Article

Vision
22(2) 174–184
Index of Psychological Well-being © 2018 MDI
SAGE Publications

at Work—Validation of sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0972262918766134

Tool in the Indian

http://journals.sagepub.com/home/vis

Organizational Context

Gargi Sandilya1
Ghazi Shahnawaz2

Abstract
Well-being has been a much valued emotion culling the interest of philosophers and researchers alike. Well-being at work is an even
more significant construct in the current scenario where each individual invests more than half of their waking hours in work or
work-related activities. While some researchers have worked on indigenous tools to measure generic well-being in the Indian cultural
arena, there are no indigenous context-specific tools to measure well-being at work. Internationally, only three models for well-being
at work were found. This article attempts to fill the gap in current literature by validating the Index of Psychological Well-being at
Work (IPWBW) designed by Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie (2011, What is psychological well-being, really? A grassroots approach
from the organizational sciences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(4), 659–684) for the employees working in India. The sample in this
study consists of employees from automobile and automotive parts manufacturers. Construct validity of IPWBW was established using
confirmatory factor analysis, establishing convergent and divergent validity as well as getting Cronbach’s alpha for the scale. The final
scale has 17 items across five dimensions. Psychological well-being at work was also established as a higher order construct.

Key Words
Well-being at Work, Indian Cultural Context, IPWBW, Convergent Validity, Divergent Validity, Higher Order Construct

Introduction well-being (Kashdan, Biswas-Diener & King, 2008; Ryan

A simple Google search on ‘well-being’ yields more than
104 million pages of results. This very simply indicates how
much well-being is valued and popular. With all the stressors
present in professional and personal life, today, each and
everyone of us is striving for well-being. Well-being has
implications for everybody so organizations too are invest-
ing on it as they believe that well-being would add to bottom-
line. Well-being is a well-researched concept, explored by
researchers all over the world. While the bulk of studies
towards the end of the millennium and the beginning of
2000s focused on the dichotomous perspective of well-
being as either hedonic (experiencing pleasure or avoiding
pain)or eudaimonic (finding purpose and meaning), more
recent studies support the integrated approach to studying
& Huta, 2009; Waterman 2008).
Like many other psychological constructs, most of the
research on well-being has been from a Western frame-
work (Agrawal et al., 2011; Joshanloo & Weijers, 2014).
Well-being is a complex construct, one with a multi-
dimensional nature studied from epidemiological and
developmental perspectives (Sharma, 2011). However, a
number of researchers have noted the significance of cul-
tural influences in the perception and experience of well-
being (Diener, Oishi & Lucas, 2003; Joshanloo & Weijers
2014; Oishi, 2010; Uchida, Norasakkunkit & Kitayama,
2004; Vazquez & Hervas 2013; Veenhoven, 2010 etc.). On
the other hand, Knoop and Fave (2013) argue that it is
becoming more and more difficult to define ‘cross-cultural’
in an increasingly globalized world where everything

1 IILM Undergraduate Business School, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, India.

2 Department of Psychology, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India.

Corresponding author:
Gargi Sandilya, IILM Undergraduate Business School, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110048, India.
E-mails: gargi.sandilya@gmail.com; gargi.sandilya@iilm.edu
Sandilya and Shahnawaz 175

