2

INDIVIDUAL WELL-BEING AND

PERFORMANCE AT WORK
A conceptual and theoretical overview

Toon W. Taris and Wilmar B. Schaufeli

From a historical perspective, one of the main aims of early twentieth-century

authors like Emil Kraepelin, Hugo Münsterberg and Frederick Taylor was to opti-
mize worker performance (e.g., Koppes & Pickren, 2007; Peeters, Taris & De Jonge,
2014). In the days of industrial capitalism, workers’ performance was of great concern.
For example, in The principles of scientific management Taylor (1911/2006) argued that
“instead of using every effort to turn out the largest possible amount of work, in a
majority of the cases [a worker] deliberately plans to do as little as he safely can (. . .)
Underworking, that is, deliberately working slowly so as to avoid doing a full day’s
work (. . .) constitutes the greatest evil with which the working-people of both
England and America are now afflicted” (p. 7). Although few others held as extreme
a position as that of Taylor, in those days much scientific and practical research was
directed at examining how worker productivity could be increased, e.g., through
improved selection of personnel, training and reducing absenteeism. As Koppes and
Pickren (2007) demonstrate, neither the association between work characteristics
and well-being, nor that between well-being and productivity received much atten-
tion at the time, at least not in the research published in major psychology journals.
This changed in the 1930s. Following the influential Hawthorne studies in which
the effects of working conditions on worker productivity were examined (Mayo, 1933;
cf. Kompier, 2006), human motivation, “emotional well-being” and job satisfaction
were uncovered as relevant factors for work performance.Textbooks of industrial and
organizational psychology started devoting chapters to subjects such as maintaining
“fitness” at work, the effects of monotonous work and ways of increasing work moti-
vation (cf. Landy & Conte, 2010; Koppes & Pickren, 2007). At present, emotions and
well-being at work are topics that are studied in their own right, and few researchers
in the field of work and organizational psychology would contend that examining
employee well-being is irrelevant when it comes to improving productivity. Per-
haps the most important reason for examining work performance and well-being in
16 Toon Taris and Wilmar Schaufeli

relation to each other is that it is often assumed that satisfied and happy workers will
be more productive than others (the “happy-productive worker” hypothesis, Lucas &
Diener, 2002). A second reason is that many psychologists working in this area
believe that high productivity should not be obtained at the cost of worker well-being,
a notion that forms the basis for the currently flourishing field of occupational health
psychology (a subfield in the area of industrial and organizational psychology that
focuses on worker health and what might be called sustainable performance).
The present chapter addresses the conceptualization of individual well-being
and performance in the work context, and discusses theoretical perspectives linking
these concepts. We first address theoretical and empirical notions on the structure
of well-being, after which the conceptualization of performance and the relations
between individual well-being and performance are discussed, respectively.

Individual well-being at work

The literature on subjective well-being often construes well-being as a primarily
affective state (Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith, 1999), with well-being being con-
ceptualized as simply the relative frequency of positive affects compared to nega-
tive affects. However, over the past 25 years several broader conceptualizations of
well-being have been proposed, including not only affect, but also behavior and
motivation (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; van Horn, Taris, Schaufeli & Schreurs,
2004; Warr, 1994, 2007). This raises the question how subjective well-being should
be understood: does well-being mainly refer to an affective judgment regarding the
events that occur in people’s lives (Diener et al., 1999), or should it be considered a
broader phenomenon that involves other, non-affective aspects as well?
This issue is especially relevant in the work context. Some of the key outcome
variables in work and organizational psychology tap aspects of affective well-being
(such as job satisfaction, depression and affective organizational commitment, cf.
Allen & Meyer, 1990), whereas other outcomes relate to aspects of these broader
conceptualizations of well-being (e.g., motivation, efficacy and physical health).
Clearly, well-being can be understood in many different ways and it relates to a wide
range of concepts. Moreover, well-being can be measured as a context-free (i.e., in
relation to life in general) or as a domain-specific concept (e.g., at work, school or
in intimate relationships). Since much seminal work on well-being has focused on
context-free well-being, this chapter discusses both context-free and work-related
well-being. This allows for a deeper understanding of the nature of work-specific
types of well-being, so that the link with general “mainstream” approaches to under-
standing well-being will become more evident, making it easier to recognize specific
types of work-related well-being as subtypes of more general types of well-being.

Conceptualizations of well-being
Current individual-level conceptualizations of well-being can conveniently be
classified on two dimensions, namely (a) whether they focus exclusively on affec-
tive well-being or employ a multidimensional approach, and (b) whether they are
 A conceptual and theoretical overview 17

context-free (i.e., do not focus on one particular area of life) or domain-specific.

Crossing these two dimensions yields four basic approaches to conceptualizing
well-being. Below we briefly discuss each of these approaches.

Context-free, affective well-being

As indicated above, the classic conceptualization of well-being primarily focuses on
affect (i.e., pleasure vs. displeasure: Diener et al., 1999). Dictionary definitions of hap-
piness suggest that there are two principal kinds of happiness, namely happiness as
peace of mind and contentment versus happiness as fun and excitement (Warr, 2007).
This suggests that different types of affective happiness vary on two dimensions,
namely pleasure and intensity/arousal (Russell, 1980). The combination of these two
axes in the so-called circumplex model allows for characterizing a wide range of affect/
emotions, e.g.,“pleased” (high on pleasure, intermediate on arousal),“tense” (high on
arousal, low on pleasure) and “fatigued” (low on arousal, intermediate on pleasure).
Context-free (or global ) measures of affective well-being often consist of scales
whose items refer to a range of positive as well as negative states. One typical
example is Watson, Clark and Tellegen’s (1988) Positive and Negative Affect Sched-
ule (PANAS) that includes 10 positive (e.g., excited, inspired) and 10 negative items
(e.g., hostile, nervous). People completing this questionnaire must rate the extent
to which they experience each mood state (ranging from “very slightly or not at
all” to “very much”) during a specified time frame (e.g., “last month”). Clearly, this
is a context-free measure of affective well-being, since it refers to mood that is not
linked to (or experienced in) a particular context.

