Keywords

Workplace Happiness, Employees’ Wellbeing, Life Satisfaction, Interpersonal Relationship, Self-affirmation, Physical, Mental Health.

Introduction

Workplace happiness refers to an individual’s work and life satisfaction, or subjective well-being at the workplace (Bhattacharjee & Bhattcharjee 2010). Happiness in its broad sense is the label for a family of pleasant emotional states, such as joy, amusement, satisfaction, gratification, euphoria, and triumph (Algoe, 2009). Happiness is generally defined as an emotional state where mortal beings live and assess their lives, considering positive passions or issues (Aydin, 2012) (Fisher, 2010). On the other hand, happiness is defined in nearly the same way widely and every culture emphasizes it as a precious thing of its life (Diener, 2000), (Dutton & Edmunds, 2007) Happiness reflects the affable judgments or positive evaluation as well as enjoyable gests an individual anticipate from the plant similar as positive passions, moods, feelings (Fisher, 2010). Happiness at work is realized when an individual employs his bents and capacities. (Edmund, 2007). The Happiness at the work place is the level of contentment of the employees and their feelings towards work and performance. The happiness at workplace is not to be confused with satisfaction. Each organization is different and due to that it is important to identify what makes every person in the organization feel virtuous and contented. This study focuses on finding such determinants of happiness at the educational workplace. The research has been conducted at an educational institute in West Bengal. The campus is located in Durgapur and Kolkata. The study aims to find out the factors that are significant for happiness at work. The two factors that have been used for the study is Psychological Capital (Individual Factor) and Job Attitude (Workplace Factor). Further, the relationship between demographic variables and workplace happiness has been introspected.

Research objective

• To find out the elements and underpinning concepts and theories of psychological capitals as on Individual factor or Work Place Factor or outside factor

• To analyse the correlation of these two factors for workplace happiness.

• To recommend & formulate the framework of happiness that can be applicable to the organizations.

Literature Review

Happiness can be defined as a positive inner feeling of an individual (Diener, 2000) that includes pleasing emotions, delightful feelings, life satisfaction, personal fulfilment, and personal growth (Johnston et al., 2013). Further we can say that it is precisely a very subjective sense of well-being felt by individuals with positive emotions without any negative emotions (Angner, 2011). Subjective issue(s) is when an individual describes whether or not he or she is happy, but an external observer will not be able to make the same judgment (Van Praag et al., 2010).

Effect of PsyCap on Workplace Happiness

The concept of psychological capital (PsyCap) represents an individual’s positive psychological state of development categorized by hope, self-efficacy, resilience and optimism (Luthans, 2006). Positive psychology proposes a new outlook on improving well-being and happiness without merely concentrating on shortfalls and disorders. This perception includes building upon existing resources and strengths that individuals hold such as optimism, hope, resilience, or gratitude, that can help to sustain good mental health (Seligman et al., 2005) (Peterson & Seligman 2004) (Luthans, 2006). The higher levels of endurance, hope, self-sufficiency, and optimism assist the employee to feel happy with the job he/she is doing (Avey et al., 2010). Thus, the employee feels highly satisfied in terms of his/her career, and his/her level of commitment increases towards the organization.

Effect of Job Attitude on Workplace Happiness

(Weimann et al., 2015) opined that workplace happiness is not fixed but may change as a response to changes in work conditions (development opportunities, compensation, promotional opportunities, performance appraisal, etc.). Accordingly, Fisher (2010) identifies workplace happiness as healthy positive feelings an employee maintains towards the job itself (work atmosphere, feeling at work, job title), job characteristics (pay, development opportunities and assessment) and the organization as a whole. Perceive income equality is significant for work happiness while partiality would lead to dissatisfaction at the workplace (Lembregts & Pandelaere 2014) (De Prycker, 2010). Activities executed by employee have a significant impact on happiness in the workplace (Grady & McCarthy 2008), (Ha & Kim, 2013) Individuals always pursue employment that best suits their interests and desires (Porfeli & Mortimer 2010). Employees usually search for job security (Silla et al., 2009) which includes work happiness (Ha, 2013) (Frey, 2000) Figure 1.

Research Methodology

Research Design

Descriptive design has been used to observe, analyse the present research. Descriptive research design was undertaken to focus the characteristics and significance of various factors used in the study. This type of research design aims to systematically obtain information to describe a phenomenon, situation, or population.

Universe & Sampling

The total population of both the campus is 271 respondents. Stratified random sampling technique was taken for the study. A total of 158 questionnaires was used for the study.