seems to transcend geographical and cultural borders, done in this field for deeper and clearer understanding of
while simultaneously cautioning against the ‘monolithic the concept. Moreover, the perception and experience of
dominance’ of global harmony. well-being are culturally driven. Therefore, any research in
There is still a lot to be clarified and explored in relation the area of well-being at work necessitates not only a
to the concept of ‘well-being’ as seen in the theoretical context-specific investigation but also one that is culturally
and practical findings and arguments summarized above. relevant. The present article attempts to fill the gap in
Though an integrated approach to the study of well-being current literature by validating the Index of Psychological
seems most applicable (Forgeard, Jayawickreme, Kern & Well-being at Work (IPWBE) designed by Dagenais-
Seligman, 2011; Kashdan, Biswas-Diener & King, 2008; Desmarais and Savoie (2011) for the employees working in
Seligman, Parks & Steen, 2004), any definition of well- India. A detail discussion of this model is presented in the
being will have to take into consideration the cultural and following section.
contextual factors influencing the particular population
being studied. A detailed review of this debate is beyond the
scope of the present research, however, taking into consid- Measuring Well-being at Work
eration the gap in current literature and the need for a tool to One of the first comprehensive models on affective well-
measure psychological well-being in the work (PWBW) being in occupational settings was one proposed by Warr
context, an attempt was made to validate an existing tool for (1990), wherein affective well-being was approached
the Indian working population. through three principal axes (‘pleasure – displeasure’;
‘anxiety-contentment’ and ‘depression-enthusiasm’) and
Well-being at Work existing measures were used and validated. After a period
of extensive work on context-free measures for well-being,
Context-free measures of well-being have made significant there is again a focus on job-related well-being since 2010.
contributions to the understanding of the construct, such as Jessica Pryce-Jones (2010), through a 5-year study,
life satisfaction scale, PANAS, Ryff PWB scale and so on. proposed one of the first models for happiness at work. The
It is important to note that a large number of people spend authors have used the word ‘happiness’ for which the
more than half of their waking hours doing work or work- definition is more eudaimonic in nature with focus on
related activities. This makes well-being in the work achieving potential, and therefore, akin to well-being. In
context a significant construct to be explored and under- this model, happiness at work is defined as a mind-set,
stood (Dagenais-Desmarais & Savoie, 2011; Warr 2012). which allows an individual to maximize performance and
While discussing issues in measurement of well-being, achieve potential while encompassing job satisfaction and
Warr (2012) highlighted the scope of measurement as both
context-free and context-specific such as job-related well-
being. Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie (2011) add that
while context-free measures of psychological well-being
are frequently used in the work context as well, they appear
to be maladapted to adequately reflect the organizational
reality.
Rath, Harter and Harter (2010) identified five domains
that lead to overall well-being of an individual and conclude
that career well-being is the most important out of the five
domains, for most of the people. Fisher (2014) states that
‘Many concepts and measures used in organizational
behaviour appear to straddle the different dimensions of
well-being, … Furthermore, some aspects are commonly
measured, and measured very well, while other important
components of overall well-being at work have been
largely ignored’. (p. 15). Fisher further affirms that well-
being at work is a multidimensional construct, emphasizing
the need to broaden the outlook while studying this concept.
Emphasizing the distinctness of the work domain of life
and simultaneously citing Diener, Oishi and Lucas (2003),
Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie (2011) establish the
relevance of domain-based analysis of PWBW.
Overall, there is enough evidence (discussed above) to
show that well-being at work is a concept that necessitates Figure1. Happiness at Work by Pryce-Jones 2010
separate emphasis and that there is still a lot of work to be Source: Pryce-Jones (2010).
176
Figure 2. The ASSET Model of Workplace Well-being
Source: Robertson and Cooper (2011).
engagement, and emphasizing the power an individual has
over his/her level of happiness. Figure 1 depicts the model
by Pryce-Jones (2010). Pryce-Jones (2010) has provided a
comprehensive, research-based case for the benefits of
workplace happiness, while simultaneously dispelling a
number of myths have grown up around and about
happiness, skilfully balancing the research findings and
theoretical foundations. However, the questionnaire used
for the above research is not made available for further
studies, making it difficult to generalize the model and take
the research forward.
Robertson and Cooper (2011) suggested one of the
models. This is called the ASSET (A Shortened Stress
Evaluation Tool) model for well-being at work, as shown
in Figure 2, and takes an integrated approach to the under-
standing of well-being at work. The ASSET model seems
to be comprehensive, taking into account the internal as
well as external influences that impact the well-being of an
individual at work. Further the model takes into account
the hedonic as well as eudaimonic elements of well-being
while looking at the positive emotions and the sense of
purpose extending the current trend for integrated approach
to well-being in the work context as well. Once again,
though the model is comprehensive, the questionnaire for
measuring the well-being at work, associated with the
model, is not easily available for research purposes.
Another study by Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie
(2011) is also relevant to the work context. Reiterating the
need for context-specific measures for well-being at work,
the authors build the case with the argument that work is a
life domain distinct from others, such as leisure, friends
Vision 22(2)
and family, since the workplace involves specific parame-
ters leading to unique experiences for individuals. They