Domain-specific affective well-being

Global measures of well-being are useful when researchers are interested in peo-
ple’s level of affective well-being in general. However, in specific contexts focused
(domain-specific) measures of affective well-being will often be much more appro-
priate, e.g., when evaluating the effects of a workplace intervention designed to
increase affective well-being at work. Since such interventions primarily target the
workplace, it makes sense to focus on well-being in that specific context as well
(i.e., it is unlikely that such interventions will equally strongly affect one’s level of
well-being as experienced in other contexts). Fortunately, it is not particularly dif-
ficult to devise such domain-specific measures. For example, building on Russell’s
(1980) general pleasure-arousal model of emotions,Warr (1990) developed and tested
a similar two-dimensional model of affective well-being at work. He collected data
from 1,686 working men and women, giving them a list of 12 emotions and asking
them to indicate for each emotion how much of the time their job had made them
feel this emotion during the past few weeks (1 = “never”, 6 = “all of the time”). After
factor-analyzing these data, Warr found that these emotions loaded on two broad
dimensions which he termed anxiety-contentment and depression-enthusiasm.
Thus, by explicitly specifying the context in which the 12 emotions should be expe-
rienced, Warr (1990) devised a work-specific measure of affective well-being.
18 Toon Taris and Wilmar Schaufeli

Context-free, multidimensional well-being

Other researchers in this area have proposed multidimensional (or non-affective)
conceptualizations of general well-being. Currently, the approach of Ryff and col-
leagues (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff & Singer, 2008) is the best-known.
Ryff attempted to answer the question, what does it mean to be well psychologically?
She noted that previous conceptualizations of well-being (e.g., in terms of affec-
tive well-being, or of life satisfaction) were data-driven rather than theory-driven.
Therefore, based on previous notions of happiness, she proposed a six-dimensional
framework of general well-being. Table 2.1 presents these dimensions. As this table
shows, the six dimensions proposed by Ryff (1989) cannot be mapped directly on
the familiar triad of affect, motivation and cognition, and in this sense her classifica-
tion goes beyond the traditional approach of equating well-being to affect. Ryff ’s
classification has been criticized on several grounds. For instance, it is not immedi-
ately clear why well-being should include these six dimensions and not more, fewer
or wholly different dimensions: the choice for these six dimensions is to some degree
arbitrary and seems to be based on normative rather than theoretical considerations.
For example, Peterson (2003) argued that personal growth as conceptualized by
Ryff (1989) is likely to be a culture-bound concept that is primarily a concern
to the Western upper-middle class, rather than tapping a central universal aspect
of well-being. Moreover, the dimensions of autonomy, environmental mastery and

TABLE 2.1 Multidimensional conceptualizations of well-being

Ryff’s (1989) context-free conceptualization of well-being

(1) Self-acceptance – a positive evaluation of oneself and one’s past, accepts oneself
(including one’s negative features)
(2) Personal growth – continuous growth and development as a person, openness to new
experiences
(3) Purpose in life – the belief that one’s life is purposeful and has meaning, sense of
directedness, has aims and objectives for living
(4) Positive relations with others – having warm and satisfying relations with others, capable
of strong empathy, understands give and take in relationships
(5) Environmental mastery – the capacity to manage one’s life effectively, makes effective
use of surrounding opportunities
(6) Autonomy – a sense of self-determination and independence, evaluates oneself by
internal standards
van Horn et al.’s (2004) conceptualization of work-related well-being
(1) Affective well-being – e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, emotional
exhaustion/fatigue
(2) Professional well-being – e.g., aspiration and competence at work, autonomy
(3) Social well-being – e.g., depersonalization towards colleagues, quality of social
functioning at work
(4) Cognitive well-being – the capacity to take up new information at work, ability to
concentrate at work
(5) Psychosomatic well-being – health complaints such as headaches, stomach aches and
symptoms of possible cardiovascular issues
 A conceptual and theoretical overview 19

positive interpersonal relations may be construed better as antecedents of well-being

rather than being central features of that concept itself (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Warr,
2007). In spite of these criticisms, Ryff ’s ideas have been (and are still) influential
when it comes to current thinking about what well-being actually involves.

Domain-specific, multidimensional well-being

Multidimensional classifications of well-being can also be developed for specific
contexts, in this case, the work setting.The advantage of conceptualizing well-being
as a job-specific rather than as a context-free phenomenon is that its relationships
with job-related antecedents are likely to be stronger because they refer to the
same life domain, which potentially offers a better understanding of how par-
ticular work characteristics affect employees’ well-being. For example, Warr (1994)
focused on well-being at work in proposing a multidimensional conceptualiza-
tion of well-being. He distinguished between four primary dimensions (affective
wellbeing, aspiration, autonomy and competence) and a secondary fifth dimen-
sion (‘integrated functioning’) that encompassed the four primary dimensions and
reflected the person as a whole. (1) Affective well-being taps the pleasurableness and
intensity of particular moods at work (see previous). (2) Aspiration as a general con-
cept refers to people showing interest in their environment, engaging in motivated
activity and seeking to extend themselves in ways that are personally significant.
Job-related aspiration refers to the degree to which a person pursues challeng-
ing goals in the job, and may be compared to Ryff ’s (1989) concept of personal
growth. (3) Autonomy refers to the degree to which people can resist environmental
demands and follow their own opinions, preferences and actions, and resembles
Ryff ’s (1989) concept of autonomy. (4) Finally, competence covers a person’s (psy-
chological) ability to cope with problems and act on the environment with at least
a moderate amount of success, and is similar to Ryff ’s (1989) concept of environ-
mental mastery.
Van Horn et al. (2004) argued that many concepts currently used in work and
organizational psychology could conveniently be located in a job-specific integra-
tion of Warr (1994) and Ryff ’s (1989) multidimensional models.They distinguished
among affective, cognitive, professional, social and psychosomatic dimensions of
well-being at work (Table 2.1), showing that concepts such as organizational com-
mitment (affect), depersonalization (i.e., distancing oneself from one’s colleagues
and recipients of one’s services, which is part of the burnout concept) and health
could be placed on different dimensions of worker well-being. Moreover, they dem-
onstrated factor-analytically that these five dimensions loaded on a single overarch-
ing construct, with affect being the highest-loading dimension. These findings are
important in that they show that (a) particular commonly used outcome measures
(such as job commitment and job satisfaction) may tap the same underlying con-
cepts, and (b) although affective well-being is indeed the most important dimension
of work-related well-being, well-being should not be narrowed down to affect only:
it includes cognitive, professional, social and psychosomatic dimensions as well.
20 Toon Taris and Wilmar Schaufeli