Research Instrument

Data was obtained from respondents using a five point Likert scale questionnaire. Likert Scale is a method of ascribing quantitative value to qualitative data, to make it amenable to statistical analysis. A numerical value is assigned to each potential choice and a mean figure for all the responses is computed at the end of the evaluation or survey. The questions were divided into two major sections Annexure I was the demographic variables and Annexure II consisted of questions of ‘Psychological Capital’ and ‘Job Attitude’. There were 24 statements in Psychological Capital and 15 statements in Job Attitude. This scale was developed by Srivastava (1974) to measure the extent of accepting and not accepting for various aspects of job like job activities, work conditions, social relations, security and compensation etc. The statements of this scale also represents positive/ negative approach towards different confines of work. The scale comprises 15 true- keyed particulars. The Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) is an thoughtful psychological scale consisting of 24 items relating to an individual's Psychological Capital (PsyCap), or positive psychological state of development. The PCQ was constructed by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey (2007) with the aim to measure the dimensions of PsyCap.. The PCQ measures four dimensions of PsyCap: hope, efficacy, resiliency, and optimism. The data so obtained was scanned and analysed using MS Excel and SPSS Version 20.0.

Results and Inferences

The data collected are analysed, presented and discussed according to the research objectives. In this chapter, the results of 158 sets of questionnaires have been analysed. The data has been obtained from respondents who are working at both the campuses of NSHM. The data has been edited, coded and transformed for further analysis in this chapter. It has been analysed using MS Excel and with the Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 20.0. The analysis of the data techniques used for the study are Mean, Percentage Analysis Reliability Test, Pearson Correlation Coefficient and Linear Regression.

Demographic Features

This section provides an overview, results and evaluation of the demographic features. The questionnaires results have been interpreted in the form of tables and pie charts Table 1, Figure 2.

Table 1 Percentage of Respondents from NSHM Institute
Campus Location	Employees	Percentage
Durgapur	70	55.7
Kolkata	88	44.3

From the Table 2, the total number of respondents from Kolkata Campus is 88 (56%) and the numbers of respondents from Durgapur Campus is 70 (44%), Figure 3.

Table 2 Gender of Respondents from NSHM Institute
Gender	Employees	Percentage
Male	103	64.2
Female	55	34.2
Third Gender	00	0.00
Transgender	00	0.00
Prefer Not to Say	01	0.60

Gender

Table 3 represents the gender of respondents from both the Campus at NSHM. Male respondents constitute 65% of the total respondents while 34% are female respondents. However, 1% prefer not to say regarding their status Figure 4.

Table 3 Profession Type of Respondents from NSHM Institute
Profession Type	Employees	Percentage
Academic	103	65
Non-Academic	55	35

Profession Type

From the Table 4, it is evident that 84% of the respondents are academic employees, while 16% are non-academic employees working at NSHM.

Table 4 Marital Status of Respondents from NSHM Institute
Marital Status	Employees	Percentage
Married	104	65.82
Unmarried	46	29.11
Separated	1	0.63
Divorced	4	2.54
Window(er)	3	1.90

Marital Status

From the Table 5, Figure 5 the percentage of married employees is 65.82, while 29.11% constitute unmarried employees working at NSHM. The table also shows that less than a percent employees are separated, while 2.54 and 1.90 percent employees are divorced and widow(er) respectively.

Table 5 Monthly Income of Respondents from NSHM Institute
Monthly Income	Employees	Percentage
< ₹25000	13	8.2
₹25001-₹50000	78	49.4
₹50001-₹75000	43	27.2
₹75001-₹100000	13	8.2
₹100001 >	11	7

Monthly Income

Table 6, Figure 6 depicts the monthly income of the employees at NSHM. The percent of employees between the income bracket ₹25001-₹50000 is the highest and stands at 49.4. However, 27.2% employees have a monthly income between 50001-₹75000.

Table 6 Designation of Respondents from NSHM Institute
Designation	Employees	Percentage
Assistant Professor / Associate Professor / Professor / Senior Professor	113	71.52
Junior Manager / Assistant Manager / Deputy Manager / Manager	13	8.23
Senior Manager / Assistant General Manager / Deputy General Manager / General Manager	3	1.90
Senior Library Assistant / College Librarian	3	1.90
Assistant / Senior Assistant / Executive	4	2.53
Juinor Faculty / Faculty	6	3.80
Laboratory / Technical / Senior Technical Coordinator	4	2.53
Dean / Principal / Director	3	1.90
Technical Assistant / Senior Technical Assistant	6	3.80
Assistant / Junior / Senior Assistant	3	1.90

Designation

From the Table 7, Figure 7 it is evident that 71.52% of the respondents are Assistant Professor / Associate Professor / Professor / Senior Professor. While Junior Manager / Assistant Manager / Deputy Manager / Manager comprise 8.23% of the total respondents.

