Empirical evaluation of the Steyn-Boers structural model of psychological well-being at work

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study recognised the importance of well-being of employees in today's turbulent working environment. It departed from the notion that the sustainability of organisations is determined by the quality of its workforce and therefore employee well-being is a major priority. The well-being of employees is not a random occurrence, but rather a complex phenomenon. Any attempt to influence or change the well-being of employees should be grounded in a firm understanding of the complexity of the well-being phenomenon.Steyn (2011) developed a Salotogenic Model of Occupational Well-being in an attempt to depict how positive psychological variables can be combined in a dynamic depiction of the nomological net of variables underlying the phenomenon of well-being in the workplace. The rationale for her study was that state-like Optimism and Self-efficacy will have a significant and direct positive effect on their Occupational Well-being, partly because of these psychological resources' ability to foster positive expectations about the future, and partly because of the heightened sense of Organisational Commitment and Work Engagement facilitated by higher levels of Optimism and Self-efficacy.As a first adaption to the Steyn (2011) study, this study attempted to explicate the arguments that motivated the adaption and expansion of the original Steyn (2011) Salutogenic Model of Occupational Well-being, into the Steyn-Boers Structural Model of Psychological Well-being at Work. Set within the theoretical frameworks of Positive Organisational Behaviour (POB), the Broaden-and-Build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), as well as Hobfoll's (1989) Conservation of Resource (COR) theory, the focus in this study was on explicating the nomological net ofariables underlying Subjective Well-being (SWB) and Psychological Well-Being at Work (PWBW), as two contemporary constructs well integrated into the Occupational Well-being literature. SWB was defined as both Hedonic Well-being (HWB) and Eudaimonic Well-being (EWB). HWB was further defined as Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA). Well-being was contextualised in the work domain with Dagenais-Desmarais and Sovoie's (2012) Psychological Well-being at Work (PWBW) construct. Hope, Resilience and Gratitude were included as additional psychological resources. Work Engagement was retained in the current study due to its central role in well-being. It was argued that Perceived Organisational Support (POS) and Psychological Ownership should further translate into better well-being and were therefore included in this study.A non-experimental research design (i.e. survey study) was used to explore the relationships between the various constructs. A convenience sample of 199 respondents was recruited via a social media network platform, Facebook, (i.e. non probability sampling technique). The measurement instruments included were the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988); Ryff's (1989) Psychological Well-being Scale; and the Index of Psychological Well-Being at Work, developed by Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie (2012). The four constructs that constitute Psychological Capital (Hope, Optimism, Self-efficacy and Resilience) were measured with the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (Luthans, Avey & Avolio 2007a). Gratitude was measured with the Gratitude Questionnaire-Six-Item form (GQ-6), (McCullough, Emmons & Tsang, 2002) and Work Engagement was measured with the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). Perceived Organisational Support was measured by the Perceived Organisational Support Scale, (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson & Sowa, 1986) and Psychologocal Ownership was measured with the Psychological Ownership Questionnaire (Pierce, O'Driscoll & Coghlan, 2004).Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item analysis were conducted to evaluate the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments. SEM was used to fit the structural model to the data to investigate the extent to which the abovementioned constructs were significant predictors of SWB and PWBW.The results of the study revealed that different positive psychological resources predicted different aspects of well-being. For example, Hope had an indirect effect on both PA and PWBW, whilst Optimism had a direct effect on EWB and NA, with an indirect effect on PA and PWBW. Self-efficacy had a direct effect on EWB and Resilience a direct effect on PA. Optimism, as found in the Steyn (2011) study, thus played a very central role in overall well-being. Gratitude, although it had no direct effect on any of the well-being constructs, affected NA, PA, EWB and PWBW indirectly by working mainly through Optimism. Strong support that Work Engagement and Perceived Organisational Support contribute to the well-being of employees emerged. Psychological Ownership was the only construct that had no direct or indirect effect on well-being. It was argued that a possible explanation for this may be that Psychological Ownership might not be an antecedent to well-being, but rather a dimension thereof.The importance of this study was thus condensed in the knowledge that there are certain important antecedents to the management of PWBW. The results provide a probable explanation of the complex nomological net of variables and their interrelationships with each other, which influence Psychological Well-being at Work.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University