Study

Unit

4
Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Learning Outcomes
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:

1. Describe the motivational state of learned helplessness and its causes.

2. Assess the risk of learned helplessness at workplaces and how it can be
mitigated.
3. Apply the four sources of self-efficacy according to social cognitive theory to
develop self-efficacy training.
4. Distinguish subjective and psychological well-being.
5. Explain Ryff’s Six-Factor Model of Psychological Well-being
6. Examine steps that organizations can take to foster meaning at work.

SU4-2
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Overview
How does one flourish and live a meaningful life? This is a remarkably difficult yet
important question to answer. Admittedly, science cannot provide individualized
answers for what will give your life meaning. Nevertheless, psychological sciences
have discovered several factors consistently found in meaningful life and work
experiences.

This study unit opens by first reviewing learned helplessness, a negative motivational
state that can damage one’s well-being. You will learn how to build self-efficacy,
which may bolster one’s capabilities and remedy learned helplessness. Lastly, you will
learn about psychological well-being and meaning at work and what organizations
can do to create fertile grounds for flourishing at work. When workers experience
meaning, they invest enthusiastically in the organization and gain well-being (Steger,
2016). Therefore, creating meaning at work generates important HR value as it shifts
the employer-employee relationship from a transactional exchange to a mutually
reinforcing one.

SU4-3
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Chapter 1: Learned Helplessness and Self-Efficacy

1.1 Learned Helplessness

Have you ever met anyone who gives up at the first sign of trouble? Who believes
they are “simply not smart enough to do anything right” and seem unmotivated to
bounce back from their setbacks? Perhaps you may even recall a time when you felt
this way. These are signs of what psychologists call learned helplessness, a state
accompanying repeated exposure to stressful and seemingly uncontrollable situations
until one continues to respond passively to later opportunities for change (Maier &
Seligman, 1976). While the term helplessness appears extreme, learned helplessness
and its associated passive or anxious responses to stress may be our default (a recent
revision by Maier & Seligman, 2016) until people learn that outcomes are controllable.
This normalcy suggests that HR practitioners and leaders should pay attention to
them to avoid creating harmful environments that inculcate helplessness. This
segment will review the classic work that birthed the concept of learned helplessness
and relate it to how certain workplace behaviors are particularly damaging to the well-
being of their employees.

1.2 Early Animal Research on Learned Helplessness

Reader discretion is advised. The following passage may be disturbing for animal
lovers – particularly dog lovers. Unfortunately, many early studies in psychology
were tested on rats and, in this case, dogs, which paved the way for many foundational
theories of learning and behavior. The original authors even recounted their
harrowing experiences experimenting on dogs as dog lovers (Maier & Seligman, 2016).
Fortunately, animal research in psychology is rarely used today, if at all.

The classic study by Seligman and Maier (1967) is often cited as the inception of
learned helplessness research. The experiment involved dogs assigned into (1)
inescapable, (2) escapable, or (3) no-shock groups. In the inescapable group, the dogs
were placed into hammocks and received shocks randomly for five seconds, and
nothing they did would terminate the shock. This treatment occurred only once a day,

SU4-4
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

lasting 64 days, with the intention that the dogs would learn that the shocks were
uncontrollable.

In the escapable shock group, the dogs received similar shocks. However, the shocks
could be stopped by pressing a button before their noses. In this condition, the dogs
could learn that the shocks were controllable. In the no-shock control group, the dogs
were placed in similar hammocks, and no shocks were administered. In all three
conditions, this phase – the learning phase – lasted 64 days.

The second phase of the experiment treated dogs from all three groups similarly. They
were placed in a two-compartment shuttlebox separated by a partition (figure below).
During each trial, the light on the wall would dim to signal the onset of an electric
shock. After the lights dimmed, the dogs had 10 seconds to jump over the partition,
allowing them to escape the shock. Otherwise, shocks were administered through the
floor grids for one minute.

Figure 4.1 Seligman’s apparatus used in learned helplessness experiments, adapted

from Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. Psychology (ed. 2e, p. 543, Fig
14.22). British Columbia, Canada: OpenStax. Under CC BY 4.0 license, retrieved from
https://collection.bccampus.ca/textbooks/psychology-2e

The results showed that dogs from the (1) escapable and (3) no shock conditions
during the first phase quickly learned to escape the shock in phase two. When shocked,
these dogs ran about frantically and often accidentally stumbled or jumped over the
barrier. They learned to escape the shock through trial and error or sheer grit.

SU4-5
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

The dogs from the (2) inescapable group (in the first phase) behaved differently in the
shuttlebox. These dogs initially ran and howled frantically but soon stopped and
whimpered until the shock was over. Furthermore, they quickly gave up after a few
trials and passively accepted the shock. Put simply, they previously had not learned
that these shocks were controllable and quickly arrived at the same conclusion in the
shuttlebox where the shocks were now actually controllable (Seligman & Maier, 1967).

1.3 Learned Helplessness in Man

Later studies further demonstrated that humans exposed to repeated uncontrollable
stressful events would also learn helplessness. In Hiroto and Seligman’s (1975) study,
participants were asked to solve cognitive problems. In two conditions, participants
wore headphones and were occasionally (1) blasted with uncontrollable loud noises
calibrated at 90 decibels during the cognitive problems. In another group, they (2)
could controllably switch off these noises by pressing a button placed before them
four times. It was noted that many participants did not switch the noise off. In another
variation, the cognitive tasks in one group were (3) unsolvable, while the last group
(4) received solvable tasks (as did groups 1 and 2).