Well-being at work: Concluding remarks

In this section we have discussed context-free and domain(work)-specific conceptual-
izations of well-being.We have provided examples of four approaches to conceptualiz-
ing well-being, showing that both unidimensional (affect-only) and multidimensional
measures of context-free well-being could easily be adapted to the work context.
Although there is consensus among researchers that affect is a key dimension of
well-being, our discussion has shown that other dimensions could also be seen as
part of this concept. One important criticism of multidimensional approaches is that
it is often unclear why these other dimensions – besides affect – should be part of
well-being, and how these dimensions relate to each other. Moreover, it is interest-
ing to note that it is conceivable that not all dimensions of these multidimensional
approaches of well-being correlate highly. Indeed, high scores on one dimension
may covary with low scores on the other. For example, high scores on Ryff ’s (1989)
dimension of self-acceptance could be expected to coincide with low scores on the
dimension of personal growth, since being satisfied with the current state of affairs
should not foster the motivation for change and growth (cf. Carver & Scheier, 1998).
Consistent with this reasoning, Ryff and Keyes (1995) report that the associations
among their six dimensions range from .13 to .46 (median correlation = .22).
Apparently we arrive at the somewhat paradoxical conclusion that, even though it
can be shown that these dimensions load on a single higher-order factor, different
dimensions of well-being may share as little as 2 percent of their variance. Grant,
Christianson and Price (2007) even argue that there may be trade-offs between dif-
ferent types of well-being: for example, high levels of job challenge and opportuni-
ties for growth may coincide with high levels of stress.
At this point it is important to note that so far we have only concerned our-
selves with individual-level conceptualizations of well-being. However, note that
well-being is not necessarily only an individual-level concept, and that it can be useful
to aggregate individual-level measures of well-being to the group level. For exam-
ple, sickness absence could be part of a health-focused individual-level measure of
well-being; however, it is also possible to speak of sickness absence levels for particu-
lar work teams or even whole organizations. Similarly, it is possible to speak about
individual as well as group-level affect, e.g., individual and group task satisfaction,
with the latter concept referring to a group’s shared attitude towards its task and
their work environment (Mason & Griffin, 2003). Note that group-level concepts
do not necessarily correlate highly with seemingly similar individual-level concepts,
implying that concepts measured at different levels are substantively different.
In the next section we discuss the conceptualization of performance at work,
after which theoretical perspectives on the associations between well-being and
performance are addressed.

Individual performance at work

Apparently, it is intuitively clear what we mean by saying that a particular worker
performs well at work. However, on second thought it may be less evident to what
 A conceptual and theoretical overview 21

sort of behaviors we refer to when a worker is performing well. For example, con-
sider the case of Nick Leeson, a former derivatives broker who worked for Barings
Bank, the UK’s oldest merchant bank that collapsed in 1995 as a result of Leeson’s
speculative trading. Initially his unauthorized deals made large profits for Barings,
accounting for some 10 percent of the bank’s annual income. However, his luck
soon turned. Leeson had covered his bad trades on a secret account; early in 1995,
when this was discovered, Leeson’s losses exceeded £200 million. Ultimately the
losses reached £827 million (then $1.4 billion) – twice the bank’s available trading
capital. Barings went bankrupt soon afterwards and disappeared from the scene.
What about Leeson’s performance? In some respects he performed fantasti-
cally well: in 1992 he received a bonus of 2.5 times his yearly salary, showing
how impressed management was with his performance. However, in other respects
Leeson performed poorly: his high-risk transactions caused the demise of the orga-
nization he was working for and led to what is perhaps the largest financial scan-
dal of the twentieth century. Apparently, performance is a concept that cannot be
described along a single continuum. Rather – like well-being – it is a multidimen-
sional concept. The same behavior (e.g., Leeson’s speculative and illicit transac-
tions) can be rated high on one dimension, but low on another. But what are the
relevant dimensions of performance? Following Roe (1999), Reijseger, Schaufeli,
Peeters and Taris (2013) distinguished between process performance and outcome
performance (see also Campbell, 1990, and Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). Process per-
formance refers to the actions or behaviors employees engage in to achieve the goals
of their job, i.e., what they do at work. Conversely, outcome performance refers to the
products or services that are produced and whether these are consistent with the
overall strategic goals of the organization. As this distinction suggests, high levels of
process performance may or may not coincide with high outcome performance.
For example, take a politician who is elected prime minister of a small country and
who intends to promote the economy of that country. She devises all sorts of clever
plans, wins support for these plans from employers’ organizations and the unions,
explains these plans to the voters, et cetera – she does all the right things right (i.e.,
good process performance). Unfortunately, since this country is so small its econ-
omy is heavily dependent upon external factors such as the economic situation in
the country’s neighboring countries, meaning that ultimately all plans of the prime
minister could well be irrelevant in achieving her ultimate goal of stimulating her
country’s economy (i.e., bad outcome performance). Generally speaking, because
of its closer and inherent links with employee behavior process performance is
more relevant in occupational psychology, compared to the more distal outcome
performance that depends on a multitude of external factors that are far beyond
the employees’ control.

