Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework
3.2 Theoretical Framework
3.2.2 Wellbeing theories
complexities older workers in Singapore face. Despite addressing the narrow, negative societal attitudes and perspectives of aging, these theories cannot fully capture the challenges faced by older workers from political and societal structures, attitudes and influences coming from the entire employability ecosystem.
This is because higher subjective wellbeing is associated with good health and longevity, better social relationships and improved work performances (Diener et al., 2018; Okun, 2022). As such, the analysis of subjective wellbeing serves as a complementary analytical tool for policy evaluation and economic development (Nikolova & Popova, 2021). Despite the growing debate on how to measure wellbeing (Hone et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2018; Tomaselli et al., 2021), there is a clear consensus that there are indeed many ways to describe and measure wellbeing; a concept gaining increasing importance and attention in many societies (Mercado, 2018; Pillay, 2020). Measures of wellbeing are vital for governments, the leadership and policymakers in organisations, and the public (Burns et al., 2020; Hone et al., 2015; Oades et al., 2021). Four recent studies reflect this significance (D’Ambrosio et al., 2020; Sujarwoto, 2021; Tanaka & Tokimatsu, 2020; Ugur, 2021). The surveyed population rated pursuing happiness above having wealth, indicating that policymakers should prioritise wellbeing when developing public policies (Bache & Karen, 2018). The concept of flourishing and the S-BIT theory of fulfilling work, which addresses wellbeing in workplace contexts, will be discussed in the next two sections.
3.2.2.1 Flourishing
One outcome of wellbeing is human flourishing (Bruns et al., 2022; Cieslik, 2017;
Huppert & So, 2011) (see Section 2.10), which includes an understanding of all the relevant underlying mechanisms and predictors of human flourishing (Fink, 2014; Imran et al., 2020).
The need to understand and measure human functioning on a large scale has resulted in different conceptual frameworks of flourishing as a concept (Hone et al., 2015). Notably, it is increasingly applied and central to influencing the progress and conditions of different segments of the population in various workplaces and institutions (Bache et al., 2016; Pillay, 2020).
Although various definitions and measurements of flourishing exist (Levin, 2020;
Marsh et al., 2020; Keyes, 2002), there is no consensus on its application in research or
policymaking (De la Fuente, 2017). Different researchers have theorised and operationalised flourishing in distinct ways, but the key difference is how each researcher frame the combination of components that constitute this concept according to varying thresholds (Hone et al., 2015). Flourishing refers to the ‘experience of life going well’ (Huppert & So, 2011, p.
838), consisting of a coherent combination of positive emotions and effective functioning, combining hedonic and eudemonic aspects of wellbeing. It is ‘synonymous with a high level of mental wellbeing, and epitomises mental health’ (Huppert & So, 2011, p. 838). One important component of human flourishing is its application and significance in real-life contexts (Erum et al., 2020; Jeffrey, 2019; Huppert, 2009). In a quantitative study conducted in the Netherlands, Schotanus-Dijkstra et al. (2016) define flourishing as an optimal state found in individuals with high levels of hedonic and eudemonic wellbeing. Indeed, researchers agree that wellbeing is a multidimensional construct and flourishing refers to high levels of wellbeing and functioning (Adler & Seligman, 2016; Diener, 2009; Huppert, 2009;
Keyes, 2002; Prendergast et al., 2016; Seligman, 2011).
For wellbeing outcomes to influence and shape policymaking in a meaningful and effective manner, methodical assessment must use reliable, valid and responsive measurement tools and representative population samples (Diener et al., 2010). To understand the characteristics of flourishing, it is necessary to study the concept in its entirety, not merely as an absence of mental illness and disorder (Bell et al., 2019). One of the largest studies on flourishing was conducted by Huppert and So (2011), which used a representative sample of 43,000 respondents from 22 countries in Europe. Due to its large volume, representativeness and wide-ranging coverage of wellbeing, Huppert and So’s (2011) operational definition of flourishing was primarily based on the factorial structure of the data (Hone et al., 2015), which enhances reliability. Huppert and So (2011) designed the conceptual framework for flourishing based on the internationally agreed-upon methodology used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and the
International Classification of Diseases (WHO, 1993). Both classifications necessitate the presence of opposite symptoms to major and known mental and psychological disorders such as depression and anxiety disorders. By identifying the opposite symptoms of these major disorders, Huppert and So (2011) developed a list of 10 positive characteristics, as listed in Table 3.2. Based on factor analysis, inter-item correlations and data distribution, a
‘categorical diagnosis for flourishing that required a strong endorsement of positive emotion’
was designed (Huppert et al., 2013, p. 841).
Table 3.2: Features of flourishing and indicator items from the European Social Survey Positive Feature ESS (European Social Survey) Items used as indicator
Competence Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from what I do.
Emotional stability Emotional stability (In the past week) I felt calm and peaceful.
Engagement I love learning new things.