As a dependent measure, participants were asked to solve anagram tasks. For example,
if presented with letters like BIATH, they had to find a word that used all the same
letters, like HABIT. Results suggested that those in the (1) uncontrollable noises and
the (3) insolvable cognitive task groups showed carryover learned helplessness effects,
solving significantly fewer anagram problems than the comparison group (Hiroto &
Seligman, 1975).

Unlike animal research, probing the thought patterns linked to learned helplessness
was possible. Specifically, attributions, how people interpret the cause of an event,
were critical to learned helplessness. In this vein, Diener and Dweck (1978) studied
how children responded to being told they were “wrong” on cognitive tasks. They
found that children who exhibited learned helplessness blamed themselves for being
wrong, with self-talk like “I am not smart enough.” In contrast, children they referred
to as mastery-oriented made fewer attributions for being wrong. If they did, they
explained that their failure was due to a lack of effort, the experimenter’s fairness, or

SU4-6
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

the task’s increased difficulty. In most instances, they remained focused on the task
and finding strategies to remedy the problem (Diener & Dweck, 1978).

1.4 Helplessness is Not Learned – Passivity is the Default

As the name implies, the original theory of learned helplessness postulated that
repeated uncontrollable stressors cause animals to learn helplessness. With only
behavioral evidence back then, this was believed to be true. In a recent review, Maier
and Seligman (2016) furnished a wealth of neurological evidence showing that
passivity and anxiety in response to stressful events was the default. Intense shock
activates and sensitizes a brain area called the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN); this
sensitization lasts a few days, resulting in passivity and heightened anxiety.

Suppose the animal or human detects that the event is controllable. In that case, a
separate brain system is activated (for simplicity, it was called “ACT”), which in turn
suppresses the DRN responsible for passivity and anxiety (Maier & Seligman, 2016).
If activated, this prevents the sensitization of the DRN and eliminates passivity and
exaggerated fear. Unfortunately, if the ACT circuit is inactive, the person reacts
passively and fearfully if the stressful event is prolonged.

Finally, after the ACT circuit is activated, changes in the brain occur over several hours,
turning this into an “EXPECT” circuit. The EXPECT circuit expects control. Now, if
stressors activate the DRN, the EXPECT circuit also responds, and the person reacts
to the stressor – including uncontrollable ones – as though they are controllable. In
other words, one is now biased towards expecting control over situations in general
(Maier & Seligman, 2016). Importantly, although these systems are described simply
to improve understanding without neuroscience knowledge, Maier and Seligman
(2016) did clarify that this circuitry, including “ACT” and “EXPECT,” are only
supported by brain studies and do not correspond to cognitive processes as
psychologist tend to view them.

Apart from neurocircuitry, Maier and Seligman (2016) also reviewed two fundamental
components of learned helplessness. First, contingency, or one’s objective control over
outcomes. By definition, control is present whenever the probability of an outcome (O),
given a response (R), is different from the probability of the outcome (O) in the absence

SU4-7
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

of a response (notR). Put simply, uncontrollable events are simply those that occur at
chance. Any action one takes (R) or not take (notR) does not change the chance of this
outcome. The negative outcome does not have to occur all the time. Probabilistic
events, sometimes occurring and sometimes not, can give rise to a sense of
controllability or uncontrollability.

Second, attributional reformulation concerns how people explain the causes of their
helplessness and whether they expect it to be stable. This process has multiple steps.
Regardless of objective contingency, individuals form their perceptions regarding the
controllability of their outcomes. However, even if one accurately or inaccurately
believes that events are uncontrollable, it alone does not produce learned helplessness.
Next, the individual explains the causes of their helplessness and how stable
(permanent vs. temporary) these causes are. People who attribute helplessness to
permanent causes (e.g., “these problems will always be unsolvable”) show long-term
helplessness in that situation, compared to those who attribute them to temporary
causes (e.g., “only this type of problems are unsolvable”). Attributions of helplessness
made on a pervasive level (e.g., “most problems are unsolvable”) would result in
passivity across situations compared to those who make localized attributions (e.g.,
“only this problem is unsolvable”). This view has received strong research support
(Abramson et al., 1978; Alloy et al., 1984; Maier & Seligman, 2016).

1.5 Learned Helplessness in Organizations

Although learned helplessness research is largely based on laboratory experiments in
educational settings, similar and even stronger effects might be expected from
organizational settings. If inconsequential noise blasts in the laboratory can induce
carryover learned helplessness behaviors, how much more damaging would the
repeated stress and failures at workplaces be?

Workers from certain industries may be more prone to such repetitive failures. For
instance, about half of salespeople fail to meet annual quotas (Ahearne et al., 2013).
Interestingly, the expression of learned helplessness is not always marked by anxious
withdrawals. According to Boichuk and colleagues (2014), the passivity of salespeople
is expressed through low-effort sales tactics. These tactics focus only on immediate

SU4-8
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

sales, including recommending popular and expensive products and saying whatever
customers want to hear to close deals, rather than discovering customers’ needs and
fostering relationships with them. Their study showed that such low-effort sales
behaviors linearly increased following their recurring number of missed two-week
sales goals (Boichuk et al., 2014).