Types of process performance

Process performance (behavior at work) precedes outcome performance by defini-
tion. However, workers may do very different things at work, and whereas some of
these are functional in bringing about their work goals, others are not (Sonnentag &
22 Toon Taris and Wilmar Schaufeli

Frese, 2002). In a recent review of conceptual frameworks of work performance,

Koopmans, Bernaards, Hildebrandt, Schaufeli, De Vet and Van der Beek (2011)
distinguished among three main dimensions of individual process performance
at work: (a) in-role performance (also dubbed task performance or job-specific
proficiency), (b) extra-role performance (also called contextual performance,
non-job-specific proficiency or organizational citizenship behavior) and (c) coun-
terproductive work behavior (i.e., destructive and/or hazardous behaviors) (cf. also
Reijseger et al., 2013).
In-role performance refers to the proficiency (competency) with which work-
ers perform their central job tasks, or sometimes to the degree to which workers
achieve the central goals of their jobs. This dimension often refers to issues such as
productivity (quantity) and quality of the goods produced or services delivered by
the workers, i.e., goals that are often part of formal job descriptions. According to
Koopmans et al. (2011), this is the central dimension of job performance; all con-
ceptual frameworks included in their review included this aspect. Note that what
constitutes focal job tasks differs across jobs: behaviors that are functional in one job
may well be dysfunctional in another. Also note that this type of performance tends
to overlap with outcome performance as defined previously, since in-role perfor-
mance tends to be defined in terms of achieving the goals (i.e., intended outcomes)
of one’s job. Strictly speaking this is not desirable, since in-role performance should
refer to employee behavior and acts on the job, not the outcomes thereof.
Performing well at work may involve more than just meeting one’s prescribed
work goals. Extra-role performance can be defined as behaviors or actions that help
bringing about the organization’s goals while at the same time not being part of
a worker’s formal job description (cf. Organ, Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2006). For
example, helping others at work, acting with integrity and showing respect to oth-
ers are all aspects that are usually not part of formal job descriptions but that are
nevertheless beneficial for the organization.
The third dimension distinguished by Koopmans et al. is counterproductive work
behavior. This type of behavior involves deliberate acts that are harmful to the orga-
nization and impedes achieving its goals. This includes behaviors such as being late
for work, theft, absenteeism, presenteeism (working while being ill, cf. Claes, 2014),
engaging in off-task behavior (“soldiering”), consciously violating rules and proce-
dures and “underworking”, that is, deliberately working slowly so as to avoid doing
a full day’s work (Taylor (1911/2006, p. 7).
Returning to the case of Nick Leeson, his in-role performance was excellent, in that
his acting as a rogue trader1 in the short run helped in bringing about Barings’s goals
of making good money for the bank and its customers. However, he also showed
counterproductive work behavior by neglecting organizational rules and procedures by
closing unauthorized transactions. Interestingly, this case also shows that there may
be trade-offs between different types of work performance: Leeson would have been
less successful in closing his deals if he had dutifully stuck to the organization’s pro-
cedures with respect to these transactions.The possibility of trade-offs between types
of work performance is often easily conceivable. For instance, workers may engage
 A conceptual and theoretical overview 23

in high levels of extra-role behavior and help others to achieve the goals of their jobs,
at the cost of achieving the primary goals of their own job (in-role performance). In
a study on the reasons for not complying with safety regulations at work (an aspect
of counterproductive work behavior), Lawton (1998) examined the views of UK
railway personnel as regards their motives for not complying with risk-related rules
during shunting operations (i.e., the process of sorting wagons, locomotives and
railroad cars into complete train sets, or the reverse). Out of 14 endorsed reasons,
the most common referred to violations being seen as a quicker way of working,
due to time pressure and high workload. Least common were reasons referring to
psychological gratification, that is, violations being seen as exciting or macho ways
to work. This example shows that workers may neglect safety regulations intended
for their own good (high counterproductive work performance) in order to achieve
their work goals (high in-role performance) (cf. Chmiel & Taris, 2014).

Work performance: Concluding remarks

In this section we have discussed two ways of classifying individual work perfor-
mance. The first focused on the distinction between process performance (what is
done and how it is done) and outcome performance (whether these behaviors and
actions achieve the intended goal). The second classification distinguished among
in-role performance (behaviors and acts that constitute the focal part of the job and
that are often specified in formal job descriptions), extra-role performance (behav-
iors and acts that help bring about the organization’s goals while not being part of a
worker’s formal job description) and counterproductive work behavior (behavior and
acts that are harmful to the organization and impede achieving its goals – obviously,
these are also not part of any job description). Theoretically, there may be trade-offs
between these three different types of performance. Koopmans and colleagues (2011)
showed that in-role and extra-role are positively related, i.e., workers engaging in
in-role behaviors also often engage in extra-role behaviors. As regards counterpro-
ductive behavior, findings have shown that in-role and extra-role performance on the
one hand, and counterproductive work behavior on the other are negatively related
(Dalal, 2005; Sackett, 2002); that is, workers who engage in high levels of in-role and
extra-role behaviors tend not to engage in counterproductive behaviors.This pattern
of results suggests that there are basically two types of workers: those who tend to
strive towards promoting the interests of the organization, versus those who do not.
As was also the case for well-being, performance can be seen as an individual-level
phenomenon and as an organizational-level phenomenon; here we have only
addressed the former. However, it often makes sense to focus on higher levels of
performance; e.g., teams or organizations as a whole can perform well or not (in
terms of profit, cost reduction, innovation, implementation of policies designed to
bring about a more environmentally friendly production process, et cetera). Indeed,
it is often difficult to identify the contributions of individual workers to the overall
performance of their team or organization, and in these cases it makes sense to
consider productivity a higher-level concept.
24 Toon Taris and Wilmar Schaufeli

Theoretical perspective on well-being and performance

How do performance and well-being relate to each other? Sonnentag and Frese
(2002) describe three general perspectives that have been adopted for studying indi-
vidual performance. First, the individual perspective emphasizes the role of individ-
ual differences in personality or abilities to account for differences in performance.
Second, the situational perspective examines differences in performance as a func-
tion of situational and environmental factors (e.g., organizational and work charac-
teristics) that stimulate or impede performance. Finally, the performance regulation
perspective focuses on performance as a process, examining questions such as “what
does the performance process look like?” and “how can the performance process
be improved to facilitate performance?” In this approach, the role of factors such as
goal setting and providing feedback on performance are studied.
Note that the individual and situational perspectives on the relation between
individual well-being and performance are interconnected, in that “well-being”
may be construed as an individual-level concept. Indeed, previous research has doc-
umented links between personality factors (such as neuroticism, extraversion and
Type-A behavior) and aspects of well-being such as work engagement and burnout
(among others, Hallberg, Johansson & Schaufeli, 2007; Taris,Van Beek & Schaufeli,
2014). Although this is consistent with the idea that well-being (and, hence, perfor-
mance) is to some degree determined by personality factors, in the context of the
current chapter on work, well-being and performance, the situational perspective is
most useful. This perspective assumes that environmental factors (i.e., work charac-
teristics) affect worker well-being, which in turn would affect worker performance.

