Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.

36, 621–644 (2015)

Special Issue Article

Published online 25 January 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1990

Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical

model, scale development, and cross-cultural
validation
XIAOMING ZHENG1*, WEICHUN ZHU2, HAIXIA ZHAO1 AND CHI ZHANG1
1
School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China,
2
School of Labor and Employment Relations, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.,

Summary In this study, we explore the theoretical model and structural dimensions of employee well-being (EWB) in
organizations. Specifically, using both qualitative and quantitative methods, we find that EWB comprises
three dimensions: life well-being, workplace well-being, and psychological well-being. We establish the re-
liability and validity of the newly developed EWB scale through a series of quantitative studies, which indi-
cate that EWB is significantly correlated with affective organizational commitment and job performance
based on the data collected from multiple sources at two points in time. We find that EWB has measurement
invariance (configural invariance) across Chinese and American contexts. We also discuss the theoretical con-
tributions of these findings to cross-cultural organizational behavior studies, along with the practical implica-
tions of our results. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: employee well-being; life well-being; workplace well-being; psychological well-being

Human beings have pursued well-being since ancient times. China, however, has been in the midst of a critical
societal–economic transformation since the inception of Deng Xiaoping’s Open and Reform Policy in 1978. The
fierce market competition created by these rapid social and economic changes in China and their counterparts in
the rest of the world has brought immense life pressure to people in China (Lu, Kao, Siu, & Lu, 2011; Siu, Spector,
Cooper, & Lu, 2005). One striking phenomenon in this regard is the increase in negative emotions, such as anxiety
and stress, observed among Chinese individuals. Media all too often report unfortunate incidents in which em-
ployees and managers in Chinese business organizations have committed suicide in the face of extremely high levels
of work-related stress. In turn, employees’ well-being in organization has attracted increased attention from both ac-
ademia and managers. Many organizations in China, including Microsoft Research Asia, Alibaba, Suning, and
Orange Hotel, have launched various programs and initiatives to enhance their employees’ well-being. Similarly,
in the West, employees’ well-being in organization has received greater attention from both managers and scholars
over the last few decades (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Robertson & Cooper, 2010).
Employees’ well-being is critical to the survival and development of organizations around the world (Spreitzer &
Porath, 2012), and it has emerged as an important research topic in organizational behavior and related areas. In spe-
cial issues on employees’ well-being in two renowned journals—Journal of Organizational Behavior (Vol. 4, 2011)
and Human Relations (Vol. 9, 2012)—scholars in the West have reported redirecting their research focus away from
the effect of individual differences on employees’ well-being and toward the fluctuations that occur within the differ-
ent life stages of an individual and individuals’ perceptions of the events that occur in the workplace as those incidents
affect their well-being (Sonnentag & Ilies, 2011; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, & Ilies, 2012). To date, however, these stud-
ies have been limited largely to measurements of employee job satisfaction (Dimotakis, Scott, & Koopman, 2011;
Wright & Cropanzano, 1997), work attitude (Leavitt, Fong, & Greenwald, 2011), negative affect (NA; Vandenberghe

*Correspondence to: Xiaoming Zheng, School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
E-mail: [email protected]

Received 23 February 2014

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 15 November 2014, Accepted 24 November 2014
622 X. ZHENG ET AL.

et al., 2011), or flow (Ceja & Navarro, 2011); that is, they have not focused specifically on employees’ well-being in a
broader sense.
In China, academic research in the area of employees’ well-being still lags behind the needs of organizations. For
example, the choice of research subjects has not shed much light on this issue: most of the prior studies have focused
primarily on college students (Xie, 2011), urban citizens (He & Pan, 2011), rural migrant workers (Yang, 2013), and
middle-aged and elderly persons (Wang, Tong, & Zhou, 2004). In addition, individuals’ overall perception of life,
rather than their well-being in the workplace, has been the focus of prior studies.
Today, working is a vital part of most people’s lives, and, in turn, it exerts a great deal of influence on their well-
being. Workplace situations differ greatly from general life situations; thus, the concept of employee well-being
(EWB) must be distinguished from general well-being. So far, scholars have not reached a consensus on the definition
of EWB (Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2009). Psychological well-being (PWB) and subjective well-being (SWB) or job
satisfaction have often been used as proxies to represent employees’ overall well-being in organizations. But to what
degree do such judgments truly reflect well-being at work? Drawing on the mental health and well-being literature,
Page and Vella-Brodrick (2009) proposed a comprehensive theoretical model of EWB, in which they list SWB
and PWB as key criteria for employee mental health. To apply this model specifically to the domain of work, they
added two context-specific constructs—work-related positive affect (PA) and NA and job satisfaction—and used
the Satisfaction with Life scale (Diener et al., 1985; Diener et al., 1999), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Wat-
son et al., 1988), Workplace Well-Being Index (Page, 2005), Affective Well-Being scale (Daniels, 2000), and Scales
of Psychological Well-Being (Daniels, 2000) to measure different facets of EWB (Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). As
yet, this theoretical model has not been validated, nor has a scale been developed on the basis of this model.
Cultural differences between East and West tend to lead to differences in Chinese and Western beliefs about well-
being. Specifically, Western cultures emphasize the importance of environmental mastery, autonomy, and personal
emotions in well-being, whereas Chinese culture places greater emphasis on harmony and social values in achieving
a higher level of well-being (Gao, Zheng, & Yan, 2010). In this study, we seek to explore the connotations and struc-
tural dimensions of EWB and develop a relevant measure using Chinese samples. The significance of this study
touches on multiple areas. First, we combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches to reveal the definition
and structural dimensions of EWB. Our research makes a significant theoretical contribution by deepening the re-
search on EWB in Chinese organizations, and also complements and extends the extant Western literature on
EWB. Second, utilizing qualitative in-depth interviews and a series of quantitative studies, we develop a multidi-
mensional scale to measure EWB that can be utilized in scientific research and managerial practices, both in Chinese
organizations and in firms in other countries. Finally, the findings of this research can guide business managers in
evaluating, monitoring, and elevating EWB in their organizations, thereby improving employees’ psychological
health, developing their potential, and increasing firms’ overall competitiveness.