add that individuals invest more than half of their working
hours at their workplace which in turn provides them sus-
tenance, decent living conditions and opportunities to use
their potential. Incorporating these ideas and working in an
inductive manner, the authors adopted a qualitative bot-
tom-up approach as a result of which they arrived at 80
manifestations of PWBW. Based on this data, a new instru-
ment was designed and administered to a sample of 1,080
employees, in tandem with context-free measures of psy-
chological well-being, distress, positive and negative
effects and life satisfaction. Exploratory factor analysis
revealed that PWBW can be conceptualized through five
dimensions: (a) Interpersonal Fit at Work—Perception of
experiencing positive relationships with individuals inter-
acting with oneself within the work context; (b) Thriving at
Work—Perception of accomplishing a significant and
interesting job that allows one to fulfil oneself as an indi-
vidual; (c) Feeling of Competency at Work—Perception
of possessing the necessary aptitudes to do one’s job
efficiently and have mastery of the tasks to perform;
(d) Perceived Recognition at Work—Perception of being
appreciated within the organization for one’s work and
one’s personhood; and (e) Desire for Involvement at
Work—Will to involve oneself in the organization and
to contribute to its good functioning and success. Dagenais-
Desmarais and Savoie (2011) also found that these five
dimensions of PWBW are not completely separate
constructs rather manifesting themselves as they belong to
an all-encompassing construct PWBW. The researchers
Sandilya and Shahnawaz 177
also propose a reliable and valid measure for PWBW
(IPWBW) with 25 items on a six-point Likert scale, which
was developed from a grounded conceptualization of
PWBW based on a work frame of reference. The authors’
have made this tool easily available for research purposes
in the form of a published paper along with details of how
it was developed. Interestingly, this is one of the scales
which have been used by some of the researchers and
found it valid in other cultures as well (Bonnel & Py, 2014;
Vermaak, 2016; Vermaak, Gorgens-Eckermans, &
Nieuwenhuize, 2017). Therefore, it would be interesting to
explore the validity of IPWBW in the Indian context to
provide more cross-cultural suitability of it.
Thus, it can be said that there are three significant
constructs of well-being at work, as discussed previously.
A closer look at all the three models of well-being at work
shows that the components are largely eudaimonic in
nature, indicating that well-being in the work context is not
merely a feeling of pleasure and positive effect. It is
concerned with concepts of meaning seeking, relatedness,
opportunities for growth, and so on. As Robertson and
Cooper (2011) state, well-being at work is not just feeling
good and doing things that are relaxing, but a clear sense of
purpose that is an important aspect which directly relates to
meaningfulness of work.
Keeping all the above information in mind the following
hypothesis was formulated:
1. The Index for Psychological Well-being at Work
(IPWBW) would be valid for the Indian organiza-
tional sample.
Psychological Well-being at Work
as a Higher Order Construct
Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie (2011) presented IPWBW
as a higher order construct having five dimensions. Ryff and
Keyes (1995) also found psychological well-being to be a
higher order construct encompassing six primary factors—
self-regard, mastery of surrounding environment, quality
relations with others, continued growth and development,
purposeful living and capacity for self-determination. Masse
et al. (1998) in their study of mental health considered it as a
two-dimensional latent higher order construct with psycho-
logical distress and well-being as its components. Linley,
Maltby, Wood, Osborne and Hurling (2009) found that
psychological well-being and subjective well-being were
related but independent higher order constructs. It is, there-
fore, safe to say that the various factors of psychological
well-being can be viewed as components of a higher latent
order construct—psychological well-being. Considering
that previous studies support a higher order construct for
psychological well-being, Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie
(2011) found it reasonable to test for the relevance of higher
order factor representing PWBW.
As seen above, several researchers have considered
well-being as a higher order construct and understood with
the help of a number of sub-dimensions that are separate
yet related under the larger umbrella construct—well-
being. Following this pattern, in the present study as well,
the following hypothesis (H2) was formulated:
2. 
Psychological Well-being at Work (PWBW) would
fit the model for a higher order construct.
Method
The standard procedure for collecting demographic details
of the sample as well as for administration of questionnaire
was implemented to collect relevant data for the research.
Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS 21 as
well as R software.
Sample
Following Kline’s (2011) recommendation, we attempted
to collect data from a sample of 20 per item in the
questionnaire, which comes to 500 ideally; however,
completed questionnaires received were 387, which was
found to be adequate and therefore used as such for the
current research. The details of the sample are given in
Table 1. Data were collected from a number of manu-
facturing industries in the automotive sector located in
different parts of India.
Data were collected from automotive and related
industries from across India. The age range of the participants
was between 21 and 58 years, the mean being 33.74. Men
comprised 81 per cent of the sample (317 to be precise) and
the rest were women.
Procedure
Once all the data were collected, it was all collated and fed
into a statistical package (IBM SPSS 21 was used for this
purpose). The data were first scrutinized for outliers and
checked for normality based on skewness (ranging from
−2.2 to −0.72) and kurtosis (ranging from −0.33 to 6.11)
values, and were ready for further statistical analysis.
The R software’s (3.1.2 version) Lavaan package
(0.5-17 Beta release) was chosen to carry out confirmatory
Table 1. Sample Details for IPWBW Tool Validation
Number of Work
Respondents Age Range Experience
N=387
Men Women
317 70 21–58 years 2–31 years
Source: Authors’ own.
178 Vision 22(2)

