If you have read my previous post on well-being in the workplace, you will see that I discussed different ways of managing boundaries between work and personal life and the subsequent impact on our wellbeing. However, all through writing this post, I ultimately found that it was becoming more difficult to discuss the topic without a concrete definition of well-being.
Therefore, I consider it important to dedicate a post to trying to understand the literature behind defining well-being, especially if we want to try to address ways to enhance our well-being.
With a dedicated academic journal to well-being (international journal of well-being), there is no doubt that the presence of discussing well-being is on the rise. Yet despite a growing awareness of learning about our well-being, a complex debate regarding how well-being should be defined is still inherently present. I hope this post will shed some light on the variety of theoretical perspectives in which we can conceptualise well-being to see what may become a common agreement of our perception of well-being within an international school environment. I expect this to be a challenge and not necessarily completed from this blog post as Thomas (2009, p11 cited by Dodge et al, 2012) states that well-being is “intangible, difficult to define and even harder to measure”. I hope this will aid future conversations so we can build some background to our understanding of well-being.
Review of literature of well-being
Before reaching our current understanding of well-being, it is helpful to reflect on how the traditional background of well-being literature has developed.
The field of well-being can be split into two areas – Hedonic and Eudoamonic. With Hedonic theories categorising well-being as related to affective (positive and negative affect) and cognitive (life satisfaction) components (Wepfer et al, 2017; Dodge et al, 2012). These elements are well-documented in work by Diener and Bradburn in which the term subjective we’ll-being (SWB) was coined. Theories encompassing positive psychological functioning and human development were classified as Eudamonic. Whilst Bradbury (1969) was monumental in acknowledging that positive and negative affect can be measured separately (Diener, 2009), thankfully there is now common agreement amongst literature that considers well-being to be multi-dimensional. Consequently, Diener feature the concept of well-being as hierarchical:
Figure 1. Diener (2009) A Hierarchical Model of Happiness
When we look at this diagram, it can be agreed that subjective well-being is not discrete and is consequently made up of a range of components.
Importantly, with Martin Seligman as the president of the American Psychological Association (APA), the presence of Positive Psychology has received vast amounts of attention. Within literature, it can become convoluted with terms of well-being, happiness, quality of life, mental health used interchangeably. Part of the explanation for why Martin Seligman’s approach to well-being has received large amount of recognition is due to his attempt to extend beyond monistic explanations of happiness, which he argues leads to simplistic and reductionist understanding. But also, because Seligman has challenged the use of the term happiness, even his own, which he leads us to believe has lost both practical and scientific meaning.
Well-being theory – Human Flourishing
Whilst his earlier theory taken from Authentic Happiness (2002) focuses on the characteristics of happiness into three dimensions; positive emotion, engagement and meaning, Seligman has since acknowledged the direction of positive psychology is not happiness but a focus on well-being through promoting human flourishing. Re-shaping our understanding of happiness through well-being theory helps us to consider it as a construct with “several measurable elements but none defining well-being”. Consequently, the acronym PERMA was created to represent the elements which contribute to the construct of well-being.
PERMA stands for the following:
Positive Emotion – Feeling optimistic about the range of experiences you have. Acknowledging there is a difference between pleasure and enjoyment.
Engagement – Finding activities that provide opportunities to learn and spend time in our own happiness, leading to a flow of immersion.
Relationships – With a need to belong and connect others, supportive relationships provide strength due to the physical and emotional interactions.
Meaning – A purpose to living your life through understanding the greater impact of what you do.
Accomplishment – Feeling a sense of fulfilment from reaching our goals and ambition
Conversely, Dodge et al present the the idea that well-being is a state that can be viewed as stable where objective measurement can be achieved. To consider well-being as a state, suggests there is a level of equilibrium which represents a “baseline level of happiness” (p226) that we individually experience. Consequently an approach by Headey and Weaving (1991 cited by Dodge et al,2012) suggests that “changes in well-being occur only when due to external forces (life events) a person deviates from his or her equilibrium pattern of events (1992, p93). The language has developed further to consider well-being as a homeostasis that responds to challenges (Cummins, 1995;1998) and also consider how well-being can be dependent on the resources we have available (Hendry & Kleop, 2002). Since, Dodge has proposed a new definition that attempts to embrace well-being as a dynamic process that works to create a balance between challenges and resources to remain as a “set point” for well-being.
Figure 2. Dodge et al (2012). Definition of Wellbeing
In summary, this post has has covered three key areas towards well-being:
– The development of the concept of well-being
– Theory of human flourishing by Martin Seligman
– Viewing well-being as a balance between our perception of challenges and resources available
The question therefore remains, how do we consider well-being in the workplace – as building blocks of PERMA or a state of equilibrium between our challenges and resources?
Diener, E., (2009). Subjective well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), The science of well-being (pp. 11–58): New York: Spring.
Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. (2012). The challenge of defining wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), p222-235.
Pascha, M., (2017). The PERMA Model: Your Scientific Theory of Happiness. Available from: https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/perma-model/.
Wepfer, A. G., Tammy D. Allen, Rebecca Brauchli & Gregor J. Jenny & Georg F. Bauer. (2017). Work-Life Boundaries and Well-Being: Does Work-to-Life Integration Impair Well-Being through Lack of Recovery? Journal of Business Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9520-y
Recent Comments