Literature Review

Concept, theoretical model, and measure of well-being

Employees well-being is a term for which “everyone understands the meaning but nobody can give a precise defi-
nition” (Lyubomirs, 2001). Ryan and Deci (2001) concluded that there are two major philosophical perspectives
concerning well-being: one is happiness-oriented (i.e., hedonism), defining well-being as the subjective experience
of happiness; the other concerns realizing human potential power (i.e., eudaimonism), which regards well-being as
the result of personal achievement, self-actualization, or self-positioning. Most current research on well-being has
accepted the validity of these two distinct paradigms. Diener, Ryan, and their colleagues (e.g., Diener & Ryan,
2011) inherit the hedonism orientation and use it to propose the SWB research approach. The PWB research ap-
proach, as proposed by some other scholars (e.g., Ryff & Singer, 2008), has evolved from the eudaimonism

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONS 623

orientation. Thus, different philosophical thinking leads to distinct theoretical models, research paradigms, or con-
ceptual models to study EWB.
Subjective well-being refers to individuals’ overall assessment of their life quality based on their own personal
standards (Diener, 1984, 2000). It includes two basic elements: life satisfaction, or the perception of the quality
of one’s life, and emotional experience, including positive and negative emotions (Diener, 1984, 2000). Researchers
have proposed that SWB comprises three major components: high-level positive emotions, low-level negative emo-
tions, and overall satisfaction with life (Busseri, Sadava, & Decourville, 2007; Diener et al., 1999). One important
feature of SWB is its subjectivity, such that the assessment of well-being is based on one’s personal standards, rather
than others’ standards (Diener, 1984). However, in a collectivist culture, such as that found in China, harmonious
relationships are essential to people’s perception of well-being; in this setting, an individual pursues not only his
or her own well-being but also the collective well-being of the society (Gao et al., 2010). In other words, in a col-
lectivist culture, people are more willing to sacrifice personal desires and to be mindful of group needs to improve
the group’s well-being (Markus, Kitayama, & Heiman, 1996). As a consequence, well-being under Chinese societal
and cultural circumstances might not be solely subject to personal standards, but rather be subject to societal or
others’ standards.
The philosophical roots of PWB lie in eudaimonism, which stresses the good state of psychological functions and
the fulfillment of personal potential. Ryff and his colleagues (Ryff, 1989a, 1989b; Ryff & Keyes, 1995) proposed a
six-dimensional model of PWB, involving self-acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, positive relations with
others, environment mastery, and autonomy. Although the concept of PWB stems from Western culture, the general
structure of this concept can be applied in Chinese culture as well. However, some differences regarding the content
of PWB might arise between the East and West. For example, Western culture emphasizes “environment mastery”
and “autonomy” as aspects of PWB, whereas the Chinese collectivistic culture focuses on a harmonious and society
orientation or interdependent self (Markus & Kitayama, 1998).
Although SWB and PWB differ from each other, studies have found that these two concepts share some level of
relatedness (Jin, 2007; Keyes et al., 2002). Thus, it seems appropriate to examine well-being by combining the two
approaches of SWB and PWB. Peng and Chen (2010) took an integrative approach by combining SWB and PWB to
examine well-being. They subdivided personal well-being into experiential well-being and accumulated well-being
based on the criteria of continuity and fluctuations. Experiential well-being is an individual’s immediate experience
of emotional or sensory temporary feelings in the pursuit of individual value, whereas accumulated experience as
brought by the continuous experience of mind or spirit is called accumulated well-being (Peng & Chen, 2010).
These two factors gradually merge together in the process of personal growth as individuals gain more life experi-
ence. The absence of either factor decreases an individual’s likelihood of experiencing well-being. Echoing these
research findings and taking the systematic perspective, we also combine SWB and PWB to study EWB.