Table 2. Fit Indices of the Original IPWBW as well as the 4. I know my value as a worker. (Feeling of Competency
Modified Version of the Scale on the Indian Sample at work)
5. I feel that I am a full member of my organization.
Original
Fit indices Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 (Perceived recognition at work)
0.776 0.782 0.865 0.895
6. I feel that I am accepted as I am by the people I work
CFI
with. (Interpersonal fit at work)
TLI 0.746 0.752 0.835 0.869
CHI 1400.36 1317.541 608.113 448.382 7. I feel that I know what to do in my job. (Feeling of
SQUARE Competency at work)
DF 265 242 125 109 8. I like to take on challenges in my work. (Desire for
P <0.001 <0.001 <.001 <0.001 Involvement at work)
CMIN/Df 5.284 5.444 4.864 4.113
RMSEA 0.105 0.107 0.100 0.090 While the model fit was checked after every item was
SRMR 0.096 0.096 0.067 0.058 removed, only the first two and final two models have been
Chi-square 82.823 159.731
depicted in Table 2, for convenience. At each stage, the chi-
difference P<0.001 P<0.001
(1,2) (3,4) square difference was ascertained to be significant before
Source: Authors’ own.
proceeding with further deletion, ensuring that the model
was better than the previous. Results show that the CFI
factor analysis (henceforth referred to as CFA) on the (Confirmatory Fit Index) and TLI (Tucker-Lewsi Index)
collated data to validate the IPWBW tool for the Indian scores are tending towards 0.9, which is the value for a
working population using the maximum likelihood (ML) good model fit. The SRMR (Standardized Root-Mean-
method. square Residual) value is well within acceptable limits of
0.8. As three of the indices are indicating a good model fit,
we can safely accept this model to be fitting the given data
Results (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2014). The resultant
model is depicted in Figure 3.
Before applying any statistics, the tool was tested for
Hence, the final PWBW measure that was found to be
common method bias (CMB) using exploratory factor
valid for the Indian organizational sample consisting of the
analysis in SPSS, loading all the variables on one factor.
items and factors is shown in Table 3.
The results showed that approximately 39 per cent of the
variance is explained by a single factor. As this is less than
50 per cent, we can conclude that this data set does not Construct Validity
suffer from CMB (Harman, 1967). Then, CFA was run on
One of the objectives of carrying out CFA is to assess the
the data, and the results of CFAs analysis are presented
construct validity or the accuracy of measurement of the
below in Table 2.
proposed measurement model (Hair, Black, Babin &
As we can deduce from the fit indices for Model 1 given
Anderson, 2014). Construct validity is made up of four
in Table 2, the original model did not fit the data, since
components, convergent, discriminant, nomological and
none of the fit indices (CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR and
face validity, of which the first two have been checked in
Chi-square) were within permissible limits. In fact, as chi-
detail in the current study. Face validity was not carried out
square fit index is sensitive to sample size and sample
since an already validated tool was used and only its
variability (Bollen, 1989); other indicators need to be
application in the Indian organizational scenario was being
explored in most cases. The other indices are also not
tested here.
fitting the model in this case.
When the model does not fit, the removal of problematic
item/s appears to be the preferred solution. Factor loadings Convergent Validity
of the items were examined to identify the problematic
Convergent validity ensures that the indicators of a
item and then items were removed one by one. The items
construct share a high proportion of variance in common,
were removed along with the factor they measure in
which can be estimated through factor loadings as well as
parenthesis. The order in which they were removed is listed
average variance extracted (AVE). Table 3 shows the factor
as follows:
loadings of each indicator as well as the AVE of each of the
five factors/latent constructs.
1. I want to be involved in my organization beyond my
According to Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson (2014),
work duties. (Desire for Involvement at work)
ideally, standardized factor loadings of 0.7 or higher
2. I know that people believe in the projects I work on.
indicate that they converge on a common point, the latent
(Perceived Recognition at work)
construct. However, they also state that factor loadings of
3. I have a great sense of fulfilment at work. (Thriving
0.5 and above are acceptable, though more of the variance
at work)
in the measure is error variance than explained variance.
Sandilya and Shahnawaz 179