The happy-productive worker hypothesis

At present a variety of theoretical viewpoints exist that examine individual per-
formance as a consequence of worker well-being. One important rationale behind
this interest is the belief that happy workers tend to be more productive than other
workers (Lucas & Diener, 2002). This “happy-productive worker hypothesis” dates
from the Hawthorne studies/Human Relations Movement of the 1930s (Wright,
Cropanzano & Bonett, 2007), but is still popular today. Interestingly, the evidence
for this hypothesis is mixed. In three reviews of the relation between individual-level
job satisfaction (tapping the affective dimension of well-being) and “performance”,
their correlation was estimated at .14 (Vroom, 1964), .17 (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky,
1985) and .30 ( Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001), respectively. Using emo-
tional exhaustion as an indicator of affective well-being, Taris (2006) showed that
across 16 studies, the average correlation of this concept with objectively recorded
in-role performance was −.22. Although the association between well-being and
performance is perhaps not as strong as one might have expected, these studies
clearly show that well-being and performance are related.
Note that these results tell us nothing about the underlying processes that might
account for these associations. Indeed, how these findings should be interpreted
 A conceptual and theoretical overview 25

is still a matter of debate, and whereas the ultimate goal of many theoretical per-
spectives in work and organizational psychology is to account for variations in
individual performance at work, these perspectives tend to highlight different pro-
cesses for this relationship. It is sometimes contended that the relationship between
well-being and performance is spurious, and largely due to personality traits, work
locus of control and self-esteem, and that it disappears after controlling for such
factors (Bowling, 2007). Whereas it may well be true that the association between
self-rated performance and well-being is inflated by failing to control for personal-
ity factors, it is less clear how such processes would affect the associations between
other-rated, objective performance and well-being (Taris, 2006). Therefore, although
stimulating, Bowling’s (2007) study has not ended the debate on how to interpret
the association between well-being and performance. In this section we address a
number of theoretical perspectives that link various aspects of well-being to per-
formance. Some of these primarily focus on individual-level processes, whereas
others focus on organizational-level aspects. Although this overview is certainly
not exhaustive, it provides a fair impression of the sort of processes that could link
well-being to performance.

Effort-recovery theory
Clearly, achieving work goals requires that employees spend effort on working.
One theory that focuses on the effects of effort on fatigue (as an indicator of
well-being) and performance is effort-recovery theory (Meijman & Mulder, 1998).
This approach emphasizes recovery from effort as a factor that affects health and
performance. Its core assumption is that expending effort at work has short-term
costs or load effects (e.g., fatigue, stress and negative affect). These effects are tran-
sient and disappear after complete recovery has occurred. If so, the employee will
start the next working day fully recuperated from the effort spent the day before.
However, in case of insufficient recovery, workers will start the next working day in
a suboptimal condition which necessitates the expenditure of additional (compen-
satory) effort to achieve one’s work goals (cf. Hockey, 1997). This additional effort
will make an even higher demand on the recovery process, which can initiate a pro-
cess in which load effects accumulate, in the long run resulting in health problems
such as burnout (Geurts, Beckers & Tucker, 2014). What is important here, though,
is that this theory proposes that fatigued workers (with fatigue being an affective
state, cf. Table 2.1) face three choices. First, being fatigued, they could increase their
effort in order to keep their performance up (Hockey, 1997). Second, they could
redefine their task requirements. For example, a bus driver who has just started her shift
will often attempt to drive according to the schedule without making any mistakes
(e.g., forgetting to drop off passengers at a bus stop). However, when becoming
fatigued she could consciously or unconsciously decide that the core of her task is
to drive according to schedule, and to put less effort into preventing mistakes. In this
way she could keep up the core of her performance without investing additional
effort. Third, instead of increasing their effort or redefining their task requirements,
26 Toon Taris and Wilmar Schaufeli

they could just stop attempting to keep their performance up to par – and deliver sloppy
work instead. Thus, this theory proposes that higher levels of un-well-being (i.e.,
fatigue) could lead to lower performance, since fatigued workers may well choose
to perform suboptimally or fulfill only part of their tasks.

Self-determination theory
A second perspective on the relation between individual well-being and perfor-
mance focuses on the degree to which work fulfills basic psychological needs. Ful-
fillment of these needs would trigger different types of motivation; in turn, this
motivation would affect work performance. According to Deci and Ryan’s (2000)
Self Determination Theory (SDT), human beings possess three basic, innate needs:
(1) the need for relatedness, which refers to experiencing positive relationships with
others; (2) the need for competence, which refers to accomplishing challenging tasks
successfully; and (3) the need for autonomy, which refers to experiencing freedom
of choice and the opportunity to initiate behavior. The degree to which a par-
ticular activity (e.g., work) satisfies these needs relates positively to the degree to
which that behavior is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. Workers who are
intrinsically motivated for an activity perform that activity because they consider it
as interesting, enjoyable and satisfying (cf. Ryff ’s, 1989, dimensions of well-being,
especially positive relations with others, environmental mastery and autonomy).
Intrinsically motivated workers engage in activities for their own sake and act with
a full sense of volition (Gagné & Deci, 2005), and this type of behavior will be
sustained as long as it continues to contribute to the satisfaction of these needs.
Conversely, workers who are extrinsically motivated for an activity conduct this
activity for its instrumental value (e.g., monetary rewards, social prestige or promo-
tion prospects) since it does not satisfy their personal needs, and they will therefore
minimize the effort invested in this activity as much as possible (Taris et al., 2014).
Thus, SDT proposes that higher levels of well-being (defined as satisfaction of one’s
basic needs) are related to higher performance because satisfaction of these needs
affects employee motivation. Good performance will be achieved if workers find
their work interesting and satisfying, and are intrinsically motivated for their jobs
(cf. Baard, Deci & Ryan, 2004).