Review of EWB research in organization

Research on EWB took root and evolved from considerations of general well-being (Ilies et al., 2007), such as SWB
and PWB. At present, most scholars define the concept and connotations of EWB for the purposes of their own re-
search and under their own research frameworks. As yet, no uniform definition and measurement of EWB have
emerged.
Many prior studies (e.g., Rice et al., 1980; Rode, 2004) assert that overall well-being is not an adequate represen-
tation of well-being at work. Some authors (e.g., Daniels, 2000; Warr, 1990) posit that the context-specific measures
of well-being are necessary to capture the subtleties, complexities, and variations of employees’ cognitive and affec-
tive experiences at work. Further, Page and Vella-Brodrick (2009) suggested that utilizing both work-related and
general well-being measures can provide a more accurate assessment of EWB than do SWB measures alone.
Eventually, a number of context-specific measures and models were developed to specifically assess well-
being at work. However, these different measures represent competitive rather than complementary approaches

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
624 X. ZHENG ET AL.

to measure the construct of well-being. Historically, many researchers have assessed employee job satisfaction,
either globally or as a summation of satisfaction with various job domains (see Spector, 1997, for a review).
Other researchers (e.g., Wright & Cropanzano, 1997, 2004) have criticized the inadequate operationalization
of happiness at work. Some researchers have suggested using the measures of dispositional affect (e.g., Wright
& Cropanzano, 2004) or employees’ work-related affect (Daniels, 2000; Warr, 1987, 1990) to replace typical job
satisfaction measures.
In recent years, researchers have employed a multiple-measure approach. Cotton and Hart (2003), for exam-
ple, operationalized EWB as consisting of both PA and NA and cognitive evaluations of job satisfaction. Other
researchers have suggested that EWB should be viewed as encompassing both work-related and non-work-
related psychological experiences and health status (Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2009). EWB may be defined as
an employee’s quality of life and psychological status at work (Siegrist et al., 2006) and overall well-being,
work satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion (Vanhala & Tuomi, 2006). Ilies et al. (2007) would include individ-
ual and situational factors in the conceptualization of EWB and further divide it into work-related and non-work-
related categories. Echoing this trend, scholars have determined that the measurement of EWB should not only
take employees’ work and health into consideration but also assess employees’ family relations and life
satisfaction (Siegrist et al., 2006; Vanhala & Tuomi, 2006). Lu, Gilmour, Kao, and Huang (2006) divided
EWB into work satisfaction, family satisfaction, life satisfaction, and positive emotions, whereas other re-
searchers maintain that EWB should include negative emotions in the workplace (Diener & Ryan, 2011; Diener
& Seligman, 2002).
Recently, on the basis of a review of the mental health and well-being literature, Page and Vella-Brodrick
(2009) have argued that EWB should be measured in terms of SWB, PWB, work-related affect, and job satis-
faction. They suggest including job satisfaction as one of the dimensions of EWB from a study conducted by
Wright, Cropanzano, and Bonett (2007), which found that job satisfaction was a valid predictor of performance,
with this effect being moderated by EWB (operationalized as context-free affect). Warr’s (1990) and Daniels’
(2000) model of affective well-being (work-related PA and NA) provides evidence that work-related affect might
also aid in the prediction of EWB. Page and Vella-Brodrick (2009) suggested that Daniels’ model, in addition to
job satisfaction, would complement measures of SWB in developing an EWB model. Together, job satisfaction
and work-related affect may constitute an employee’s workplace well-being (WWB). In this model, EWB con-
sists of three core components: SWB, WWB, and PWB. SWB comprises life satisfaction and dispositional af-
fect, whereas WWB encompasses work satisfaction and work-related affect. Both dispositional affect and
work-related affect consist of positive and negative components. PWB consists of six dimensions: self-
acceptance, positive relations with others, environmental mastery, autonomy, personal growth, and purpose in
life (Page and Vella-Brodrick, 2009).
In contemporary society, family and work are viewed as inseparable aspects of a person’s life. We identify
with the view that the holistic consideration should be used in the study of EWB in organizations. So far, the
theoretical model proposed by Page and Vella-Brodrick (2009) has not been validated, and no scale has been
developed on the basis of this model. Consequently, in our research, we use the qualitative method to identity
the definition and explore the concept of EWB in the organization context. After creating the initial item pool
based on qualitative study, we conducted seven different quantitative studies to establish the reliability and va-
lidity of the EWB scale in a Chinese context and conducted the measurement invariance analysis across Chinese
and American cultures.

Qualitative Study Phase

Qualitative study is an ideal method for both developing a new construct and refining existing theories (Ragin
et al., 2004). Our study is based on the grounded theory—a research method “used for the systematic generation

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONS 625

Table 1. Summary of studies, their procedures, and data/sample characteristics.

