The observation
In recent years, we have seen an increase in occupational pathologies and psychosocial risks, says Coutrot (2018, p. 5) According to Gollac and Bodier (2011, p. 31), psychosocial risks are all “risks to mental, physical and social health, generated by employment conditions and organizational and relational factors likely to interact with mental functioning”.
The demands of profitability, the increase in work rhythms and cadences or the deterioration of physical working conditions due to globalization according to Gollac (2005) are not without consequences on the health of workers. According to the study by Miquet-Marty et al. (2019, p. 9-10), 52% of employees perceive a deterioration in well-being at work in France and 9% of employees negatively judge their own well-being at work.
What is well-being?
Long considered to be the absence of disease, psychological health has recently been conceptualized in a two-dimensional way, with a negative pole and a positive pole (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Psychological health encompasses the absence of distress on the one hand and the presence of well-being on the other hand (Achilles, 2003).
According to Ryff and Singer (2000), well-being refers to the subjective assessments that individuals make of their quality of life based on their personal experiences, their relationships, their feelings and their general functioning. In the scientific literature, there are two approaches to well-being inspired by the work of ancient philosophers on happiness: the hedonic approach and the eudemonic approach.
Some authors consider well-being to be a pleasure or satisfaction (Kahneman et al., 2004). In this hedonic approach to well-being, human activity is motivated by the quest for happiness. The studies of Diener et al. (1999) on hedonic well-being have highlighted the notion of subjective well-being. According to him, this construct refers to experiencing many pleasant affects, few unpleasant affects and feeling great personal satisfaction when you reach your goals. Subjective well-being includes both emotional, positive and negative components, but also cognitive components through life satisfaction.
Although the hedonic approach is the most studied, many authors consider well-being as a more complex concept than just the achievement of happiness. In the eudemonic approach, well-being refers to self-fulfillment rather than the search for pleasure. The realization of one’s potential and self-determination are essential elements (Kahneman, Diener and Schwarz, 1999). The concept at the heart of this approach is psychological well-being. Through this concept, the authors are interested in the psychological functioning of individuals and in understanding how they interact with their environment (Ryff, 1989).
In the literature, these two approaches to well-being are often opposed but recent studies have shown the close links between subjective well-being and psychological well-being (Kashdan et al., 2008; Kopperud & Vittersø, 2008; Waterman et al., 2008). A new approach attempts to bring together these two built through psychological development. According to Huppert and So (2013), it is a state simultaneously composed of constituent elements of subjective and psychological well-being.
Define well-being at work
Well-being has long been considered a generic construct, stable across the different areas of life (Diener, 1984). Yet according to Véronique Dagenais-Desmarais (P 36, 2010): “work is a field of life with its own challenges, which makes it a distinct sphere of experience in which the individual lives a unique experience.”
Workers spend a large part of their waking time at work, it occupies an essential place in their lives (Dagenais-Desmarais, 2010). Also, when paid, work allows individuals to provide for primary needs (May et al., 2004) and to define their identity (Garner et al., 2006). The work also allows you to develop skills, have social relationships and use your potential (Brun et al., 2003). As a result, well-being at work appears as a separate concept (Biétry and Creusier, 2013) which includes, on the one hand, positive physical and psychological manifestations at work, and on the other hand, experiences related to work (Danna and Griffin, 1999).
The positive effects of well-being at work
Research has shown that the psychological development of the workforce was positively correlated with performance (Cropanzano & Wright, 1999). When the workforce is fulfilled, profitability, productivity and profits increase and the workforce is more satisfied at work (Harter et al., 2002). Fulfilled workers receive better social support from their colleagues and supervisors and are more autonomous (Staw et al., 1994). Employees also adopt more organizational citizenship behaviors (Lee & Allen, 2002). Some authors such as Lyubomirsky et al. (2005) have also shown the positive effect of the development of the workforce on creativity, commitment to work and health. It is therefore in the interest of organizations to improve the well-being of employees.
