics and management sciences are studied and draws a number of useful conclusions. Porto’s own research shows that a positive mood, an increase in happiness, leads to a marked increase in productivity in a task with paid piecework for both men and women. The study also showed that the effect works through a change in work output rather than in work quality.
The report concludes: “These findings have different implications for business operations and for research: first, if happiness in the workplace involves a return in terms of increased productivity, there are huge implications for the promotion policy of companies and for the way they structure their internal labor markets, for example, managers can be rewarded on the basis of employee satisfaction and employees can participate more actively in decision-making, which in general increases job satisfaction .
1.3 Rationale for the Happy/Productive Workers
The theory Y management proposes that cheerier people will be more productive, and variouspragmatic findings are dependable with this idea. For example, Bolger and Schilling (1991) found that employees who remained more prone to negative sentiments were more expected to use contentious interpersonal tactics and thus incite negative feedbacks from co-workers. According to Cropanzano and Wright (2001), less happy employees are promoted sensitive to pressures, more self-protective around co-workers, and more pessimistic.
Conversely, happier employees are sensitive to opportunities, more helpful to co-workers, and more confident.Although positive emotions likely foster productivity under many conditions, this effect is probably not ubiquitous. That is, just as pleasant emotions bias cognition and behavior in some ways (e.g., fostering creativity and sociability), unpleasant emotions bias cognition and behavior in other ways that may be useful under some circumstances. For example, negative moods seem to bias people’s attention towards details rather than global meaning (Gasper and Clore 2002), improving task performance when a detailed level of analysis is required.
Complicating things further, the valence of moods may interact with people’s motivations or instructions. For example, Martin et al. (1993) showed that positive moods predicted persistence when people were told to work until they felt like stopping, whereas negative moods predicted persistence when people were told to work until they could do no more.
Even these interactive effects may further depend on the person’s accountability (Sanna et al. 1996). positive emotions may also aid in building resources for future performance. That is, positive emotions likely foster new skill acquisition and the building of social capital that may be utilized at a later time (Fredrickson 2001). This suggests that trait measures of happiness (particularly positive emotions) could predict long-term productivity, even if happy states were unrelated (or even negatively related) to short-term productivity.
1.4 Productivity and Job Satisfaction
Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) stated to the search for a relationship between job satisfaction and also job performance as the ‘Holy Grail’ of organizational behavior study, and the happy-productive worker hypothesis has been widely studied (e.g., Judge et al. 2001; Ledford 1999; Staw and Barsade 1993).
The mutual theme running through these studies is the certainty that employees who are happier or more gratified with their job will also be good performers on those jobs. Despite the emotional relish of set conceptions of ‘happiness,’ job satisfaction scales do not typically emphasis on emotions, instead of asking employees to amount their satisfaction with their wage, working conditions, a job as a whole, etc. (e.g., Brayfield and Rothe 1951; Quinn 1979). Fisher (2000, 2003) recommends that this measurement decision contributes to feeble or varying findings.
In an early meta-analysis, Vroom (1964) reported a median correlation between job satisfaction and performance of 0.14. More recently Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) reviewed 74 studies and reported a mean corrected correlation between the two variables of 0.17. In contrast, Petty et al. (1984) reported a mean correlation of 0.31 from their meta-analysis, only 1 year earlier. Judge et al. (2001) estimated an underlying correlation between the two variables of about 0.30. Although all these analyses suggest at least some positive relationship between job satisfaction and productivity, there remains disagreement on its magnitude.
Wright and Cropanzano (2004) argue that the relationship between happiness and productivity would be stronger if happiness were operationalized more broadly than job satisfaction. They state, ”recent research has consistently demonstrated that high levels of well-being can boost performance on the job’. In a review of research into the happy/productive worker thesis, Cropanzano and Wright (2001) argue that in such studies, happiness has been inconsistently operationalized as the presence of positive affect, the absence of negative affect, lack of emotional exhaustion, and as job satisfaction. They suggest that although some of these constructs are meaningfully associated with performance.
1.5 Productivity and other Measures of Happiness
Recent reviews and theorizing have suggested that effect, especially positive effect, will be particularly important to productivity (Cote´ 1999; Lucas and Diener 2003; Lyubomirsky et al. 2005), but findings are nonetheless mixed. For example, Staw et al. (1994) offer compelling evidence for an association between affective experiences at work and productivity.