Study Action and variables Data/sample

Qualitative Semi-structured in-depth interviews N = 310 employees (from one coal mine company in China)
study 80.8% men, 68.1% married
Exploring the construct of EWB Mean age 32.3 years, 18% younger than age 25 years, 39%
aged 25–35 years; 31% aged 35–45 years; 12% older than
age 45 years
38.3% had a high school degree or lower; 30.4% had an
associate degree; 31.3% had a bachelor’s degree or above
11.6% mid- and high-level managers, 20.8% first-line
managers, and 67.6% first-line employees
Mean work experience 4.5 years
Study 1 Initial pool = 93 items N = 400 managers; mean age 34.4 years
Item reduction to 18 items using 72.2% men, 65.3% married
PCA and expert evaluation 37.8% had a bachelor’s degree; 62.2% had a master’s
degree or above
35.9% from state-owned enterprises, 23.6% from private
enterprises, 40.5% from foreign-invested enterprises
Industries included manufacturing (18.9%), financial
services (17.8%), information technology (17%),
communication (15.8%), and other industries (30.5%)
Study 2 EFA and reliability estimation for N = 295 employees (from an airline company in China)
18-item EWB scale 51.9% men; 62.7% married; mean age 32.4 years
Mean work experience 7.5 years; 50.9% had a
bachelor’s degree, 76.9% first-line employees
Study 3 CFA N = 424 employees, from four firms in China from
industries, including energy (16%), consulting (13.8%),
construction (5.2%), and restaurant services (65%)
51.7% men; 44.8% married; mean age 29.6 years
28.6% had a bachelor’s degree
Study 4 Test–retest reliability N = 217 employees (from one high-tech company in China)
52.6% men; mean age 28.45 years; mean organizational
tenure = 2.5 years; 49.5% had a bachelor’s degree; 16.7%
had a master’s degree
Study 5 Correlational analysis; CFA N = 290 employees (from one equipment manufacturing
company in China)
63.7% men; mean age 24.4 years
Convergent and discriminant 23.1% had an associate degree; 5.2% had a bachelor’s
validity: EWB, positive affect, degree or above
negative affect, job satisfaction Mean organizational tenure 2.2 years
Study 6 Correlational analysis; CFA N = 277 employees (from one outdoor sport
clothing manufacturing company in China)
53.4% men; mean age 29.7 years
Nomological validity: EWB, job Mean organizational tenure 2.8 years
satisfaction, affective organizational 53.8% had a bachelor’s degree
commitment, turnover intention, and
job performance
Study 7 Measurement equivalence N = 250 employees (from United States)
60.8% men; mean age 40.6 years (minimum = 20,
maximum = 60, SD = 10.4)
Mean position tenure 8.1 years (SD = 6.6)
Education: 2.8% less than high school, 22.4% high
school degree, 15.6% associate degree, 44.0% bachelor’s
degree, 11.6% master’s degree, 3.6% PhD or equivalent
(Continues)

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
626 X. ZHENG ET AL.

Table 1. (Continued)

Study Action and variables Data/sample

83.6% White/not of Hispanic origin, 6.8% Hispanic or

Hispanic American, 4.8% African or African American,
4.4% Asian or Asian American, 0.4% Native American
59.6% employees, 16.0% first-level manager, 14.4%
middle-level manager, 5.6% upper middle manager, 4.4%
top-level manager
Organization type: 6.8% banking/finance, 4.8% building/construction,
14.4% education, 6.0% government/public sector, 14.4% health, 9.6%
information technology, 10.8% manufacturing, 4.4% non-profit,
8.8% retail/wholesale, 20% other
Note: EWB, employee well-being; PCA, principal components analysis; EFA, exploratory factor analysis; CFA, confirmatory factor analysis.

of theory from data using both inductive and deductive reasoning” (Kuznetsov et al., 2013, p. 713). We con-
ducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 310 practitioners (see Table 1 for details on the samples used
in this study and seven subsequent studies) from a large-scale Chinese coal firm. Through the coding analysis
of the interview transcripts, we explored the structural dimensions of EWB in organizations in light of existing
theories.

Interview process
We obtained a strong endorsement of our work from the chief executive officer of a large state-owned enterprise in
China that has over 17 000 employees and were allowed to access the enterprise for our qualitative interviews. The
human resources department of the enterprise was extremely cooperative with us during this stage. In keeping with
our research requirements, they stratified the employees to allow random sampling in accordance with the proportion
of the sector structure. Three hundred and ten employees were chosen from 32 departments and subsidiaries, which
included the human resources department, sales department, electromechanical department, infrastructure depart-
ment, training center, security center, service center, labor union, affiliated hospital and hotel of the enterprise,
and other subsidiaries. Demographic information for the 310 employees, such as age, gender, and educational level,
is shown in Table 1.
During this qualitative research phase, we used a semi-structured interview method. The interviews were con-
ducted in several conference rooms in the enterprise and hosted independently by researchers, without any em-
ployees from the company being present during the interviews. Participants’ personal information was treated as
strictly confidential. Ten research assistants were divided into five groups; each group simultaneously conducted in-
terviews that lasted for approximately 1 hour. We asked interviewees to discuss what their understanding of well-
being was, whether they had a high level of well-being and why, which factors affected their well-being, and
how their well-being might be increased.
To reassure interviewees about the purpose and confidentiality of the study, before each interview, the two-
person interview team explained the purpose and significance of the research and committed to keeping the per-
sonal information confidential (i.e., no third party—including the employer—would have access to their personal
information, and data collected would be used only for academic purposes). Interviewers were instructed to ex-
plain the interview questions more clearly to help the participants accurately understand the questions and en-
courage interviewees to voice their thoughts by giving examples in case they had received less education or
were less talkative.
The interview process lasted for five consecutive days. At the end of each day, researchers collected all data,
created summaries of those data, and conducted relevant analyses. During the first 3 days, we continued to find

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONS 627

new ideas and themes but did not find more fresh ideas on the last 2 days. We concluded that increasing the interview
sample size would not help generate more themes, indicating that the theoretical saturation point had been reached.