Figure 3. The Final IPWBW CFA Model

Source: Authors’ own creation.

Table 3. The Factors, Items and Factor Loadings of the Final Version of the IPWBW Measure used in the Current Study

Cronbach’s
Factor Items Factor loadings AVE Alpha
1. Interpersonal Fit at Work   1. I value the people I work with. 0.65
  2. I enjoy working with the people at my job. 0.44 0.76
  3. I get along well with the people at my job. 0.67
  4. I have a relationship of trust with the
people at my job. 0.66

0.68
2. Thriving at work   5. I find my job exciting. 0.81
  6. I like my job. 0.85 0.63 0.87
  7. I am proud of the job I have. 0.76
  8. I find meaning in my work.
0.76
3. Feeling of Competency at   9. I know I am capable of doing my job. 0.67
work 10. I feel confident at work. 0.56 0.79
11. I feel effective and competent in my work. 0.80
0.77
4. Perceived Recognition at 12. I feel that my work is recognized. 0.85
work 13. I feel that my work efforts are 0.62 0.82
appreciated. 0.85
14. I feel that the people I work with
recognize my abilities. 0.64
5. Desire for Involvement at 15. I want to take initiative in my work. 0.68
work 16. I care about the good functioning of my 0.48 0.73
organization. 0.70
17. I want to contribute to achieving the goals
of my organization.
0.70
Source: Authors’ own.
180
Table 4. The Squares of Inter-correlation between the Dimensions of IPWBW, N=387
Interpersonal
Fit Thriving
Interpersonal AVE = 0.44  
Fit
Thriving 0.338 AVE = 0.63
Feeling of 0.388 0.239
Competency
Perceived 0.245 0.297
Recognition
Desire for 0.402 0.242
Involvement
Source: Authors’ own.
The other indicator of convergent validity, AVE, is a
summary measure of convergence among a set of items
representing a latent construct. It is the average percentage
of variation explained (variance extracted) among the
items of a construct. The AVE of 0.5 is higher which is to
be considered as a robust model suggesting adequate
convergence (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2014). The
AVE scores for each dimension are shown in Table 3. As is
clear from these values, three out of five dimensions are
fitting the model perfectly, while Desire for Involvement at
work is on the borderline with 0.48 that can be rounded off
to 0.5. However, one-dimensional interpersonal fit at work
has a low AVE of 0.44, which has been accepted since
some flexibility is often allowed in social science research,
where the subjects of study are human beings and their
perceptions and behaviours.
Reliability measured using Cronbach’s alpha is also
considered as an indicator of convergent validity if the value
is 0.7 or higher, though values between 0.6 and 0.7 are also
considered acceptable (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson,
2014). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the current
sample was found to be 0.83 for the overall scale. The
Cronbach’s alpha for each of the five dimensions, given in
Table 3, indicates robust value of Cronbach’s alpha.
As discussed previously, the measurement model
IPWBW is found to have robust convergent validity with
all the three indicators—factor loadings, AVE and construct
reliability.
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity is the extent to which a construct is
truly distinct from other constructs and provides evidence
that a construct is unique (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson,
2014). In order to estimate the discriminant validity, Hair,
Black, Babin and Anderson (2014) recommend the method
of comparing the AVE values for any two constructs with the
square of the correlation estimate between these two
constructs. If the AVE value is higher than the square of
correlation, it provides good evidence of discriminant
validity of the construct. Although Farrell (2009) contends
Vision 22(2)
Feeling of Perceived Desire for
Competency Recognition Involvement
   