Innovators are another group required to frequently weather failures. Employees who
experience a negative stream of innovation experiences, especially intense ones, also
experience feelings of helplessness and fatigue towards innovation (Chung et al.,
2017). Because innovation risks failure, Chung and colleagues (2017) recommend that
managers offer time lags between innovation projects. They may also balance radical
and incremental innovation attempts and provide positive feedback to help
employees regain control. Their post-hoc analyses also indicated that employees
experience helplessness when continually demanded to innovate, even when they
perceive that they have successfully improved work processes. The continuous and
never-ending attempts to motivate innovation may backfire and leave employees with
a stronger sense of helplessness (Chung et al., 2017).

Abusive supervisor-follower relationships are another avenue where helplessness

commonly emerges. According to Wee and colleagues (2017), abuse is more likely
when followers are asymmetrically dependent on leaders (e.g., for resources and
leadership decisions). Under such imbalances, leaders may feel a sense of entitlement
and exercise opportunistic behaviors, including unethical and uncaring ones toward
the follower (Wee et al., 2017). These abusive dynamics persist over time, which can
leave followers feeling vulnerable and helpless (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003; Tepper
et al., 2009). Research also shows that victims’ attempts at reconciliation are less
effective than leader-initiated reconciliation (Andiappan & Treviño, 2011). As such,
reconciliation is unlikely to occur spontaneously, and abuse often demands
organizational-level interventions, including mediation, selection of leaders, and zero-
tolerance policies on abuse (Tepper et al., 2009).

SU4-9
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

1.6 Attributional Training and Learned Optimism

Given the central role of attributions in learned helplessness, Seligman (1991)
proposed that these explanatory processes can be retrained positively in what he
called learned optimism. This training process is similar to attributional training by
Abramson and colleagues (1978), which taught employees that their successes depend
on internal, global, and stable causes, while their failures are due to specific, external,
and unstable causes. Seligman applied this concept in the workplace, showing that
learning optimism could lead to better performance. For example, Seligman and
Schulman (1986) showed that insurance sales agents who made pessimistic
attributions were twice as likely to quit in their first year and sold 37% less insurance
in two years than agents who made optimistic attributions.

Reflect: Think about a recent significant setback or a failure you

encountered.

1. How do you explain what happened?

2. Who or what was responsible?
3. How likely are you to face similar setbacks?
4. Can you think of comparably stressful situations where you
eventually emerged successful?
5. Could you do something different to enable a better future
outcome?

1.7 Building Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a concept relevant to the entire helplessness–mastery spectrum.
Importantly, one’s self-efficacy can affect the amount and intrusiveness of stress under
taxing situations, including perceptions of how well one can control those situations
(Bandura, 1989). Furthermore, an extensive body of literature supports that self-
efficacy influences many valuable motivational outcomes, including effort,
persistence, choices, self-regulation, and achievement (see review by Schunk &
DiBenedetto, 2020). In organizations, self-efficacy predicts work-related performance

SU4-10
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

(meta-analytic r = .38 or d = .82) more than other personality variables, performance

goal-setting, and other organizational interventions (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).

Self-efficacy can be defined as an individual’s judgment in their abilities to perform

well in a domain or situation (Bandura, 1997). In theory and research measurements,
self-efficacy is often specified about the task at hand (Bandura, 1989); in other words,
it is a task-specific state. There are, however, occasional instances where researchers
reference generalized self-efficacy, which estimates individuals’ ability to perform
successfully across a wide range of situations in a trait-like manner (Johnson et al.,
2008).

While some ability is required to feel efficacious, it is important to recognize that self-
efficacy is not the same as ability; people’s perceptions can sometimes be independent
of their ability. Consider the case of Frédéric Chopin, a renowned classical composer
and virtuoso pianist. There is perhaps no doubt that Chopin ranks in the upper
echelon of musical ability. However, did you know Chopin frequently experienced
paralyzing levels of stage fright, which only grew as his fame did? Franz Liszt, who
wrote his biography, recollected Chopin, saying, “An audience intimidates me, I feel
asphyxiated by its eager breath, paralyzed by its inquisitive stare, silenced by its alien
faces” (Liszt & Cook, 2006). As the example illustrates, with low self-efficacy,
otherwise highly able individuals can become stricken with anxiety and doubt,
leaving them unable to exercise their skills and abilities. Self-efficacy is an ingredient
of competent functioning. It helps one regulate their focus and organize their skills
and abilities to stay goal-focused and adaptive under stressful or changing
circumstances (Bandura, 1997; Bandura & Wood, 1989).

Sources of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy does not simply exist. According to the social
cognitive theory, self-efficacy is formed through appraising four primary sources of
information. These are in decreasing importance: mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, social persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura, 1997; Schunk &
DiBenedetto, 2020).

Mastery experiences. Mastery experiences, or past performance experiences, are

considered one’s most reliable source of information about what one can accomplish.

SU4-11
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

While this was proposed by Bandura (1997) based on his findings, the correlational
nature of many research findings left questions about the direction of causality
between performance and self-efficacy. This chicken and egg issue was further
complicated because self-efficacy was specified as a cause and product of performance.
Recently, Sitzmann and Yeo’s (2013) meta-analysis of within-person data offered a
resolution to this issue. They found that self-efficacy has, at best, a moderately positive
effect on performance (ρ ranged from –.02 to .33). In contrast, the effects of past
performance on self-efficacy were moderate to strong (ρ ranged from .18 to .52). These
results untangled the correlation between self-efficacy and performance, showing that
self-efficacy is primarily a product of past performance rather than the driving force
affecting future performance (Sitzmann & Yeo, 2013).