Coding process

The coding process involved three stages: (i) precoding, (ii) formal coding, and (iii) checking coding consis-
tency. In the precoding stage, four master’s-level students majoring in human resources management coded
the interview data. Precoding is intended mainly for training purposes and examination of the coders’ coding
skills. The training of the coders mainly focuses on updating the coding rules and coding skills. During the
precoding process, we asked the four coders to code the same materials separately according to the coding
rules and then compared the results when they finished. The training continued until the coding consistency
(i.e., inter-rater reliability) for the same material reached 95 percent. At that point, the precoding training
ended, and the formal coding started.
The formal coding process included open coding, categorization, and axis coding (Charmaz, 2006). The four
coders started to independently encode the content of the interview. The interview content was classified according
to the first-order code and the second-order code. In our research, the four coders carried out the open coding and
categorization, whereas the axial coding was carried out by the four coders and two human resources management
professors through a discussion.
In open coding, the phenomena described in the original information were conceptualized by the four coders. For
example, a response of “We hardly have rest days. Objectively speaking, everyone feels exhausted” can be concep-
tualized as “long working hours or unreasonable workload.” By the end of this step, we had gathered 81 concepts
from the original data.
In categorization, similar concepts were identified and represented by a unified label. For example, “long working
hours,” “unreasonable workload,” and “work pressure” can be represented by a unified label “work.” In total, 14
categories were identified during this step.
The axial coding was used to find and establish the various relationships among the categories. Nine major cat-
egories were crystallized from the original 14 categories: compensation (e.g., “The profit of the company is growing
every year, but our salary increases little”), labor protection (e.g., “The self-rescuer and locator further improved the
safety protection, and we do not have any dissatisfaction.”), logistics service (e.g., “We lived in the room without
windows, and all around us are walls.”), management style (e.g., “The managers don’t respect the employees. For
example, the mine safety division is seen as an important department when needed, but its role is often neglected
by many people.”), work arrangement (e.g., “We hardly have rest days. Objectively speaking, everyone feels
exhausted.”), personal and family care (e.g., “We often work overtime. The work takes up too much time and there
is too little time for us to care for our children and elderly relatives.”), family problems (e.g., “There are policies
specifying support to the employees with children.”), learning and personal growth (e.g., “There is little training”
and “Professional training is rare”), and working achievement (e.g., “My major does not fit the job” and “I have
no work target and no sense of achievement”).
The third stage involved checking the coding consistency. If the consistency was less than 95 percent, the four
coders discussed and recoded the data. After that point, the material was excluded if the four coders were still unable
to agree on the coding.
The nine categories identified through the qualitative study are the main factors influencing EWB, and they cover
the main areas of respondents’ well-being. When the relationships between these nine categories were analyzed, we
realized that respondents’ satisfaction levels in the sense of these categories could be reduced to three core aspects:
life well-being (LWB), WWB, and PWB. The life aspect covers two of the nine categories: personal and family care
(reflecting an employee’s personal emotions) and family members (family life problems). The work aspect includes
work-related elements, such as compensation and benefits, labor protection, logistics service, management style, and

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
628 X. ZHENG ET AL.

work arrangements. The psychological aspect mainly focuses on learning, growth, work achievement, and self-
actualization.

Research conclusion

Through in-depth interviews, we found that EWB involves three basic aspects: life, work, and psychological
needs in both work and life aspects. We propose that EWB involves not only employees’ perceptions and feel-
ings about their work and life satisfaction but also their psychological experience and the level of satisfaction
exhibited in both their work and personal lives. Therefore, the EWB concept is three dimensional and enco-
mpasses LWB, WWB, and PWB.

Table 2. Some representative quotes from interviewees for the items.

Dimension Items Representative quotes

LWB 1. I feel satisfied with my life. Compared with before, I am more satisfied with the current
living environment.
2. I am close to my dream in most aspects of my I have a good relationship with my family. Although I
life. haven’t much time to take care of the family, they understand
my work.
Generally speaking, I am very happy.
My income is not high, and is just enough to maintain life.
Life is very dull; I don’t have time for recreation.
Work time is too long and I have no time to take care of the
children and my elderly relatives.
3. I am in a good life situation. There are policies specifying support provided to the
employees with children.
WWB 1. I am satisfied with my work responsibilities. I’m under a high level of work pressure and feel exhausted.
In general, I am satisfied with my compensation.
2. In general, I feel fairly satisfied with my present Although I am very busy with my work, my life is very
job. meaningful.
I feel very happy when I am encouraged by my leader,
although I’m very tired.
I am used to and satisfied with my ordinary work.
3. I can always find ways to enrich my work. Although the work is very monotonous, I am very happy
working with my colleagues.
It would be boring to be at any job for a long time. It is better
to think of some way to increase the fun of work.
Everybody can get along with each other in the work setting
and no one feels anxiety.
PWB 1. I feel I have grown as a person. I benefited from my training in the organization.
I feel that the knowledge training about safety is very useful.
After I worked hard, I find my abilities improved.
2. People think I am willing to give and to share One of my colleagues has a small child. I often help her do
my time with others. her work so she has more time to take care of her family.
3. I love having deep conversations with family I can communicate with leaders and colleagues very well.
and friends so that we can better understand each We can speak frankly about problems at any time and get
other. along very harmoniously.
I get a lot of support for my work from my family. Although I
seldom take care of my family, they never have complained,
so I feel very gratified.
Note: LWB, life well-being; WWB, workplace well-being; PWB, psychological well-being.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONS 629

Quantitative Study Phase

Following the psychological measurement development requirements (Hinkin, 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994),
we developed a measure for EWB in organizations and used seven different samples to establish the reliability and
validity of this new scale. We also examined the cross-cultural measurement equivalence of this scale across Chinese
and American samples.