   
AVE = 0.56  
0.146 AVE = 0.62
0.318 0.158 AVE = 0.48
that while CFA is a robust technique for establishing
convergent validity, it is not the best technique to assess
discriminant validity; in the current research, we have
followed the recommendation of Hair, Black, Babin and
Anderson (2014). Table 4 shows the square of the inter-
correlations between the dimensions of IPWBW. Comparing
the values of AVE in Table 3 (ranging from 0.44 to 0.63)
and the in Table 4 (ranging from 0.15 to 0.40) shows that all
the AVE values are higher than the squares of inter-
correlations between the dimensions. Therefore, each of
the five constructs in this measurement model is unique
capturing phenomena that other constructs do not, fitting
the requirement for discriminant validity as well.
Hypothesis H1 is, therefore, not rejected and the
IPWBW is found to be a reliable and valid tool to measure
PWBW in the Indian organizational context after a few
items were removed. Construct validity of the tool was
established through convergent and discriminant validity.
Psychological Well-being at Work
as a Higher Order Construct
Second-order CFA was further run on the data using once
again R-software’s Lavaan package. The fit indices of the
second-order CFA are provided in Table 5, and the model
was found to fit the data. As we can see, the values of CFI,
TLI and SRMR are within the suggested limits of a good
model fit. According to our results, themes such as inter-
personal relations, thriving, feeling of competency, per-
ceived recognition and desire for involvement at work are
distinct constructs as established through discriminant
validity, but are not manifesting themselves independently.
Rather, they belong to an all-encompassing construct and
interact with one another to reflect a larger theme, PWBW.
This PWBW model relies on a hierarchical structure of
PWBW in which the four dimensions represent an
underlying latent construct of PWBW.
Figure 4 represents the final model that fits the current
data. Therefore, PWBW can be defined as an individual’s
subjective positive experience at work by experiencing
one’s personhood and being appreciated and recognized
Sandilya and Shahnawaz 181

Figure 4. The Second-order CFA Model of IPWBW

Source: Authors’ own creation.

Table 5. The Second-order CFA Fit Indices for the Reduced

IPWBW Tool

PWBW
Fit indices Higher order
CFI 0.91
TLI 0.89
CHI SQUARE 388.978
DF 115
P <0.001
CMIN/Df 3.382
RMSEA 0.078
SRMR 0.055
Source: Authors’ own.