Vicarious experiences. Vicarious experiences play a central role in the social cognitive
theory. Compared to earlier behavioral learning theories, social cognitive theory
argues that people do not always require direct experience to learn but can also
internalize their vicarious observations of others (Bandura, 1991). In the present
context, people also build their self-efficacy by observing others. Successful and
confident performances can raise self-efficacy while observing struggles and failures
thwart it. While this source of information is weaker than direct mastery experiences,
vicarious experiences are especially important when people have limited prior
experiences or are uncertain of their abilities. Research has also shown that
observation of peer models also increases self-efficacy more than observing instructors
or having only direct experiences (Schunk, 1991).

Verbal persuasion. Self-efficacy is also developed through verbal feedback from

others. Effective persuasion must not be confused with empty praise and inspiration.
Effective persuasion must cultivate people’s confidence in their abilities such that the
envisioned success is attainable, and its effectiveness depends on the persuader’s
credibility, expertise, and trustworthiness (Schunk, 1995). Additionally, just as
positive encouragement can bolster self-efficacy, negative persuasion usually has a
stronger depleting effect on one’s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Often, persuasion
alone only generates enough motivation for another try (Schunk, 1991). Ultimately,
while vicarious and persuasive sources can raise self-efficacy, subsequent successful

SU4-12
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

performance by the individual is necessary for the increase to endure (Schunk &
DiBenedetto, 2020).

Physiological states. Finally, physiological states, including anxiety, stress, arousal,

nervousness, fatigue, illness, and other feelings, are also a source of self-efficacy.
According to the social cognitive theory, humans are self-reflective and self-regulated
organisms; as such, people rely on their internal states to signal whether they are likely
to succeed at the present task (Bandura, 1991; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).

Mastery Modeling. Ozer and Bandura (1990) proposed mastery modeling as a training
structure that utilizes the multiple sources of influence identified by the sociocognitive
theory to instill self-efficacy. While achieving mastery experiences is the primary goal,
vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and indications of physical capabilities are
scaffolded into the training experience to reinforce self-efficacy.

Mastery modeling is structured in graduated steps. Firstly, instructors model required

skills in component parts. Secondly, learners practice these component skills,
receiving corrective feedback until they master them. Thirdly, the learner practices
these component skills in simulated scenarios. Increases in difficulty and the required
combination of component skills during these scenarios should be gradual to enable
a coherent sense of performance and learning. Furthermore, learners engage in these
simulations in cooperative learning groups. Observers offer verbal encouragement
and occasionally tips to aid performers who meet an impasse (Ozer & Bandura, 1990).

Readers should note how mastery modeling programs integrate the four self-efficacy
sources according to social cognitive theory. Mastery modeling fosters mastery
experiences by helping learners experience success by graduating difficulty of
learning trials. It integrates effective use of vicarious experiences through observing
the instructor and peers. Therefore, instructors must also exude competence and
passion rather than signs of struggle and apathy. These qualities of the instructor
transmit vicariously to their learners. Finally, peer encouragement and experiencing
their physical and emotional capacities during these trials form the verbal persuasion
and physical state sources of self-efficacy. As such, learning environments must be
collaborative rather than competitive to foster positive encouragement and arousal.

SU4-13
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Chapter 2: Psychological Well-being and Meaning at

Work

2.1 Introduction

What is happiness? When answered by different people, this question can bring many
possible answers. For some, it brings to mind periods of joy and being immersed in
pleasurable activities. For others, it could be the absence of depression, anxiety, and
other pains in life. Some find contentment with what life throws at them, while others
pursue achievement and seek to satisfy their lifelong goals and dreams. What is listed
here are things that could contribute to one’s well-being. Still, elements alone may not
provide a complete picture of well-being. You may have encountered individuals with
remarkable material, social, and emotional experiences who struggle to discover their
meaning and purpose. This chapter examines how psychology conceptualizes well-
being and how people find meaning at work.

2.2 Subjective Well-Being (SWB) Versus Psychological Well-

Being (PWB)
Psychologists today largely agree that the concept of happiness is best divided into
two broad parts: Subjective Well-being (SWB) and Psychological Well-being (PWB).
These modern psychological concepts are grounded on deeper philosophical roots,
tracing to Aristotle’s writings on Nichomachean Ethics (for an in-depth review, see
Ryff & Singer, 2008). In his teachings, Aristotle contemplated deeply the fundamental
question of human existence: How should we live life? Importantly, Aristotle
proposed eudaimonia, contrasting with hedonia as two philosophical perspectives of
happiness (Ryff & Singer, 2008; Waterman, 2008).

Subjective Well-Being. Hedonia can be described as the belief in getting what one
wants to experience the pleasures associated with satisfying personal needs and wants
(Waterman, 2008). The operationalization of subjective well-being today stems largely
from hedonia. In research, subjective well-being encompasses self-reported measures
of (1) presence of positive affect, (2) absence of negative affect, and (3) life satisfaction.

SU4-14
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

The first two factors capture how frequently people feel positive (e.g., joy, calm) and
negative (e.g., sadness, anger) feelings. Life satisfaction is captured through
evaluating how close life is to what one wants it to be (Pavot & Diener, 2008).

Psychological Well-being. In contrast, Eudaimonia advocates living a life of virtue

and striving to realize the best of our potential. Decomposed, “eu-“ means good or
virtuous, and “daimon” can be interpreted as “true self.” Compared to subjective well-
being, psychological well-being is unconcerned with whether life is pleasurable but
whether it is worthy (Ryff & Singer, 2008; Waterman, 2008).