Item generation
We created an initial pool of 93 items to measure EWB by combining the items developed in the qualitative
research (11 items; some representative quotes from interviewees for the items are listed in Table 2) and
adopting some items from existing scales, such as the Satisfaction with Life scale (five items; Diener et al.,
1985), Job Diagnostic Survey (three items; Hackman & Oldham, 1980), PWB scale (54 items; Ryff, 1989b),
and Positive/Negative Affect Scale (10 adjusted items for life and 10 adjusted items for work; Agho, Price,
& Mueller, 1992).

Study 1: Item reduction (principal components analysis)

We distributed the 93 items to 400 managers and employees in business organizations who were also part-time
MBA students taking weekend classes at a top university in Beijing. The participants used a Likert 7-point scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) to respond to each item. The questionnaires were completed in teaching
sessions.
When analyzing their responses via principal components analysis, we first excluded four items that had low
correlations with their category mean. Next, we conducted item discrimination analysis. We categorized the sam-
ples into high-score/low-score groups according to the total score of the remaining 89 items. The difference in
the mean scores for every item between the high-score and low-score groups was analyzed by T-test, and five
items with insignificant critical ratio values—which meant that the item could not differentiate the reactions
between the high-score and low-score groups—were deleted (DeVellis & Dancer, 1991). In the process of
item reduction, to ensure the content validity of our measurement items, we did not delete an item until we
had a serious discussion and reached a consensus regarding its applicability. Finally, we performed a principal
components factor analysis (with varimax rotation) of the remaining items and identified common factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1. We deleted items with loading values less than .40 and those with cross-loadings
greater than .40 on other factors. On the basis of this analysis, only 23 items of the original 93 items were
retained.
Recognizing that the expert evaluation method could help increase the content validity (Hinkin & Schriesheim,
1989), we held discussions with four experts on the remaining 23 items. Five items that were potentially confusing
or redundantly worded were eliminated—for example, “For me, life is a process of continuous learning, changing,
and growing.” This culling process resulted in a set of 18 items to measure EWB (refer to Table 3 for detailed items)
in the organization context.

Study 2: Exploratory factor analysis

We distributed the 18-item survey to 340 employees of a large Chinese airline and received 295 valid responses,
representing a response rate of 89 percent. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA; principal axis

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
630 X. ZHENG ET AL.

Table 3. Study 2: Item loading values from exploratory factor analysis (N = 295).
Factor Factor Factor
Items Source 1 2 3

Q1. I feel satisfied with my life. From interview .46 .82 .31
Q2. I am close to my dream in most aspects of my life. From interview .45 .83 .31
Q3. Most of the time, I do feel real happiness. Adapted from .45 .82 .39
literature
Q4. I am in a good life situation. From interview .45 .81 .30
Q5. My life is very fun. Adapted from .48 .81 .40
literature
Q6. I would hardly change my current way of life in the afterlife. Adapted from .38 .73 .24
literature
Q7. I am satisfied with my work responsibilities. From interview .86 .45 .37
Q8. In general, I feel fairly satisfied with my present job. From interview .89 .49 .41
Q9. I find real enjoyment in my work. Adapted from .85 .51 .38
literature
Q10. I can always find ways to enrich my work. From interview .85 .45 .42
Q11. Work is a meaningful experience for me. Adapted from .76 .38 .45
literature
Q12. I feel basically satisfied with my work achievements in my current job. Adapted from .81 .51 .38
literature
Q13. I feel I have grown as a person. From interview .37 .27 .79
Q14. I handle daily affairs well. Adapted from .34 .30 .76
literature
Q15. I generally feel good about myself, and I’m confident. Adapted from .39 .36 .74
literature
Q16. People think I am willing to give and to share my time with others. From interview .35 .25 .72
Q17. I am good at making flexible timetables for my work. Adapted from .40 .31 .76
literature
Q18. I love having deep conversations with family and friends so that we can From interview .30 .32 .72
better understand each other.