Table 7 Age Bracket of Respondents from NSHM Institute
Age Bracket	Employees	percentage
Below 25 Years	6	3.80
Between 25 - 30 Years	18	11.39
Between 30 - 35 Years	31	19.62
Between 35 - 40 Years	33	20.89
Between 40 - 45 Years	26	16.46
Above 45 Years	44	27.85

Age

Table 8, Figure 8 shows the age bracket of the respondents at NSHM. The percentage of respondents above 45 years is 27.85. While those between 35-40 years is 20.89%. 16.46% of the employees are between 40-45 years. The data shows a very experienced team of employees working at NSHM.

Table 8 Case Processing Summary
		N	%
Cases	Valid	1580	100.0
	Excludeda	0	.0
	Total	158	100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Analysis

Reliability analysis allows studying the properties of measurement scales and the items that compose the scales. The Reliability Analysis procedure calculates a number of commonly used measures of scale reliability and also provides information about the relationships between individual items in the scale.

From the Table 9, it can be seen that that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the factors vary from 0.894 to 0.918. These values are above the generally agreed upon lower limit of 0.60 (Hair., et al, 2006) or α= 0.70 (Field, 2009). This shows a good internal consistency of the factors and high reliability of the scale.

Table 9 Reliability Analysis
Factors	Cronbach’s Alpha (α)	Number of Items
Psychological Capital	.894	24
Job Attitude	.918	15

Descriptive Statistics for Job Attitude

The descriptive statistics regarding the mean value of all variable under Job Attitude are displayed above Table 10. The mean value of Job Attitude is 3.7925 (sd=.79357). Job Activities have a mean value of 4.06 followed by Working Conditions (4.04). Security and Compensation show have a mean value of 3.27 and have the lowest averages amongst the four variables under Job Attitude Figure 9 to 12.

Table 10 Statistics
		JA_SOCRELAVG	JA_SECCOMAVG	JA_JACTAVG	JA_WORCONAVG
N	Valid	158	158	158	158
	Missing	0	0	0	0
Mean		3.7880	3.2795	4.0601	4.0422
Std. Deviation		1.02406	.72813	.86162	.86917

Descriptive Statistics for Psychological Capital

The Table 11 depicts the mean value of all variable under Psychological Capital. The mean value of Psychological Capital is 3.96 (sd=0.52827). Hope have a mean value of 4.21 followed by Efficacy (4.20). Resilience and Optimism have a mean value of 3.72 and 3,70 respectively Figure 13 to 16.

Table 11 Statistics
		PC_EFFAVG	PC_HPAVG	PC_RESAVG	PC_OPTAVG
N	Valid	158	158	158	158
	Missing	0	0	0	0
Mean		4.204	4.2141	3.7352	3.7015
Std. Deviation		.71427	.62449	.62080	.61907

The above Table 12, 13 shows that Pearson correlation between ‘Psychological Capital’ and ‘Job Attitude’ is + 0.627 with a significance level of 0.00. The value of each variable is perfectly correlated with itself, so r = 1 along the diagonal of the table.

Table 12 One-Sample Test
	Test Value = 0
	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
PCAVG	94.292	157	.000	3.96282	3.8798	4.0458
JAAVG	60.071	157	.000	3.79246	3.6678	3.9172

Table 13 One-Sample Statistics
	N		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean
PCAVG	158		3.9628	.52827	.04203
JAAVG	158		3.7925	.79357	.06313
Correlations
				JA_AVG	PC_AVG
JA_AVG		Pearson Correlation		1	.627**
		Sig. (2-tailed)			.000
		N		158	158
PC_AVG		Pearson Correlation		.627**	1
		Sig. (2-tailed)		.000
		N		158	158
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The value shows a strong relationship between ‘Psychological Capital’ and ‘Job Attitude’ (where value of r is between -0.5 to -1.0 or +0.5 to +1.0).

Further, we can see that the Sig. (2-tailed), shows a figure of 0.000. As the value is less than 0.05 we can conclude that there exists a statistically significant correlation between ‘Psychological Capital’ and ‘Job Attitude’ (Paul, 2010).

Hence, we can gain confidence that there is a genuine relationship between ‘Psychological Capital’ and ‘Job Attitude’.

Results Conclusion and Recommendations

The working environment has gone for a sea-change. The productivity of employees has been significant for the growth and sustenance for the institutions. Positive psychology attaches more significance for generating happiness for the employees. In this study, psychological and job attitude factors that affect workplace happiness have been analysed together. The following are the results based on the data collected.