Well-being at work in the context of cultural diversity
With the internationalization of companies and the increase in international mobility of the workforce, workplaces are increasingly diversified in terms of nationalities and cultures of workers. These individuals are bearers of value systems and have other models of behavior, other languages. For Plivard (2014), culture shapes the way we perceive the world. It presents itself as a reference framework that gives meaning to information in the social environment. Each individual living in a given place acquires a different culture from that of an individual living in another place. This means that individuals have their own cultural codes.
According to Redfield et al. (1936), direct contacts between groups of individuals from different cultures can lead to changes in the cultural patterns of one or both groups, this is acculturation. In order to manage this cultural disparity, individuals use adaptation strategies. Nevertheless, according to Berry’s work (1996), when individuals are faced with adaptation difficulties, it can lead to a state of acculturation stress. This stress is characterized by states of confusion, uncertainty, depression, or anxiety.
This can cause difficulties within work teams and give rise to communication problems (Loth, 2006), misunderstandings (Bolat et al., 2017) or organizational conflicts according to Hopkins et al. (1994). This intercultural encounter can also lead to a decrease in trust within work teams (Letki, 2008), a reduction in group cohesion (King et al., 2009) and a high level of inconsistency between values (Hopkins et al., 1994) and it can reinforce the effect of discrimination (King et al., 2012). Even if cultural diversity can threaten the psychological well-being of employees, some authors have shown that this meeting can have positive effects on decision-making and the generation of ideas (Milliken & Martins, 1996).
To make cultural diversity a real lever of well-being at work, Vincent Calvez (2009) advises to develop the intercultural skills of the workforce and to fight against discrimination. According to Rockstuhl et al. (2012), understanding cultural differences and the ability to overcome them are essential elements for having effective intercultural interactions. Thanks to a proactive approach to understanding the other, recognizing his differences and valuing them and a reactive approach whose goal is to reduce dysfunctions related to diversity, it is possible to improve the well-being of employees and their productivity (Cornet & El Abboubi, 2012).
Article written by Inès Seghiouer, active member of Rezalliance and Master’s student in Occupational Psychology.
Bibliography
Achille, M. A. (2003). Définir la santé au travail. II. Un modèle multidimensionnel des indicateurs de la santé au travail. In R. Foucher, A. Savoie & L. Brunet (Éds.), Concilier performance organisationnelle et santé psychologique au travail (pp. 91- 112). Montréal, QC : Éditions nouvelles.
Berry, J. (1996). Acculturation et adaptation. Communication présentée au 6e Congrès de l’ARIC, mai, Montréal.
Biétry, F., & Creusier, J. (2013). Proposition d’une échelle de mesure positive du bien-être au travail (EPBET). Revue de gestion des ressources humaines, 1(1), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.3917/grhu.087.0023
Bolat, T., Seymen, O. A., Bolat, O. I., & Yuksel, M. (2017). The relationship between cultural distance and expatriate burnout : The moderating effect of cultural intelligence [La relation entre la distance culturelle et le burnout lié à l’expatriation : l’effet modérateur de l’intelligence culturelle]. Social Sciences Studies Journal.
Brun, J.-P., Biron, C., Martel, J., & Ivers, H. (2003). Évaluation de la Santé Mentale au Travail : Une analyse des pratiques de gestion des ressources humaines. Études et recherches. Rapport No. R-342. Québec, Canada.
Calvez, V. (2009). Discrimination et gestion de la diversité : au carrefour des peurs dans l’organisation. Comparaisons internationales. Humanisme et Entreprise, 5(5), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.3917/hume.295.0001
Cornet, Annie & Abboubi, Manal. (2012). Gérer la diversité dans le secteur public : pratiques et conditions de succès. Gestion. 37. 57. 10.3917/riges.374.0057.
Coutrot, T. (2018). »Travail et bien-être psychologique. L’apport de l’enquête Conditions de travail – Risques psychosociaux de 2016″, Dares, Document d’Études n°217, 14 mars 2018.