Job characteristics, well-being and performance

SDT argues that jobs may affect motivation, well-being and performance. However,
which task characteristics are relevant here? A major stream of research in this area
has focused on Karasek’s (1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) Job Demands-Control
(-Support) ( JDC) model. This model is well-known for proposing that the com-
bination of high levels of demands and low levels of control (and support) elicit
high levels of strain. However, it also states that the combination of high levels of
demands and high levels of control (and support) provides workers with the oppor-
tunity to develop themselves in their jobs, which is conducive to performance
 A conceptual and theoretical overview 27

(Taris & Kompier, 2004). When high demands and high control are combined,
demands turn into “challenges” and control allows workers to decide for themselves
on how they work. Karasek and Theorell (1990) argue that it is the fact that workers
can decide for themselves how to conduct their tasks that has a positive effect on
their productivity. However, this type of work environment would also satisfy SDT’s
needs for personal growth (through challenge and learning), autonomy and – in the
presence of high levels of support – that of the need for relatedness as well, leading
to high levels of motivation. Apparently, well-being (taken as satisfaction of basic
needs, or high motivation) also takes a place in the JDC as a possible antecedent of
individual performance.
The latter is certainly the case for the Job Demands-Resources ( JDR) model
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001).
This model is in many respects an extension of the JDC model. However, rather
than to focus on a limited number of particular job characteristics (as the JDC
does), the JDR followed Lee and Ashforth (1996) in distinguishing between two
broad categories of job demands and job resources. These job demands are defined
as the “. . . physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained
physical or mental effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological
and psychological costs” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501). Job resources are the
“. . . physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that [are] . . . functional
in achieving work goals . . . reduce job demands and the associated physiological
and psychological costs [or] stimulate personal growth and development” (p. 501).
Similar to the JDC and drawing on effort-recovery theory, the JDR states that high
levels of demands lead to stress, strain and ill-health (especially burnout) and low
job performance. Conversely, high levels of resources are expected to trigger work
motivation (engagement; a combination of high levels of energy, dedication to
work and absorption in work) and high work performance. Thus, the JDR explic-
itly proposes that individual-level well-being (i.e., engagement and burnout) affects
job performance (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014, for a review).

Broaden-and-build theory
In a small but interesting study, Wright, Cropanzano and Bonett (2007) proposed
that the relation between job satisfaction (a measure of affective well-being) and
performance would be moderated by positive well-being, such that this relation
would be stronger for workers reporting high levels of psychological well-being
(also measured in terms of affective well-being). This assumption was grounded in
the work of Fredrickson and colleagues (Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson & Bra-
nigan, 2005), who argued that experiencing positive emotions (such as positive
well-being) would broaden an individual’s momentary thought-action repertoire
through expanding the obtainable array of potential actions and thoughts that come
to mind – i.e., people in a positive mood tend to consider more alternatives in any
given situation than others. In turn, these broadened mindsets would carry indi-
rect and long-term adaptive value because they assist in “building” an individual’s
28 Toon Taris and Wilmar Schaufeli

physical, psychological, intellectual and social resources. Wright et al. (2007) argue
that this state of mind would make employees more proactive and less prone to
experiencing stress, which would not only affect their work performance directly
but also as a moderator, in that these broadened mindsets would strengthen the
already existing positive effects of other types of well-being on performance even
further. Their empirical study among 109 managers supported these ideas, showing
that the relation between job satisfaction and performance was indeed strongest
for those reporting high levels of psychological well-being. This finding, albeit pre-
liminary in nature due to the small scale of the study, lends further credence to the
notion that well-being and performance are positively related.

Well-being and performance: Concluding remarks

In this section we have discussed theoretical perspectives on the relation between
well-being and performance. As this selective overview demonstrated, a wide range
of such perspectives has been proposed and tested.These perspectives focus on very
different types of well-being. Some of these clearly tap the affective dimension of
well-being (e.g., job satisfaction, fatigue), whereas others are more motivational
(satisfaction of one’s basic needs, work engagement and intrinsic motivation) in
nature.The processes linking these different conceptualizations of well-being to job
performance vary as well: feeling good broadens people’s mindset or increases the
motivation to expend effort on work.
What they have in common, though, is that they examine the link between
well-being and work performance from an individual-level perspective. What was
noted for well-being and performance applies here as well: the processes linking
these concepts can be studied at various levels. For example, Quinn and Rohrbaugh
(1983) focused on organizational-level factors in accounting for organizational perfor-
mance, arguing that organizations differ in terms of their focus (on the well-being
and development of the people in the organization or on the organization and its
environment) and degree of stability, flexibility and control. Dependent on external
factors (such as the market in which an organization operates), optimizing organi-
zational performance may sometimes require that much effort is invested in maxi-
mizing employee well-being, whereas in other cases organizational performance is
promoted by restricting employee autonomy in order to increase efficiency. Appar-
ently, the place assigned to well-being as an antecedent of performance varies with
the type of organization that is involved and the circumstances under which this
organization operates.
Finally, in this chapter we have touched upon the issue of trade-offs between dif-
ferent types of well-being (e.g., a challenging job may lead to high satisfaction, but
also to high levels of stress-related complaints, cf. Grant et al., 2007), between differ-
ent types of performance (e.g., high levels of in-role performance may be achieved
at the cost of extra-role performance) and between well-being and performance
(e.g., higher productivity may be obtained at the cost of employee well-being and
vice versa). Such trade-offs are highly plausible and especially the trade-off between
 A conceptual and theoretical overview 29

well-being and performance has received much attention: for example, many stud-
ies on the associations between stress and performance can be construed as address-
ing the trade-offs between these concepts, in that high levels of stress tend to be
negatively associated with performance and vice versa.This underlines the complex
nature of the phenomena studied in this chapter; optimization of one aspect of
performance or well-being could well have adverse consequences for other aspects
of performance and/or well-being.