Cumulative percentage of variance 63.89%

Factor names WWB LWB PWB
Cronbach’s αs (subscales) .93 .92 .88
Cronbach’s αs (EWB) .93
Note: WWB, workplace well-being; LWB, life well-being; PWB, psychological well-being; EWB, employee well-being.

factoring) with an oblique rotation (promax) and identified common factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (Brown
et al., 2005). As expected, the EFA enabled us to discern a three-factor structure among the 18 items, with each
factor consisting of six items (Table 3). All of the loading values varied between .72 and .89. The three factors
explained 63.89 percent of the total variance. The EWB scale demonstrated a high level of internal consistency
(α = .93).
The first dimension includes six items, including “I am close to my dream in most aspects of my life” and “My life
is fun,” that are relevant to employees’ lives. We refer to this dimension as LWB.
The second dimension includes six items, such as “I find real enjoyment in my work” and “In general, I feel fairly
satisfied with my present job,” that relate to employees’ work. We term this dimension WWB.
The third dimension is also composed of six items related to people’s psychological needs, including “I generally
feel good about myself and I’m confident” and “I handle daily affairs well.” It is termed PWB.
On the basis of EFA, we concluded that EWB has three dimensions—namely, LWB, WWB, and PWB—which
confirms our formulated proposal of EWB in the qualitative study and also resonates with the model proposed by
Page and Vella-Brodrick (2009).

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONS 631

Study 3: Confirmatory factor analysis

Next, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using a sample of 424 valid responses from 732 em-
ployees (a response rate of 65 percent) working at one of four Beijing-based enterprises—restaurant, market consult-
ing, petroleum planning, and international engineering consulting. We analyzed the CFAs via AMOS 17.0. We
compared six models: one second-order model (model 1, the proposed model) and five first-order models (models
2 to 6). Model 1 denotes that the 18 observable items load on the three first-order factors (LWB, WWB, and
PWB), which in turn load on the second-order factor (EWB). Model 2 denotes that 18 items are accounted for by
a single first-order factor, EWB. Model 3 denotes that 18 observable items are accounted for by three first-order fac-
tors (LWB, WWB, and PWB). Model 4 refers to the merger of LWB and WWB in model 3 as one factor; model 5
refers to the merger of LWB and PWB in model 3 as one factor; and model 6 refers to the merger of WWB and PWB
in model 3 as one factor.
Fit indexes (Table 4) showed that the other alternative models were significantly worse than the second-order
model (χ 2 = 306.28, df = 132, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.04). This confirmed that SWB is
a second-order structure (Bollen, 1989; Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001). Figure 1 shows the factor loading values
of all items in the CFA, which range from .70 to .82.

Study 4: Test–retest reliability

We tested the scale’s test–retest reliability with a sample of 217 employees from a high-tech company based in Bei-
jing. We collected EWB at both Time 1 and Time 2, which were 1 month apart. After matching data collected at the
two time points, we obtained 201 valid responses. The result shows that the internal consistency scores for EWB at
Time 1 and Time 2 were .93 and .94, respectively, and EWB at Time 1 (M = 4.82, SD = 0.83) was highly correlated
(r = .73, p < .01) with EWB at Time 2 (M = 4.91, SD = 0.87), demonstrating that the scale of EWB has sufficient test–
retest reliability.

Study 5: Convergent and discriminant validity

We expected EWB to be positively related to job satisfaction and PA and to be negatively related to NA. In this
study, we sent the survey to 300 employees of a national equipment manufacturer and acquired 290 valid responses
(a response rate of 96.67 percent).

Table 4. Study 3: Fit indices of the models (N = 424).

Compared with model
Model χ2 df 1 Δχ 2 χ 2/df GFI CFI NFI RFI IFI TLI SRMR RMSEA

Model 1 306.28 132 2.32 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.95 0.94 0.04 0.06
Model 2 408.79 135 102.51** 3.03 0.90 0.92 0.89 0.88 0.92 0.91 0.11 0.07
Model 3 749.67 135 443.39** 5.55 0.84 0.83 0.80 0.77 0.83 0.80 0.28 0.10
Model 4 699.26 135 392.98** 5.18 0.88 0.84 0.81 0.79 0.84 0.82 0.26 0.10
Model 5 616.49 135 310.21** 4.57 0.89 0.86 0.83 0.81 0.87 0.85 0.24 0.09
Model 6 494.91 135 188.63** 3.67 0.90 0.90 0.87 0.85 0.90 0.89 0.20 0.08
Note: GFI, goodness-of-fit index; RFI, relative fit index; IFI, incremental fit index.
**p < .01.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
632 X. ZHENG ET AL.

Figure 1. Results of confirmatory factor analysis

Employee well-being
We used the 18-item EWB scale developed in this study. Confirmative factor analysis again confirmed that the EWB
matched the single-dimension second-order structure (χ 2 = 340.18, df = 132, CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.07,
SRMR = 0.04). The internal consistencies for LWB, WWB, PWB, and EWB were .82, .87, .82, and .90,
respectively.