• The campus has a good representation of female employees (65%).

• Employees are highly experienced as 75% as the workforce are above 35 years.

• The academic employees constitute 71% of the workforce at both the campus.

• The happiness at workplace is derived from the two factors i.e. Psychological Capital (Individual Factor) and Job Attitude (Workplace Factor). The four factors which comprise individual factors are Efficacy, Hope, Resilience and Optimism. The workplace factors significant for happiness were job activities, working condition, social relation and security & compensation. The mean value for Individual Factor was 3.96, while 3.79 was the mean value for Workplace Factor. We can opine that individual factor has a significant effect on the workplace happiness at NSHM.

• The most significant for happiness at workplace under individual factors was Hope with a mean value of 4.21 followed by Efficacy (4.20), Resilience (3.72) and Optimism (3.70).

• The mean value for Job Attitude Scale was 3.79. The scale depicts the workplace happiness for the employees. The most significant was Job Activities with a mean value of 4.06 followed by Working Conditions (4.04), Social Relations (3.78) and Security and Compensation (3.27).

• There is a significant correlation between Individual Factors and Workplace Factors.

• Security and Compensation has been rated as the least significant factor for happiness at workplace.

• The most important factor from both the scales are Hope (Individual Factor) Efficacy (Individual Factor) ad Job Activities (Workplace Factor).

• Satisfaction is the most important factor contributing to employee’s wellbeing happiness and happiness at individual level. Employees always transfer their happiness from home to office and office to home. Thus It is important for an organization that employee be happy in their individual life as ultimately it would affect to the performance of an individual as well as organization.

• The university must ensure that employees feel their life is secured and safe at work and ensure their hard work pays off.

• The HR should devise ways to make work interesting at the workplace. Employees have also acknowledged the gap in social relations. This could be due to immense pressure at work. Hence, the institute should design and conduct more events that employees can participate with their family, such as tours, parties and picnic.

References

Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The ‘other-praising’emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The journal of positive psychology, 4(2), 105-127.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Angner, E., Hullett, S., & Allison, J. J. (2011). “I’ll die with the hammer in my hand”: John Henryism as a predictor of happiness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(3), 357-366.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of occupational health psychology, 15(1), 17.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Aydin, N. (2012). A grand theory of human nature and happiness. Humanomics, 28(1), 42-63.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bhattacharjee, D., & Bhattcharjee, M. (2010). Measuring happiness at work place. ASBM Journal of Management, 3(1/2), 112.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

De Prycker, V. (2010). Happiness on the political agenda? PROS and CONS. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 585-603.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American psychologist, 55(1), 34.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Dutton, V. M., & Edmunds, L. (2007). A model of workplace happiness. Selection and Development Review, 23(3), 9.

Google Scholar

Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at work. International journal of management reviews, 12(4), 384-412.

Google Scholar

Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. The economic journal, 110(466), 918-938.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Grady, G., & McCarthy, A. M. (2008). Work‐life integration: experiences of mid‐career professional working mothers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 599-622.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ha, S. E., & Kim, S. (2013). Personality and subjective well-being: Evidence from South Korea. Social Indicators Research, 111, 341-359.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Johnston, C. S., Luciano, E. C., Maggiori, C., Ruch, W., & Rossier, J. (2013). Validation of the German version of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale and its relation to orientations to happiness and work stress. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 295-304.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Lembregts, C., & Pandelaere, M. (2014). " A 20% income increase for everyone?": The effect of relative increases in income on perceived income inequality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 43, 37-47.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological capital development: toward a micro‐intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(3), 387-393.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Porfeli, E. J., & Mortimer, J. T. (2010). Intrinsic work value–reward dissonance and work satisfaction during young adulthood. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 507-519.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. American psychologist, 60(5), 410.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Silla, I., De Cuyper, N., Gracia, F. J., Peiró, J. M., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity and well-being: Moderation by employability. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 739-751.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Van Praag, B. M., Romanov, D., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2010). Happiness and financial satisfaction in Israel: Effects of religiosity, ethnicity, and war. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(6), 1008-1020.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Weimann, J., Knabe, A., & Schob, R. (2015). Measuring happiness: The economics of well-being. MIT press.

Indexed at, Cross Ref

Received: 02-Dec-2023, Manuscript No. ASMJ-23-14244; Editor assigned: 04-Dec-2023, PreQC No. ASMJ-23-14244;(PQ); Reviewed: 18- Dec-2023, QC No. ASMJ-23-14244; Revised: 21-Dec-2023, Manuscript No. ASMJ-23-14244(R); Published: 28-Dec-2023