for it. In other words, PWBW comprises of five dimensions, Discussion and Implications
namely, interpersonal fit at work, thriving at work, feeling
of competency at work, perceived recognition at work and The PWBW as a construct has implications in several areas
desire for involvement at work. including theory building, conceptualization, measurement
and practical application in organizations to improve
   ypothesis H2 is, therefore, not rejected since the
H performance and productivity. The current research was
IPWBW is found to fit the model as a higher order carried out with two main objectives in mind (first to
construct. validate the IPWBW for the Indian organizational sample
182
and second to establish PWBW as a higher order construct)
adding value to the aspects of conceptualization, measure-
ment as well as practical applications. While theoretically
speaking as well, the current article calls attention to the
need to delve into the context when studying well-being of
individuals.
As shown in the results section, the tool IPWBW was
found to be valid for the current sample drawn from Indian
organizations after the removal of a few items. The final
validated tool consisted of 17 items measuring five
dimensions—interpersonal fit at work, thriving at work,
feeling of competency at work, perceived recognition at
work and desire for involvement at work. All these five
factors are largely eudaimonic in nature, showing that
people look for more from the work front than just
subjective well-being or hedonic happiness. This may
point to the importance of a supportive culture that would
enhance eudaimonic aspects of PWBW for its employees.
Sudha, Shahnawaz and Farhat (2016) also found that
leadership style impacts well-being of employees directly
and indirectly in the Indian academic scenario. Taking
forward the arguments proposed by Warr (2012) and Fisher
(2014) among others, for the need for context-specific
tools to measure well-being at work, the current research
explored the same in the Indian context. The validation of
the IPWBW clearly highlights the need for a context-
specific tool to measure the well-being at work since all the
dimensions herein are related to work as also argued by
Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie (2011). While generic
measures of well-being are important, they may not take
into consideration contextual factors that are influencing
well-being at work. Therefore, it is time to switch from the
context-free measures of well-being that have so far been
used in the work context to context-specific measures that
take into account the antecedents of well-being in that
specific context, along with any generic measures that one
might use. While the context may further change in infrastru-
cture, manufacturing, information technology, academics
and service industries to name a few, the current PWBW
tool can be considered as a generic tool to measure the
well-being at work.
Furthermore, PWBW was conceptualized as a higher
order construct following the lead from other researchers,
such as Ryff and Keyes (1995), Masse et al. (1998) and
more recently Linley, Maltby, Wood, Osborne and Hurling
(2009). The PWBW was also found to fit the model as a
second order. This shows that the essence of PWBW is far
bigger than any of the individual components and that the
five dimensions are not independent but rather related to
each other, together, in combination measuring PWBW.
Several researchers have established that happier
employees perform better and are, therefore, more pro-
ductive (e.g., Chen & Cooper, 2014; Pryce-Jones, 2010;
Rath, Harter & Harter, 2010; Warr, 2012). In terms of
practical applications, therefore, organizations wishing to
improve the productivity and performance of the organization
Vision 22(2)
need to focus on the psychological well-being specifically
in the work context. This can be further specified as a need
to focus on creating—(a) satisfactory relationships at work
(interpersonal fit at work); (b) opportunities for employees
to express their potential and to grow (thriving); (c) a
feeling of being valued for the contribution made (perceived
recognition); (d) a feeling of being capable of handling
situations (competency); and (e) a willingness to be involved
with the organization’s goals (desire for involvement)—the
five dimensions of PWBW measured by IPWBW, which
has been validated by the Indian organizational context in
this study.
Conclusion
The focus of the current study was to validate the IPWBW
for the Indian organizational population and to establish
PWBW as a higher order construct. Not finding the original
model fitting the data, modifications were made, and the
tool was refined based on the factor loadings and fit indices
of CFA. The resulting 17-item scale measuring five
dimensions of PWBW was found to fit the model and
therefore applicable to the Indian organizational sample.
This is a significant contribution to the Indian organizational
literature, since there are currently no indigenous context-
specific tools to measure well-being at work for the Indian
employees. Further, this research also establishes PWBW
as a higher order construct, adding to the current indigenous
literature of well-being at work at the theoretical aspect as
well as practical application in organizations.
Limitations and Suggestions
As this study is focused on the automotive sector, there is a
need to look at the applicability of the modified version of
IPWBW in other sectors in India as well. In addition,
because of the nature of the industry and the existing
gender ratios, the gender-based study could not be accom-
plished since the sample was largely male. Therefore,
further studies can take into account a larger array of
industries enabling the validation of the tool for other
sections as well as both genders.
References
Agrawal, J., Murthy, P., Philip, M., Mehrotra, S., Thennarasu,
K., John, P. J., … Isaac, M. (2011). Socio-demographic
correlates of subjective well-being in urban India. Social
Indicators Research, 101(3), 419–434.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.
New York, NY: John Wiley.
Bonnel, F., & Py, J. (2014). Contribution to professional devel-
opment with a sponsorship skill project: Enhancing organi-
zational citizenship behaviors and well-being at work. Paper
presented at 28th International Congress of Applied
Psychology, Paris, France.
Chen, P. Y., & Cooper, C. L. (2014). From stress to happiness.
In P. Y. Chen and C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Work and well-being:
Sandilya and Shahnawaz 183
Well-being: A complete reference guide, (Volume III., p. 3–7)
West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dagenais-Desmarais, V., & Savoie, A. (2011). What is psycho-
logical well-being, really? A grassroots approach from the
organizational sciences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(4),
659–684. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9285-3
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture,
and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evalua-