Where do we go from here?

In this chapter we have discussed the conceptualization of individual-level well-being
and performance, and the associations between these concepts. We have shown that
many different conceptualizations of well-being exist, ranging from simple “affect
only” – approaches to complicated and sometimes idiosyncratic multidimensional
frameworks that incorporate different aspects of human experience. Moreover,
these frameworks could be general and context-free (not linked to any area of
life in particular) or focused/domain-specific (e.g., tapping well-being at work).
As regards work performance, we made a principal distinction between process
and outcome performance, and further divided process performance into in-role
performance, extra-role performance and counterproductive behavior. Our discus-
sion of the theoretical frameworks linking well-being to performance revealed very
different ideas concerning the nature of these underlying processes.
All this might yield the impression that research into the relations between
well-being and performance at work is in a state of confusion, and that after sev-
eral decades it has been unable to arrive at strong and practically relevant con-
clusions. Although it cannot be denied that the field of work and organizational
research is lively, we consider the fact that so many researchers have made so many
contributions from so many different perspectives to this area a strong, and not a
weak point. Not surprisingly, these complex and societally relevant concepts have
generated much attention from different angles, and it is probably a reality that
such difficult-to-capture phenomena cannot be studied from a single point of
view. Further, in spite of all these different perspectives on the association between
well-being and performance, the general view is that well-being matters as an ante-
cedent of performance: the links between these two concepts may be numerous
and varied, but it cannot be denied that there is considerable evidence for many
of the mechanisms that theoretically link well-being to performance. In this sense,
previous research underlines the idea that performance and well-being are mul-
tifaceted concepts that can – and perhaps even should – be studied from different
points of view.
Having said that, the question arises of which issues should be studied in future.
The overview presented in this chapter suggests at least three broad areas would
need more research attention. First, rather than attempting to answer the ques-
tion what well-being “really” involves, it would seem best to accept the fact that
well-being is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that encompasses a range of
30 Toon Taris and Wilmar Schaufeli

different aspects.Which aspects are included could well be to some degree a matter
of personal and cultural preferences, or pragmatic concerns. However, accepting
this notion implies that it is important to examine the cross-cultural generalizability
of different conceptualizations of well-being: it seems conceivable that well-being
is conceptualized differently from one culture to another. For example, it would
seem likely that dimensions that relate to one’s place in society and relations with
others (cf. Table 2.1) are even more important in collectivistic cultures than in
Western, individualistic cultures. In a well-cited review paper, Diener, Oishi and
Lucas (2003) discuss the evidence for cross-cultural differences in general individ-
ual well-being. Whereas they conclude that “mean level differences” in subjective
(individual) well-being across cultures exist (p. 419), they also acknowledge that
such research is “challenging” (p. 403). Apparently, more (methodologically sound)
research in this area is badly needed.
Second, the fact that well-being and performance are multifaceted concepts leads
to the question, which aspects of well-being relate most strongly and consistently
to which aspects of performance? Previous research (Taris & Schreurs, 2009) has
suggested that a general measure of affective well-being (i.e., job satisfaction) is not
as strongly related to (in-role) performance as more focused measures of well-being
(i.e., burnout). Moreover, most of the theoretical perspectives on the link between
well-being and performance discussed above did not distinguish between different
types of well-being and different types of performance. For example, none of these
frameworks accounts for the occurrence of counterproductive work behavior, and
they do not distinguish systematically between in-role and extra-role performance.
This is unfortunate, since it is more than just a possibility that these frameworks are
more applicable to one type of performance than to other types of performance. For
example, Meijman and Mulder’s (1998) effort-recovery theory predicts that fatigued
workers take a strategic decision as regards their work performance: will they invest
extra effort, will they redefine their task requirements or will they just perform
suboptimally? It seems likely that fatigued workers will attempt to keep up their
in-role performance, while giving up on their extra-role performance; i.e., in the
presence of limited energetic resources, workers will concentrate on their core tasks,
whereas their performance regarding other aspects will suffer. Apparently, it could
be worthwhile to incorporate the distinction among different types of well-being
and performance more systematically in current insights on the happy-productive
worker. In a similar vein, it could be worthwhile to study the trade-offs between
various types of well-being, various types of performance and well-being and per-
formance more systematically (Grant et al., 2007). For example, maximization of
one type of performance is not usually intended to have adverse effects on other
types of performance, meaning that obtaining more insight in the degree to which
trade-offs occur is not only scientifically interesting but also practically relevant.
Finally, in this chapter we have mainly focused on individual-level perspectives
on worker well-being and work performance. However, the questions addressed
in this chapter can also be studied from higher-level (team and organizational)
perspectives, and the combination of individual-level and higher-level perspectives
 A conceptual and theoretical overview 31

could yield additional perspectives on the role of well-being as an antecedent of

performance.

Conclusion and practical implications

In conclusion, the present chapter has shown that whereas at present there is no
single overarching theoretical framework for the effects of worker well-being on
work performance (indeed, there is no consensus regarding the basic conceptualiza-
tions of well-being and performance), currently there is a wide array of promising
and interesting ideas as regards these relations. It is likely that these ideas all capture
different and valid aspects of the relation between well-being and performance.
Which framework is most relevant, may well depend on the particular situation or
context in which well-being and performance are studied.
From a practical point of view, the findings and theories discussed in this chap-
ter indicate that promoting performance through enhancing worker well-being is
not an easy feat. Practitioners should be aware of the fact that there are different
types of performance and different types of well-being, and that promoting one
type of performance (e.g., in-role performance) may adversely affect other types of
performance (e.g., extra-role performance). This trade-off issue also applies to dif-
ferent types of well-being, and certainly also to the association between well-being
and performance: promoting higher performance may well be achieved at the cost
of (certain aspects of ) worker well-being and vice versa. In this sense, the issue of
trade-offs among different types of well-being and performance certainly requires
much attention from practitioners. Grant et al. (2007) suggest that those wanting to
promote worker performance and/or well-being should carefully consider the pos-
sible consequences of their planned interventions, preferably not only in the short
run but also taking a longer-term perspective.