The experiences of subjective and psychological well-being may overlap (Keyes et al.,
2002). In everyday experiences, positive events can be pleasurable and meaningful,
and it is desirable to experience them simultaneously; they need not be tradeoffs.
However, these concepts are distinguishable under a scientific lens, and importantly
so. In particular, psychological well-being concerns existential aspects (e.g., purpose
in life and personal growth; see next section). In contrast, subjective well-being is
marked by pleasurable and satisfying experiences (Keyes et al., 2002).

Subjective and psychological well-being also differ in other behaviors and outcomes
they are correlated with. For example, psychological well-being is associated with a
decreased expression of pro-inflammatory genes that tend to be active under stress.
In contrast, this pattern is reversed with subjective well-being (Fredrickson et al., 2013,
2015). In a study on personal goals, subjective well-being is associated with pursuing
goals that make people feel efficacious and successful, whereas meaning (a defining
aspect of psychological well-being) was more associated with authentic goals that
people felt they were “being themselves” (McGregor & Little, 1998). Psychological
well-being also correlates more with helping others and behaving morally, whereas
subjective well-being correlates with benefiting from the moral acts of others
(Hofmann et al., 2014).

The two types also differentially predict how people’s well-being changes over time,
particularly how they adapt to negative events. Negative experiences in life lower
one’s life satisfaction, but people are sometimes able to, with reflection, derive
meaningful experiences from negative encounters (Tov & Lee, 2016). Furthermore,

SU4-15
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

one longitudinal study showed that psychological well-being remained low when
people have higher subjective well-being (vs. their own psychological well-being).
However, if they had comparatively higher psychological well-being and lower
subjective well-being (reflecting dissatisfaction and linked to difficulties), their levels
of subjective well-being increased over the 10-year longitudinal study (Pancheva et al.,
2021).

Reflect: Pause for a moment to reflect.

1. Which type of well-being do you possess? (You can have or

lack both)
2. Which type of well-being would you pursue more in the
future? Why?

2.3 Ryff’s Six-Factor Model of Psychological Well-Being

This next section touches on psychological well-being’s conceptual structure (i.e.,
what are its factors?). The exact specification of how psychological well-being should
be measured and modeled in research remains debated (Huta & Waterman, 2014).
However, this chapter’s goal is not to resolve this debate. Instead, it presents a
relatively comprehensive model – Ryff’s six-factor model of psychological well-being
– as a foundation for readers to appreciate concepts of the meaning of work covered
in the next section. Nevertheless, this model is relatively well-validated. Some have
challenged the distinctiveness (vs. overlap) of the six factors. Still, at least five sizable
factor-analytic studies have supported the six-factor model (see review by Ryff &
Singer, 2006). The six factors Ryff and Keyes (1995) proposed are summarized below.

Self-Acceptance. Self-acceptance reflects one’s overall positive evaluation of oneself

and one’s past. Someone with higher self-acceptance evaluates one’s self more
positively. They are willing to acknowledge and accept good and bad qualities about
the different aspects of one’s present and past selves. In contrast, someone with low
self-acceptance is often disappointed with what has happened in one’s past. They may
be bothered by certain personal qualities and wish they were different from who they
currently perceive themselves as.

SU4-16
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Positive Relations with Others. The positive relations with others factor captures the
quality of one’s interpersonal relationships. Individuals high on this factor care about
others’ welfare, reflected through their expressions of empathy, affection, intimacy,
and reciprocity in various relationships. In contrast, those who struggle in this aspect
feel isolated and frustrated in their interpersonal relationships and may find it hard to
compromise to sustain important ties with others.

Autonomy. Autonomy reflects one sense of self-direction in one’s life. Those who feel
a strong sense of autonomy govern their lives according to independent, self-directed
choices and can resist social pressures to think and act in certain ways. They regulate
themselves according to their own internally defined personal standards. In contrast,
low autonomy is reflected in people’s concerns about the expectations and evaluation
of others. They conform to social pressures and the judgment of other people to think
and act in certain ways.

Environmental Mastery. Environmental mastery reflects effective management of

one’s personal life and environment. Individuals high on environmental mastery feel
competent in a variety of activities. They can translate available opportunities into
situations that suit their needs and values. In contrast, those who struggle to manage
everyday affairs or feel incapable of controlling, changing, or benefiting from
opportunities in their surroundings tend to experience a poor sense of environmental
mastery.

Personal Growth. The factor of personal growth captures one’s continued

development as a person. This is accompanied by a sense of realizing one’s potential
through improvements in one’s self and behavior over time. Individuals who
experience personal growth tend also to be open to new experiences. Comparatively,
those who feel that they have plateaued or stagnated and are generally uninterested
or closed off in life tend to lack personal growth experiences. Note that one feels
environmental mastery and personal growth independently. For example, the
experience of peaking or plateauing shows high environmental mastery with a low
sense of personal growth. One can also feel like a novice who is growing rapidly.

SU4-17
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Purpose in life. Purpose in life captures one’s sense of making progress towards a
meaningful future life. Individuals who experience purpose in life can make sense of
their present and past and generally hold a positive outlook that they have aims and
objectives for living. Those who feel low purpose in life struggle to identify their
direction and goals in life. They may feel that life is bleak and experience a sense of
void (Ryff, 2014; Ryff & Keyes, 1995).