The authors employed a longitudinal design and found that reports of effect and depression predicted both pay and performance evaluations some 18 months later. In addition, Fisher (2003) found that affect predicted job performance better than job satisfaction did. However, some studies have failed to find an association between affect and performance (e.g., Wright and Staw 1999) and others have disagreed over whether positive affect (e.g., Staw and Barsade 1993) or negative affect (e.g., Wright et al. 2004) isa stronger predictor of performance.
Reported that recent experience of a positiveeffect at work such as state affect, predicted supervisor ratings of customer service, whereas trait affects failed to predict customer service (a proxy measure of productivity). Similarly, Fisher (2003) found that productivity was more strongly related to some happiness indicators at the state, rather than a trait, level of analysis, but that trait positive affect was still a good predictor.
1.5.1 The Present Study
Although the bulk of research suggests some association between happiness and productivity, the details of this relationship remain unclear. Central issues include the many ways happiness has been operationalized, and whether state and/or trait happiness predicts productivity. To address these questions we conducted a study utilizing multiple happiness indicators, assessed as both states and traits.
The selected happiness measures that would cover both cognitive and emotional approaches to assessment, with an eye towards measures commonly used in past research. Job satisfaction (Quinn 1979) was a clear choice as the majority of research on the happy-productive worker thesis has used it.
Job satisfaction is a primarily cognitive approach for sample based on judgments of conditions to domain-specific items, satisfaction with pay, Support, opportunities and second measure, life satisfaction (Diener et al. 1985), is Also a cognitive assessment, but much more general in that it encompasses all aspects of Life, and does not assess specific domains.
That is, it is assumed that respondents consider Domains and weights idiosyncratically to make judgments about the conditions of their Lives in generally. Therefore, life satisfaction provides the broadest test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis as the happiness may be completely unrelated to work. Drawing on the logic behind the life satisfaction measure (i.e., asking generally to allow for individual variation in what comprises important aspects and relative weights), we also included our own single-item measure of work-life quality (i.e. ‘Overall how would you rate the quality of your work life).
2.1 Definition of Subjective Well-Being (SWB)
Subjective well-being means that how people assess their lives. It’s a normal positive state that involves the whole life experience. This assessment may take the form of cognitions when a person makes a conscious evaluative judgment about their satisfaction with life as a whole. A person is having high subjective well-being if he is satisfied with his life and having frequent positive experiences or emotions such as joy and happiness and infrequent negative feeling such as sadness and anger (Diener, Sandvik&Pavot, 1991). Subjective well-being is a trait, not a state.
Many researchers argue that the individualhas a ‘set-point’ for happiness level and this is fixed and crucial part of our performance. So, SWB is very important as without it human beings shrink their skill to gather desired assets and weaken their ability to handle and remain flexible in the face of challenges (International Wellbeing Group, 2006).
2.2 Subjective well-being at Work
According to Diener’s (2006) definition of SWB, an employee has elevated work related SWB if he is satisfied with his job and has frequent positive experiences and infrequent negative emotions. Positive emotions are employees’ experiences at work investigative of engagement, happiness or satisfaction. Diener (1994) also stated that when SWB, the term is read it must be immediately noted that it’s not the same as happiness but synonymous with it.
It can be defined as a broad category that includes people’s emotional response, domain satisfaction and global judgments of life satisfaction. Seligman (2002) also said that positive psychology is the scientific study of how humans achieve happiness and mental satisfaction, in order to discover how people can lead the most productive lives possible. It is about positive subjective experience i.e. well-beingand satisfaction. In short, positive psychology is a science of subjective well-being.
2.3 Positive forms of Work-related SWB
Work engagement: it is defined as “an optimistic, gratifying, work-related state of mind that is portrayed by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeil and Bakker, 2010). Its position in the circumplex model is at the upper right quadrant resembling high levels of pleasure and activation. Vigor means a high level of energy while working and persistence even in the face of difficulties, dedication means being strongly in ones on work and experience a sense of enthusiasm and lastly absorption mean being fully concentrated in one’s own work. Because of engaged employees’ positive attitude towards themselves, employees’ buildup their own positive feedback in terms of appreciation, recognition,and success (Bakker, 2009).
Happiness at work: numerous researchers have connected subjective well-being with the term happiness (Cropanzano and Wright, 1999; Easterlin, 2001; Sleigman, 2002; Lyubomirski, 2001). It refers to the high level of activation as being satisfied and some hat lower as being excited. According to Fisher, (2003), more than 90% of workers agree that happy workers are productive workers as they are more active, energetic and interested in work and persistent to face difficulties as compared to unhappy employees. It is important to distinguish happiness as a specific emotion from other measures that cover a range of positive and negative emotions (Veenhoven, 1984).