Dagenais-Desmarais, V., & Privé, C. (2010). Comment améliorer le bien-être psychologique au travail. Gestion, 3(3), 69-77. https://doi.org/10.3917/riges.353.0069
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. (1999). Health and Well-Being in the Workplace : A Review and Synthesis of the Literature [Santé et bien-être au travail : revue et synthèse de la littérature]. Journal of Management. 25. 357-384. 10.1177/014920639902500305
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being : Three decades of progress [Bien-être subjectif : trois décennies de progrès]. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being [Le bien-être subjectif]. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Garner, H. Méda, D., & Senik, C. (2005). La place du travail dans l’identité.
Gollac, M., & Bodier, M. (2011). Mesurer les facteurs psychosociaux de risque au travail pour les maîtriser. République française.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes : A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Hopkins, W. E., & Hopkins, S. A. (1994). Impacts of Diversity on Communication Effectiveness: A Proposed Typology. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8(3), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651994008003005
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. C. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being [L’épanouissement à travers l’Europe: application d’un nouveau cadre conceptuel pour définir le bien-être]. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology [Bien-être: les fondements de la psychologie hédonique]. Russell Sage Foundation.
Kashdan, T., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. (2008). Reconsidering happiness : The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia [Reconsidérer le bonheur: les coûts de la distinction entre hédonique et eudémonique]. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 3. 219-233. 10.1080/17439760802303044.
King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., & Beal, D. J. (2009). Conflict and cooperation in diverse workgroups [conflit et coopération dans les équipes de travail]. Journal of Social Issues, 65(2), 261–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01600.x
King, E. B., Dawson, J., Kravitz, D. A., & Gulick, L. M. V. (2012). A multilevel study of the relationships between diversity training, ethnic discrimination and satisfaction in organizations [ Une étude à plusieurs niveaux des relations entre la formation à la diversité, la discrimination ethnique et la satisfaction dans les organisations]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.728
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions [Comportement de citoyenneté organisationnelle et déviance sur le lieu de travail: le rôle de l’affect et des cognitions]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131
Letki, N. (2008). Does Diversity Erode Social Cohesion ? Social Capital and Race in British Neighborhoods [La diversité érode-t-elle la cohésion sociale? Capital social et race dans les quartiers britanniques]. Political Studies. 56. 99-126. 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00692.x.
Loth, D. (2006). Les enjeux de la diversité culturelle : le cas du management des équipes interculturelles. Revue Internationale sur le Travail et la Société, vol. 4, n° 2, p.124-133
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing Happiness: The Architecture of Sustainable Change [Poursuivre le bonheur: l’architecture du changement durable]. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111
Mansoor, Sadia. (2013). Cognitive Diversity and Team Performance: A review. J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work [Les conditions psychologiques de signification, de sécurité et de disponibilité et l’engagement de l’esprit humain au travail]. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892
Miquet-Marty, F., Chau, S., Broc, R., & Taillefer, R. (2019). L’observatoire « Entreprise et santé ». Viavoice – Harmonie Mutuelle, 9-10.
Plivard, I. (2014). Psychologie interculturelle. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique: De Boeck Supérieur. https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.pliva.2014.01
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation [Mémorandum de l’étude de l’acculturation]. American Anthropologist, 38(1), new series, 149-152. Retrieved May 17, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/662563
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J., Ang, S., & Shore, L. (2012). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and Culture : A Meta-Analysis of Correlates of LMX Across 23 Countries [LMX et la culture : une méta analyse des corrélats de LMX dans 23 pays]. The Journal of applied psychology.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2000). Interpersonal flourishing : A positive health agenda for the new millennium [Épanouissement interpersonnel : un programme de santé positif pour le nouveau millénaire]. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 30–44.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_4
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it ? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being [exploration de la signification du bien-être psychologique]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. Https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology : An Introduction [Psychologie positive : une introduction]. The American psychologist. 55. 5-14.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace [Émotion positive des employés et résultats favorables sur le lieu de travail]. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.51
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance [Le bien-être psychologique et la satisfaction au travail en tant que prédicteurs du rendement au travail.]. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84–94.