2.4 Creating Meaning and Purpose at Work

Creating meaning at work is arguably essential for organizations to maintain
competitiveness by sustaining a loyal, committed, and engaged workforce. An
organization can only get so far by touting itself as an industry leader or a competitive
paymaster. Work can largely remain transactional if employees only work for high
pay or opportunities to bolster their resumes; they quickly move when opportunities
arise. However, when workers experience meaning, they invest enthusiastically in the
organization and gain well-being in so doing (Steger, 2016). This shifts the employer
relationship from one of transactional exchange to one that is mutually reinforcing. As
you have learned above, psychological well-being reflects the experience of a
meaningful and flourishing life. In this section, you will learn about meaning at work
and what organizations can do to create fertile grounds for employee flourishing. First,
use the scale below (Steger et al., 2012) to assess your sense of meaning at work.

Instructions: Rate the extent to which you agree with each Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
statement using the provided scale. disagree agree

I have found a meaningful career. 1 2 3 4 5

I understand how my work contributes to my life’s meaning. 1 2 3 4 5

I have a good sense of what makes my job meaningful. 1 2 3 4 5

I have discovered work that has a satisfying purpose. 1 2 3 4 5

I view my work as contributing to my personal growth. 1 2 3 4 5

My work helps me better understand myself. 1 2 3 4 5

My work helps me make sense of the world around me. 1 2 3 4 5

I know my work makes a positive difference in the world. 1 2 3 4 5

The work I do serves a greater purpose. 1 2 3 4 5

Notes. This measure was authored and validated by Steger and colleagues (2012). One
reversed item was dropped for easier presentation. To calculate your score, average your
responses. The validation sample mean was about 3.75. Descriptively, scores below 2.87 and
above 4.63 may be described as low and high, respectively.

SU4-18
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

2.5 The Ingredients for Meaning at Work

Despite the importance of meaning at work, attempts to integrate the research
literature have been scarce. The work by Rosso and colleagues (2010) presents an
important exception, highlighting seven central facilitators of meaning at work. In this
chapter, the factors are reorganized to address four factors that pertain to the self: (1)
self-efficacy, (2) self-esteem, (3) authenticity, and (4) purpose; before addressing three
factors that involve one’s social, communal, and cultural environments: (5)
Belongingness, (6) Transcendence, (7) Cultural and interpersonal sensemaking.

Despite the many factors in Rosso and colleagues’ (2010) integration, readers may
notice that many of these factors represent a convergence of what you have already
learned (e.g., self-efficacy, psychological well-being, self-determination theory, job
characteristics model).

Self-efficacy. To find work meaningful, one must first recognize one’s relevance to
the workplace. This can be reflected in their self-efficacy – feeling competent and
capable of generating an intentional difference at work (Rosso et al., 2010). This section
is kept brief as self-efficacy has been addressed earlier in the chapter.

Self-esteem. Self-esteem refers to an individual’s judgment of their self-worth

(Baumeister, 1998). Self-esteem overlaps substantially with self-acceptance in Ryff’s
model. It is important to recognize that self-esteem and self-efficacy are different.
Although accomplishments support esteem and efficacy, self-efficacy promotes
meaningfulness through a sense of control over the environment, while self-esteem is
achieved by recognizing one’s worth (Rosso et al., 2010).

Apart from being cautious not to disparage employees’ self-esteem (e.g., verbal abuse),
there is not much to do for employees’ self-esteem. In recent decades, scholars have
observed that society has been increasingly preoccupied with boosting self-esteem
(Baumeister et al., 2005). Although self-esteem is a positive ingredient of meaning, it
should be constructed on an individual’s authentic life experiences rather than
vacuous social reinforcement and other “feel good” rhetoric. Importantly, research
shows self-esteem does not cause later success; rather, performance and productivity
cause increases in self-esteem (Marsh et al., 2006; Marsh & Craven, 2006). There is no

SU4-19
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

indication that boosting people’s self-esteem will improve their functioning

(Baumeister et al., 2005).

Authenticity. Authenticity is one sense of coherence between one’s actions and

perception of one’s “true self” (Rosso et al., 2010). Authenticity is a fundamental goal
of eudaimonia and can stem from autonomy from Ryff’s factors. Leaders can build
authenticity by allowing people to work consistent with their identity, interests, and
values (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). Leaders can also provide affirmation consistent with
workers’ identity and strengths (Swann Jr. et al., 2009) rather than coercing one with
controlling feedback (recall cognitive evaluation theory). Finally, authenticity is also
generated when leaders can design deeply and intrinsically engaging workplaces as
informed by the job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and self-
determination theory (Deci et al., 2017) covered in earlier study units.

Purpose. Purpose is similarly a factor in Ryff’s model of psychological well-being. In

the work context, purpose stems largely from the significance – making a difference
to society or others. This can be achieved through job design as prescribed in the job
characteristics model (Berg et al., 2013). It can also entail HR recruiting, selecting, and
socializing employees to align with an organizational culture characterized by
significant impacts and social good (Lysova et al., 2019). Rosso and colleagues (2010)
further noted that although authenticity and purpose involve values, they are
psychologically distinct experiences. Authenticity is the experience of consistency
between one’s behavior and values. In contrast, a sense of purpose results from
participating in a larger system of values (see later segment on cultural and
interpersonal sensemaking).

Belongingness. Belongingness entails positive relationships and social identification at

work. Put simply, this means to feel like one is part of the organization and its
desirable social groups, sharing common beliefs and values with them. This makes
employees feel like they belong to something special and fosters a sense of meaning
at work (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Rosso et al., 2010).