2.4 Negative Forms of Work-related SWB
Workaholism: it is placed in the upper left of the quadrant reflecting lower levels of pleasure and high levels of work activation workaholism is an inner drive to struggle and work hard (Oates1971). According to Tris, Schaufeil,and Shimzau (2010), workaholism is an employee has the compulsion to work incessantly and give exceptional time to work and to meet expected organizational requirements.
Burnout: it’s placed in the lower left of the circumflex model reflecting low levels of pleasure and activation. According to Masiach and Jackson (1986), it was originally conceived as a work-related syndrome that most often occurs among individuals who work with other people. Consistent with our categorization of SWB according to the circumplex model and some researches have suggested that burnout is the opposite of work engagement (Gonalez-Roma-Schaufeil, Bakker and Lloret, 2006).
The subjective well-being construct is comprised of four different components:
? Life satisfaction (universal judgment of one’s own life).
? Satisfaction with necessary life domains ( family, health work)
? Positive affect ( many positive emotion and moods experienced)
? Low negative effects ( familiar with few unpleasant emotions and moods)
Dolan and White (2006), regard as these mechanisms of SWB as divisible elements. a person for example who have a high level of positive effect for a particular event will be dissatisfied because he has failed to achieve the personal aim. Alternatively, an individual experiencing negative affect may be satisfied by comparing himself to an individual in the less favorable situation. There are cross-cultural differences in happiness and life satisfaction that is not completely explained by income differences. Bradburn (1969) study showed that Subjective well-being was moderately associated with adjustment, neuroticism, work satisfaction and family situation, but was considerably associated with each other.
The current study tested the theory “happy employee and productive” disseminated by common sense,but that had not been tested empirically. The variable “organizationalstructure” in this revision because it is across the factor of all the organization. Thus, the aim to analyze empiricallythe effects that the work satisfaction and well-being at work generated on discrete job performanceconsidering the moderating role of the mechanisms of the organizational structure has been fulfilled.The main limitation of this topic isassociated with the sample. While having diversity, involving two organizations with members from differentcategorized levels and sectors, unfortunately, it was not imaginable to have all employees of both organizations.
Psychologists have inspected in comprehensive terms the relation between subjective well-being andproductivity-related performance using together experimental studies and real-world data. Theexperimental studies effort to convince “happiness shocks” (defined as exterior eventsthat change a person’s mood or affect in ways they identify as making them feel “happy”) in individuals in a laboratory setting, regularly with a small illustration of subjects and withoutincentivizing their behavior. Forming positive feelings brings subjects to increase theirapportionment of time to more creative tasks, which may be linked to more productivity while leaving fewer creative responsibilities basically unchanged.
1) Coelho, Jr. F. A., & Borges-Andrade, J. E. (2011). Efeitos de variáveisindividuais e contextuaissobredesempenho individual notrabalho. Estudos de Psicologia, 16(2), 111-120.
2) Burton, W. N., Conti, D. J., Chen, C. Y., &Edington, D. (1999). The role of health risk factors and disease on worker productivity. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 41, 863–877.
3) Butler, S. E., Aasheim, C., & Williams, S. (2007). Does telecommuting improve productivity? Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 101–103.
4) Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In
5) N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
6) Cleveland, J. N. (1999). Productivity. In L. Peters, C. R. Greer, & S. Youngblood (Eds.), Blackwell
7) encyclopedic dictionary of human resource management (pp. 272). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
8) Cote´, S. (1999). Affect and performance in organizational settings. Current Directions in Psychological
9) Science, 8, 65–68.
10) Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (2001). When a ”happy” worker is really a ”productive” worker: A reviewand further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice & Research, 53, 182–199.
11) Diener, E. (2005). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Journal of
12) Happiness Studies, 7, 397–404.
13) Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
14) Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
15) Arnold, J., Robertson, I.T., & Cooper, C.L. (1991). Work psychology,understanding human behavior in the workplace. London: LongmanGroup U.K. Ltd.
16) Brief, AP., Butcher, AH.,& Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and jobattitudes: The effects of positive mood-inducing events and negativeaffectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. OrganisationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 62 (1),55-62.
17) Nagy, M. (2002). Using a single item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 75, 77–86.
18) Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., &Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationship betweenindividual job satisfaction and individual job performance. Academy of Management Review, 9, 712–721.