tions of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 403–425.
Farrell, A. M. (2009). Factor analysis and discriminant valid-
ity: A brief review of some practical issues. Retrieved
on 16 March 2016, from https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja
&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjCgYv918bLAhVEB44KHR
4mAPoQFggfMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hel-
sinki.fi%2F~komulain%2FMisc1%2Fvalidity-farrell.
pdf&usg=AFQjCNFt-45csMGwWzPuyYTl8CF6u1eJMA
Fisher, C. D. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring well-
being at work. In P.Y. Chen and C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Work
and well-being: Well-being: A complete reference guide
(Vol. III, p. 9–33). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Forgeard, M. J. C., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M. L., & Seligman,
M. E. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring well-being
for public policy. International Journal of Well-being,
1(1), 79–106.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014).
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson
Education Limited.
Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Joshanloo, M., &Weijers, D. (2014). Aversion to happiness
across cultures: A review of where and why people are averse
to happiness. Journal of happiness studies, 15(3), 717–735.
doi: 10.1007/s10902-013-9489-9
Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008).
Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing
between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 3(4), 219–233. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/17439760802303044
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equa-
tion modelling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Knoop, H. H., & Fave, A. D. (2013). Positive psychology and
cross cultural research. In H. H. Knoop and A. DelleFave
(Eds.), Well-being and cultures: Perspectives from positive
psychology, cross-cultural advancements in positive psychol-
ogy (p. 3). Dordrecht: Springer.
Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Osborne, G., & Hurling,
R. (2009). Measuring happiness: The higher order factor
structure of subjective and psychological well-being meas-
ures. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 878–884.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.010
Masse, R., Poulin, C., Dassa, C., Lambert, J., Belair, S., &
Battaglini, A. (1998). The structure of mental health: Higher-
order confirmatory factor analyses of psychological dis-
tress and well-being measures. Social Indicators Research,
45(1/3), 475–504.
Oishi, S. (2010). Culture and well-being: Conceptual and meth-
odological issues. In Diener, John F. Helliwell, & Daniel
Kahneman (Eds.), International differences in well-being (pp.
34–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pryce-Jones, J. (2010). Happiness at work: Maximizing your
psychological capital for success. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Blackwell Publishing.
Rath, T., Harter, J., & Harter J. K. (2010). Well-being: The five
essential elements. NY, USA: Gallup Press.
Robertson, I., & Cooper, C. (2011). Well-being: Productivity and
happiness at work. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ryan, R. M., & Huta, V. (2009). Wellness as healthy function-
ing or wellness as happiness: The importance of eudaimonic
thinking (response to the Kashdan et al. and Waterman dis-
cussion). The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 202–204.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psy-
chological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.
Seligman, M. E. P., Parks, A. C., & Steen, T. (2004). A balanced
psychology and a full life. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1379–1381.
doi 10.1098/rstb.2004.1513
Sharma, R. R. (2011). An empirical investigation into the role
of EQ/Emotional—Intelligence competencies in mental well-
being. Vision, 15(2), 177–191.
Sudha, K. S., Shahnawaz, M .G., & Farhat, A. (2016). Leadership
styles, leader’s effectiveness and well-being: Exploring col-
lective efficacy as a mediator. Vision, 20(2), 111–120. doi:
10.1177/0972262916637260
Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural
constructions of happiness: Theory and empirical evidence.
Journal of happiness studies, 5(3), 223–239.
Vazquez, C., & Hervas, G. (2013). Addressing current challenges
in cross-cultural measurement of well-being: The Pemberton
Happiness Index. In H. H. Knoop and A. DelleFave (Eds.),
Well-being and cultures: Perspectives from positive psychol-
ogy, cross-cultural advancements in positive psychology
(p. 3). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4611-4_1
Veenhoven, R. (2010). How universal is happiness? In Diener,
John F. Helliwell, and Daniel Kahneman, International
differences in well-being, (pp. 328–350). Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
acprof:oso/9780199732739.003.0011
Vermaak, C. (2016). The development and empirical evalua-
tion of a psychological well-being at work structural model
for geriatric care staff (Unpublished thesis), Stellenbosch
University, Stellenbosch, SA: University of Stellenbosch.
Vermaak, C., Gorgens-Eckermans, G., & Nieuwenhuize, C.
(2017). Shift work, emotional labour and psychological well-
being of nursing staff. Journal of Contemporary Management
Issues, 20(2), 35–48.
Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other
aspects of mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology
(p. 76-90), 63(3), 193–210. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.
tb00521.x
Warr, P. (2012). How to think about and measure psychologi-
cal well-being. In M. Wang, R. R. Sinclair and L. E. Tetrick
(Eds.), Research methods in occupational health psychology.
New York: Psychology Press/Routledge.
Waterman, A. S. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimon-
ist’s perspective. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4),
234–252. doi: 10.1080/17439760802303002
184
About the Authors
Gargi Sandilya (PhD) (gargi.sandilya@gmail.com) is a Life
Coach and certified Workshop Leader for several personal
development programmes. Currently, she is engaged as a
Counsellor and Assistant Professor at IILM Institute for
Higher Education, New Delhi. She teaches human resource
management, leadership, communication and negotiation-
related subjects. Her research interests include well-being
at work, employee engagement, organizational culture, etc.
Vision 22(2)
As counsellor, she lends a listening ear to students, faculty
members and staff interested in sharing their feelings and/
or challenges they are facing. Before this she also enjoyed
8+ years in the area of corporate training.
Ghazi Shahnawaz is currently teaching psychology at
Jamia Millia Islamia. He has over 20 years of teaching and
research experience. His current interests include positive
psychology at work in the Indian context, development of
culturally relevant psychometric tools etc.