Transcendence. The concept of transcendence is at the heart of many teachings of both

eudaimonia and meaning at work (Rosso et al., 2010). According to Steger,

SU4-20
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

transcendence is a key component of meaning at work. At the highest levels,

transcendence entails performing work that goes beyond oneself, contributing to
others or the greater good (Steger, 2016; Steger et al., 2012).

Rosso and colleagues (2010) highlight another aspect of transcendence, self-abnegation,

which entails subordinating oneself to something larger than oneself (organizational
vision, family, society, or spiritual entity). This idea is a paradox next to self-efficacy.
Instead of controlling one’s surroundings, self-abnegation relieves one’s existential
anxieties by relinquishing control (Kreiner et al., 2006). According to this perspective,
transcending self-interest by relinquishing control to something greater gives
individuals a sense that they are not alone and do not need to be in control (Kreiner et
al., 2006). This works well with transformational leaders who can inspire idealized
shared goals (further discussed below; Rosso et al., 2010).

Cultural and interpersonal sensemaking. The last factor Rosso and colleagues (2010)
proposed is cultural and interpersonal sensemaking, which recognizes the sociocultural
forces that shape the meaning people make in their work. Put simply, while meaning
in life or work is an intimately personal pursuit, one cannot create meaning out of
anything as one wishes. One’s sense of meaning is shaped by one’s interpersonal and
cultural environment, such as the organizational culture, which is, in turn, shaped by
societal cultures. The way work takes on meaning is highly influenced by the values
considered legitimate or prominent in the cultural context (Rosso et al., 2010). This
factor also primes the ground for the role of leadership in shaping a meaningful
organizational culture at work.

2.6 Creating Fertile Grounds for Flourishing in Organizations

Leadership. Among various leadership styles, transformational leadership presents a
promising style to cultivate a meaningful workplace. Transformational-transactional
leadership theory dominates current thinking about leadership research today.
Among the styles, meta-analyses find that transformational leadership styles predict
a wide range of leadership criteria (e.g., follower satisfaction, motivation, and
organizational performance) across various research designs, data sources, and
settings (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Because transformational leadership characterizes a

SU4-21
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

style that invigorates passion, authenticity, and the pursuit of idealized visions
(Avolio et al., 1999), it is reasonable that their followers might find work more
enriching and purposeful. Several studies offer preliminary support. One study on
full-time employees in Australia found that the relationship between transformational
leadership and work engagement was mediated by employees’ perceptions of
meaning at work (Yasin Ghadi et al., 2013). Two studies with healthcare and service
workers found that transformational leadership positively affects participants’ well-
being, mediated through their meaningful experiences at work (Arnold et al., 2007).
However, future studies beyond cross-sectional survey design are required for a more
robust conclusion.

Organizational support. Leadership that offers support, empathy, and care and
establishes mutually trusting relationships with their employees has been positively
correlated with meaning at work (Tummers & Knies, 2013). As studies in this area
tend to be correlational, it is difficult to rule out that people who find work more
meaningful earn more support from their supervisors. Nevertheless, Steger (2016)
argues that cultivating transformational and supportive leadership styles are
compelling targets to work towards, as they can be pursued as organizational
objectives rather than rely on worker-initiated changes. Supporting this view, one
longitudinal study showed that when middle managers actively worked to improve
teamwork, employees perceived their working conditions as more positive and
meaningful (Nielsen & Randall, 2009). These behaviors are further modeled by
employees who reinforce the mutually supportive and respectful environment at the
peer level (Leape et al., 2012; Steger, 2016).

Volunteering. Research shows that volunteers are more likely to feel that work is
meaningful, even if volunteering activities are separate from their jobs (Rodell, 2013).
The causal effect of volunteering in increasing psychological well-being has also been
demonstrated. Longitudinal research shows that volunteer work enhances
psychological but not subjective well-being (Son & Wilson, 2012). Moderate amounts
of volunteering (up to 10 hours monthly) and donating to charity were associated with
increased well-being over a 9-year period, especially for those in later adulthood (Choi
& Kim, 2011).

SU4-22
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

One practice that organizations can adopt is to regularly organize volunteering

outreach events for interested employees (volunteering, as named, should not be
coerced). Supporting research shows that when employees are aware of corporate
social responsibility activities that the company is engaged in, they also experience
more task significance (a key aspect of purpose; Raub & Blunschi, 2014). Organizations
may also consider granting a few paid volunteering leave days for employees to
engage in volunteering work of their choosing. These practices can support
employee’s willingness to volunteer, showing appreciation for what employees value
and the organization’s willingness to back actions that benefit the greater good (Steger,
2016).

SU4-23
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Image Acknowledgements
Book, Thought, and Message icons designed by Smashicons from Flaticon. All icons
from Flaticons are used under Flaticon Free License (with attribution).

References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in
humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49–
74.

Ahearne, M., Boichuk, J. P., Chapman, C. J., & Steenburgh, T. J. (2013). Earnings
management practices in sales and strategic accounts survey report. SSRN
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2324325

Alloy, L. B., Peterson, C., Abramson, L. Y., & Seligman, M. E. (1984). Attributional style
and the generality of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46(3), 681–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.681

Andiappan, M., & Treviño, L. K. (2011). Beyond righting the wrong: Supervisor-
subordinate reconciliation after an injustice. Human Relations, 64(3), 359–386.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710384530

Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007).
Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role
of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193–203.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re‐examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789

Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy.

Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.25.5.729

SU4-24
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90022-L

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance
standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56(5), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.805

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Exploding the
self-esteem myth. Scientific American, 292(1), 84–91.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26060842

Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work.
In B. J. Dik, Z. S. Byrne, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Purpose and meaning in the
workplace. (pp. 81–104). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/14183-005

Boichuk, J. P., Bolander, W., Hall, Z. R., Ahearne, M., Zahn, W. J., & Nieves, M. (2014).
Learned helplessness among newly hired salespeople and the influence of
leadership. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 95–111.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.12.0468

Choi, N. G., & Kim, J. (2011). The effect of time volunteering and charitable donations
in later life on psychological well-being. Ageing and Society, 31(4), 590–610.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X10001224

Chung, G. H., Choi, J. N., & Du, J. (2017). Tired of innovations? Learned helplessness
and fatigue in the context of continuous streams of innovation implementation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 1130–1148.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2191

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work
organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.

SU4-25
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous

changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following
failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 451–462.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.451

Fredrickson, B. L., Grewen, K. M., Algoe, S. B., Firestine, A. M., Arevalo, J. M. G., Ma,
J., & Cole, S. W. (2015). Psychological Well-Being and the Human Conserved
Transcriptional Response to Adversity. PLOS ONE, 10(3), e0121839.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121839

Fredrickson, B. L., Grewen, K. M., Coffey, K. A., Algoe, S. B., Firestine, A. M., Arevalo,
J. M. G., Ma, J., & Cole, S. W. (2013). A functional genomic perspective on
human well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(33),
13684–13689. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305419110

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test
of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

Hiroto, D. S., & Seligman, M. E. (1975). Generality of learned helplessness in man.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 311–327.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076270

Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). Morality in
everyday life. Science, 345(6202), 1340–1343.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251560

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). The dynamic, diverse, and variable faces of
organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 150–152.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.27711645

Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia:
Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and
operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456.

SU4-26
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2008). Getting to the core of core self‐
evaluation: A review and recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
29(3), 391–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.514

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A

meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5),
755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The
empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82(6), 1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006). Where is the “me” among the
“we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(5), 1031–1057.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22798186

Leape, L. L., Shore, M. F., Dienstag, J. L., Mayer, R. J., Edgman-Levitan, S., Meyer, G.
S., & Healy, G. B. (2012). Perspective: A culture of respect, part 2. Academic
Medicine, 87(7), 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182583536

Liszt, F., & Cook, M. W. (2006). Life of Chopin. Dover Publications.

Lysova, E. I., Allan, B. A., Dik, B. J., Duffy, R. D., & Steger, M. F. (2019). Fostering
meaningful work in organizations: A multi-level review and integration.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 374–389.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.07.004

Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105(1), 3–46.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.105.1.3

Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2016). Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from
neuroscience. Psychological Review, 123(4), 349–367.
https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000033

SU4-27
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and

performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure
and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 133–
163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00010.x

Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Integration
of multidimensional self‐concept and core personality constructs: Construct
validation and relations to well‐being and achievement. Journal of Personality,
74(2), 403–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00380.x

McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On
doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2),
494–512.

Ozer, E. M., & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A

self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3), 472–486.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.3.472

Pancheva, M. G., Ryff, C. D., & Lucchini, M. (2021). An integrated look at well-being:
Topological clustering of combinations and correlates of hedonia and
eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(5), 2275–2297.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00325-6

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging
construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137–152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701756946

Raub, S., & Blunschi, S. (2014). The power of meaningful work: How awareness of CSR
initiatives fosters task significance and positive work outcomes in service
employees. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(1), 10–18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513498300

Rodell, J. B. (2013). Finding Meaning through Volunteering: Why Do Employees

Volunteer and What Does It Mean for Their Jobs? Academy of Management
Journal, 56(5), 1274–1294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0611

SU4-28
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A
theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–
127.

Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and

relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 351–375.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059

Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and

practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being

revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2006). Best news yet on the six-factor model of well-being.
Social Science Research, 35(4), 1103–1119.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A
eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies,
9(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist,

26(3–4), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133

Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832

Seligman, M. E., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024514

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing
autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and
attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546–557.

Sitzmann, T., & Yeo, G. (2013). A meta‐analytic investigation of the within‐person self‐
efficacy domain: Is self‐efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of

SU4-29
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

future performance? Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 531–568.

https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12035

Son, J., & Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteer work and hedonic, eudemonic, and social well‐
being. Sociological Forum, 27(3), 658–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-
7861.2012.01340.x

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240

Steger, M. F. (2016). Creating meaning and purpose at work. In The Wiley Blackwell
Handbook of the Psychology of Positivity and Strengths-Based Approaches at Work
(pp. 60–81). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118977620.ch5

Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work
and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337.

Swann Jr., W. B., Johnson, R. E., & Bosson, J. K. (2009). Identity negotiation at work.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 81–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.005

Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive
supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A
power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 109(2), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.004

Tov, W., & Lee, H. W. (2016). A closer look at the hedonics of everyday meaning and
satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 585–609.

Tummers, L. G., & Knies, E. (2013). Leadership and meaningful work in the public
sector. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 859–868.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12138

Waterman, A. S. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist’s perspective. The

Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 234–252.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802303002

SU4-30
HRM261 Psychological Well-Being and Meaning at Work

Wee, E. X. M., Liao, H., Liu, D., & Liu, J. (2017). Moving from abuse to reconciliation:
A power-dependence perspective on when and how a follower can break the
spiral of abuse. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2352–2380.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0866

Yasin Ghadi, M., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2013). Transformational leadership and
work engagement: The mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 34(6), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-
10-2011-0110

SU4-31