Meaning I generally feel that what I do in my life is valuable and worthwhile.
Optimism I am always optimistic about my future.
Positive emotion Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are?
Positive relationships There are people in my life who really care about me.
Resilience When things go wrong in my life it generally takes me a long time to get back to normal.
Self-esteem In general, I feel positive about myself.
Vitality (In the past week), I had a lot of energy.
Note. Adapted by author from Huppert & So (2011).
An individual is thought to be flourishing when these dimensions are present. To accurately capture the characteristics of flourishing, Huppert and So (2011) observed, identified and characterised segments of the population who display the flourishing. The first factor is positive, which is considered a measurement for life satisfaction. Huppert and So (2011) explain that life satisfaction as a factor was present in most surveys measuring happiness and wellbeing. Second, they added five dimensions of hedonic wellbeing:
emotional stability, vitality, optimism, resilience and self-esteem. An individual who fulfils any four of these dimensions is identified as flourishing. Third, one is also considered to be flourishing if they meet three out of the four dimensions of eudemonic factors: engagement,
competence, meaning and positive relationships (Huppert & So, 2011). Therefore, the concept of flourishing is indicative of a person’s overall wellbeing. This means it is a suitable measure of the appreciative factors of older workers in this study and representative of their overall wellbeing due to these factors’ presence. Further, flourishing is a concept that has been applied in many areas in relation to the workforce (Crawford, 2019; De Crom & Rothmann, 2018; Ertac & Tanova, 2020; McKenzie et al., 2020), which affirms its suitability for measuring the wellbeing of older workers in Singapore.
Measurements of flourishing have also been applied in healthcare (Dadich et al., 2020;
Jackson et al., 2021; Levin, 2020), education (Bosch, 2020; Joseph, 2015; Kristjánsson, 2016;
Wilson-Strydom & Walker, 2015) and the study of workers and organisations (Abid et al., 2018; Mercado, 2018; Kuntz et al., 2016; Marques, 2021; Mohamad Ibrahim et al., 2021). In all these areas, when flourishing among students and workers was observed, it led to positive changes and outcomes for the participants, institutions and organisations involved. Evidently, flourishing is a concept that creates awareness about the wellbeing of a group of people within the population, facilitates positive transformation and mindfulness (Ivtzan et al., 2018;
Howells et al., 2016; Joseph, 2015; VanderWeele et al., 2019), and promotes sustainability in the professional lives of workers (Erum et al., 2020; Mercado, 2018). Thus, the concept of flourishing provides an essential foundation for those engaged in health promotion in organisations and policymaking to increase the number of people who are flourishing in Singapore’s workforce.
3.2.2.2 S-BIT theory of work
The S-BIT theory of work is a theory in organisational psychology that underlines the experience of fulfilling work (Owens et al., 2019). Fulfilling work can be defined as the
‘complete, integrated, and comprehensive experience of wellbeing in the work context’
(Owens et al., 2019, p. 224). S-BIT theory of work is vital for achieving fulfilling work and predicts positive wellbeing (Allan et al., 2019b). Although there may be other equally
important outcomes, such as earning a salary and meeting basic needs, focusing on fulfilling work enhances the wellbeing of the worker and the organisation (Dik et al., 2013; Norcross &
Farran, 2020). This section elaborates on the significance of the S-BIT theory of work and its application in this study.
As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the S-BIT theory of work consists of three core components that form and guide its conceptual framework (Owens et al., 2019), leading to fulfilling work. First is contextual supports and challenges, including access to resources, employment and promotion opportunities and systemic inequities. Next is a promotive work context with elements such as support for workers and value alignment with these workers.
The final component is positive individual characteristics, including the strengths that allow these workers to flourish while working (Owens et al., 2019). Allan et al. (2019b) argue that a coherent relationship between these components is necessary to create work that is fulfilling for the individual, which results in their wellbeing.
Figure 3.1: S-BIT theory of work
Note. Adapted by author from Owens et al. (2019b).
Contextual Support and
Barriers
Promotive Work Context
Positive Individual Characteristics
Fulfilling Work
There are four main theoretical propositions in the S-BIT theory of work (Owens et al., 2019). First, workers with better work context, support and less contextual barriers will most likely enjoy promotive work contexts and experience fulfilling work. The S-BIT theory of work proposes that this can be achieved by providing better access to resources and opportunity structures and removing systemic inequities. Here, access to resources refers to economic and social capital that helps workers develop their knowledge base and competencies, while opportunity structures refer to growth and development in their careers (Allen et al., 2019). Conversely, this theory also highlights the importance of removing structural barriers, such as social inequities prevalent across many economies (Allen et al., 2019). Systemic inequities include the discrimination and marginalisation of certain segments of the population regarding access to opportunities and resources in work contexts (Owens et al., 2019).