Note
1 A rogue trader is an employee who legitimately makes trades on behalf of their employer,
yet also enters into unapproved deals. This term is mostly used in the context of finan-
cial trading where traders enter into transactions on behalf of their employer without
permission.

References
Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Baard, P. B., Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis
of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
34, 2045–2068.
Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.
32 Toon Taris and Wilmar Schaufeli

Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction-performance relationship spurious? A meta-

analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 167–185.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and orga-
nizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chmiel, N. & Taris, T. W. (2014). Safety at work. In M. C. W. Peeters, J. De Jonge & T. W.
Taris (Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology (pp. 342–366). Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Claes, R. (2014). Abseenteeism and presenteeism. In M. C. W. Peeters, J. De Jonge & T. W.
Taris (Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology (pp. 367–390). Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizen-
ship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
1241–1255.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.
Diener, E., Oishi, S. & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being:
Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E. & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three
decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 219–226.
Fredrickson, B. L. & Branigan, C. A. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention
and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313–332.
Gagné, M. & Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Geurts, S. A. E., Beckers, D. G. J. & Tucker, P. (2014). Recovery from demanding work hours.
In M. C. W. Peeters, J. De Jonge & T. W. Taris (Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work
psychology (pp. 196–219). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Grant, A. M., Christianson, M. K. & Price, R. H. (2007). Happiness, health, or relationships?
Managerial practices and employee well-being trade-offs. Academy of Management Perspec-
tives, 21, 51–63.
Hallberg, U. E., Johansson, G. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Type-A behavior and work situation:
Associations with burnout and work engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48,
135–142.
Hockey, G. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under
stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 73–93.
Iaffaldano, M. T. & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251–273.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job per-
formance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127,
376–407.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for
job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.
Karasek, R. A. & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of
working life. New York: Basic Books.
 A conceptual and theoretical overview 33

Kompier, M. A. J. (2006). The Hawthorne effect is a myth, but what keeps the story going?
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 32, 402–412.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt,V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., De Vet, H. C. W. & Van
Der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance: A sys-
tematic review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53, 856–866.
Koppes, L. L. & Pickren, W. (2007). Industrial and organizational psychology: An evolving
science. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 3–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and
organizational psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lawton, R. (1998). Not working to rule: Understanding procedural violations at work. Safety
Science, 28, 77–95.
Lee, R.T. & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three
dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123–133.
Lucas, R. E. & Diener, E. (2002). The happy worker: Hypotheses about the role of positive
affect in worker productivity. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work:
Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 30–59). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mason, C. M. & Griffin, M. A. (2003). Identifying group task satisfaction at work. Small
Group Research, 34, 413–442.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: MacMillan.
Meijman, T. F. & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth &
H. K. Thierry (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology, Vol. 2: Work psychology
(pp. 5–33). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie S. P. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature, antecedents, and consequences. London: Sage.
Peeters, M. C. W., Taris, T. W. & De Jonge, J. (2014). Introduction: People at work. In M. C. W.
Peeters, J. De Jonge & T. W. Taris (Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology
(pp. 3–30). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Peterson, C. (2003). Classification of positive traits. In D. Wertlieb, F. Jacobs & R. M. Lerner
(Eds.), Promoting positive youth and family development (Vol. 3, pp. 227–256).Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Quinn, R. E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a
competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363–377.
Reijseger, G., Schaufeli, W. B., Peeters, M. C. W. & Taris, T. W. (2013). Ready, set, go! A model
of the relation between work engagement and work performance. In S. P. Gonçalves &
J. G. Neves (Eds.), Occupational health psychology: From burnout to well-being (pp. 289–306).
Rose Meadow: Scientific & Academic Publishing.
Roe, R. A. (1999). Work performance: A multiple regulation perspective. In C. L. Cooper &
I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 14,
pp. 231–335). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39, 1161–1178.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research
on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Exploration of the meaning of psycho-
logical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D. & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.
Ryff, C. & Singer, B. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: An eudaimonic
approach to psychological wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 13–39.
34 Toon Taris and Wilmar Schaufeli

Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensional-

ity and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 10, 5–11.
Schaufeli, W. B. & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model:
Implications for improving work and health. In G. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridg-
ing occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Sonnentag, S. & Frese, M. (2002). Performance concepts and performance theory. In S. Son-
nentag (Ed.), Psychological management of individual performance (pp. 3–26). Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Taris, T. W. (2006). Burnout and objectively recorded performance: A critical review of 16
studies. Work & Stress, 20, 316–334.
Taris,T.W. & Kompier, M. A. J. (2004). Job characteristics and learning behavior: Review and
psychological mechanism. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational
stress and well-being, Vol. 4: Exploring interpersonal dynamics (pp. 127–166). Bingley, UK:
Emerald.
Taris, T. W. & Schreurs, P. J. G. (2009). Well-being and organizational performance: An
organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis. Work & Stress, 23,
120–136.
Taris,T.W.,Van Beek, I. & Schaufeli,W. B. (2014).The beauty versus the beast: On the motives
of workaholic and engaged employees. In I. Harpaz & R. Snir (Eds.), Heavy work invest-
ment: Its nature, sources, outcomes, and future directions (pp. 121–139). New York: Routledge.
Taylor, F. W. (1911/2006). The principles of scientific management. Teddington, UK: The Echo
Library.
Van Horn, J. E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B. & Scheurs, P. J. G. (2004). The structure of occu-
pational well-being: A study among Dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 77, 365–375.
Vroom,V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Warr, P. B. (1990).The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. Journal
of Occupational Psychology, 63, 193–210.
Warr, P. B. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work
& Stress, 8, 84–97.
Warr, P. B. (2007). Work, happiness, and unhappiness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 54, 1063–1070.
Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R. & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee
positive well-being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 93–104.