The second proposition is that promotive work contexts are crucial in creating fulfilling work and meaningful work contexts (Allan et al., 2021; Allen at al., 2019b). Here, meaningful work contexts refer to work environments where workers feel supported and valued for their work, and their values align with those of the organisation (Owens et al., 2019). Several studies suggest that when workers’ values align with their organisation’s values and work contexts, they experience components of fulfilling work (Boikanyo & Heyns, 2019; Kuijpers et al., 2020). This theory suggests that such work contexts include environments that preserve workers’ dignity by respecting them and valuing their work, ensuring fair treatment for all workers.
Third, positive individual characteristics are important in the work context and influence positive work outcomes. High levels of wellbeing are observed in workplaces with inclusive and supportive organisational policies (Anderson, 2018; Hyatt et al., 2016; Snell, 2018). This suggests contextual supports and promotive work contexts foster interconnected, positive individual characteristics that facilitate positive work outcomes (Allan et al., 2019a).
The S-BIT theory of work incorporates four variables to represent the positive characteristics applicable to a diverse range of participants in different work contexts: hope, strengths, adaptability and empowerment (Owens et al., 2019). Hope is an essential characteristic all workers have throughout their life span and describes a person’s capacity and motivation to seek ways to achieve their goals. Strengths refer to positive traits that promote optimal functioning. Adaptability is an individual’s ability to respond to and cope with changes and unpredictability in unique situations and novel challenges in work contexts (McLoughlin &
Priyadarshini, 2021). Finally, empowerment is an individual having self-determination, control and positive influence over their (or others’) environment in a work context (Islam &
Irfan, 2020; O'Donoghue & van der Werff, 2021). Having a higher degree of empowerment also describes a higher level of efficacy (Allen et al., 2019; Owens et al., 2019).
As already stated, workers with better contextual support and lesser contextual barriers will likely enjoy fulfilling work (Allan et al., 2019b). The last proposition in the S-BIT theory of work suggests that workers with positive individual characteristics can help maximise these contextual supports and positively influence the work context. This facilitates their journey in a challenging and dynamic world of work, which in turn improves their wellbeing. Although some factors are clearly beyond the influence of an individual worker (Allan et al., 2019a), it is evident that an individual worker could influence their work contexts to a certain extent if they are flourishing and exhibiting positive functioning while at work (Ariza-Montes et al., 2019; Longo et al., 2016; Owens et al., 2019).
The S-BIT theory of work posits that workers who experience a set of overlapping positive emotional states and experiences, and have access to opportunities for professional growth and actualisation, can lead to work engagement and a holistic state of wellbeing while in employment (Allan et al., 2019b; Oades & Dulagil, 2017). However, different people understand, perceive and experience wellbeing in varying ways and place different values on the various aspects of wellbeing over others (Abdi et al., 2018; Daniels et al., 2018).
Therefore, based on the concepts from S-BIT theory, it can be inferred that establishing promotive work contexts that align with the worker’s values and having a supportive work environment will create fulfilling work. In turn, this will ensure workers’ wellbeing and sustain their employability.
Allan et al. (2019b) consider fulfilling work as achieving a holistic and complete sense of flourishing in the work context. This theory of fulfilling work encompasses assets of diverse but connected positive experiences that ensure the psychological needs of the worker are met. Further, it refers to a connected combination of positive experiences and emotional states that is dynamic and influenced by changing work circumstances (Norcross & Farran, 2020; Thomas, 2019). As such, workers experiencing fulfilling work will feel a sense of gratification, actualisation and fulfilment (Narvaez, 2018). As discussed in the previous section, scholars have conceptualised and operationalised wellbeing in diverse ways based on different theoretical foundations on what constitutes life satisfaction and ‘a good life’ (Ryan
& Deci, 2017). Owen et al. (2019) contend that at a fundamental level, people with fulfilling work experiences generally experience a sense of contentment at work and enjoy positive emotional states, which is significant for their overall wellbeing.
As work occupies a significant portion of people in employment’s lives, it is indeed important to investigate the factors that constitute meaningful work. Rosso et al. (2010) propose work meaningfulness refers to the level of purpose and meaning that work holds for a person. This is particularly significant as going to work may just be an ordinary job for some people, while for others, their work may be a calling and a meaningful endeavour (Michaelson, 2021; Oades & Dulagil, 2017). Aguinis and Glavas (2019) explain that workers are proactive and intentional agents who search for and find meaningfulness through work in various ways. However, there may be instances of workers not seeing their work as having any meaning other than a means of livelihood (Alliger, 2019; Matz-Costa et al., 2019). In these instances, the work contexts they are in will still influence and contribute to a
meaningful life overall (Graham et al., 2017; Haar et al., 2018), and the circumstances inherent within these contexts are significant for their overall wellbeing (Oades & Dulagil, 2017).
The core experience of fulfilling work may vary across individuals and communities in different situations, and so must its conceptualisation and operationalisation. With this consideration, the current study will apply the integrated theoretical framework for older workers as its primary theoretical lens.