Positive and negative affect

We used the 20-item scale developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988), which contains 10 items for PA and 10
items for NA. Sample items included “passionate” and “frightened.” The Cronbach scores for PA and NA were .81
and .78, respectively.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONS 633

Job satisfaction
We used the six-item scale developed by Tsui, Egan, and O’Reilly (1992). One sample item was “Taking all factors
into consideration, I feel satisfied with my current job.” The Cronbach score was .83.
We then conducted CFA to compare the measurement models and test the discriminant validity of the four var-
iables. In addition to the benchmark model (four-factor model), we provided four alternative models including 3
three-factor models and 1 one-factor model. In model 1, EWB is merged with job satisfaction to create a single fac-
tor; in model 2, EWB is merged with PA to create a single factor; and in model 3, EWB is merged with NA to create
a single factor. In model 4, EWB is merged with PA, NA, and job satisfaction to create a single factor. As shown in
Table 5, the four-factor benchmark model fit the data well (χ 2 = 808.40, df = 371, GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.91,
RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.04) and was significantly better than the four alternative models. Therefore, the four-
factor model better represented the measuring factor structure, and the discriminant validity of the four variables
was confirmed.
The correlation analysis showed that EWB had significant positive correlations with PA (r = .54, p < .01) and job
satisfaction (r = .68, p < .01), had a negative relation with NA (r = .25, p < .01), and was uncorrelated with gender
(r = .05, ns). Table 6 shows that LWB, WWB, and PWB were highly correlated with EWB (r = .88, p < .01; r = .89,
p < .01; r = .74, p < .01). Taken together, EWB has good convergent and discriminant validity.

Table 5. Study 5: Comparisons of measurement models (N = 290).

Compared with
benchmark
Model χ2 df model Δχ 2 χ 2/df GFI CFI NFI RFI IFI TLI SRMR RMSEA

Benchmark 808.40 371 2.18 0.92 0.91 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.04 0.06
model
Model 1 820.23 372 11.83** 2.21 0.82 0.81 0.72 0.79 0.82 0.79 0.08 0.07
Model 2 864.16 372 55.76** 2.32 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.85 0.88 0.86 0.08 0.07
Model 3 1042.52 372 234.12** 2.80 0.81 0.77 0.68 0.65 0.77 0.74 0.20 0.08
Model 4 1134.98 377 326.58** 3.01 0.80 0.73 0.65 0.62 0.74 0.71 0.29 0.08
Note: Benchmark model: four-factor model. Model 1: Merges EWB with job satisfaction into one factor. Model 2: Merges EWB with positive
affect into one factor. Model 3: Merges EWB with negative affect into one factor. Model 4: Merges the four variables into one factor.
GFI, goodness-of-fit index; RFI, relative fit index; IFI, incremental fit index.
**p < .01.

Table 6. Study 5: Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables (N = 290).

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. EWB 4.77 0.82 (.90)

2. LWB 4.12 1.07 .88** (.82)
3. WWB 4.66 1.04 .89** .68** (.87)
4. PWB 5.42 0.78 .74** .46** .51** (.82)
5. PA 3.21 0.65 .54** .40** .46** .48** (.81)
6. NA 2.18 0.58 .25** .20** .19** .23** .20** (.78)
7. Job satisfaction 4.58 1.06 .68** .56** .70** .41** .42** .26** (.83)
8. Gender1 .62 0.49 .05 .03 .01 .09 .06 .03 .01
Note: Numbers in parentheses are the Cronbach alpha values.
EWB, employee well-being; LWB, life well-being; WWB, workplace well-being; PWB, psychological well-being; PA, positive affect; NA,
negative affect.
1
Gender coded as 0 = male, 1 = female.
**p < .01.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
634 X. ZHENG ET AL.

Study 6: Predictive validity

In this study, the concept of EWB was conceptualized so as to capture the domain of SWB, WWB (e.g., job
satisfaction), and PWB. Previous studies showed that PWB had an important effect on employee performance
(Wright & Cropanzano, 2000), organizational commitment (Meyer et al., 2002), and employee turnover
(Wright & Bonett, 2007). Thus, we predicted that EWB would have a positive effect on work-related out-
comes, such as affective organizational commitment, turnover intention, and job performance. Wright and
Cropanzano (2000) proposed that PWB and job satisfaction were predictors of job performance, so we
expected that EWB should have an incremental validity over and above job satisfaction in predicting out-
comes. If, after controlling for job satisfaction, EWB could still predict those criterion variables, EWB would
have incremental validity.
The human resources department in a high-tech enterprise provided us with a full roster of demographic informa-
tion (e.g., age, gender, and educational level) and work-related information (e.g., entry date and job rank). Before
administering the survey, a research assistant explained to the participants the purpose and requirement of the
research and assured them of the anonymity and confidentiality of the research process. To avoid the common
method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012), we collected data from two different sources at two points in time within
an interval of 50 days.
At Time 1, we asked 419 employees to report their EWB and personal information. We received 376 responses,
representing a response rate of 89.74 percent. At Time 2, we distributed 358 surveys (18 of the original 376
employees had quit their jobs before Time 2) to the same group of employees, and they reported on their job satis-
faction, affective organizational commitment, and turnover intention. We also asked their immediate supervisors to
rate their job performance. We received 291 valid responses, for an 81.28 percent response rate. After matching the
cases of Time 1 and Time 2, we obtained the final sample of 277 valid cases, with a response rate of 66.11 percent.
We used the following scales to measure the relevant variables.

Employee well-being
We used the 18-item EWB scale in this study. Confirmative factor analysis again showed that the second-order
structure fit the data well (χ 2 = 367.22, df = 132, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.04). The
Cronbach scores of the LWB, WWB, PWB, and overall EWB scale were .87, .87, .84, and .91, respectively.

Job satisfaction
We measured job satisfaction using Job Diagnostic Survey’s “General Satisfaction” instrument, developed by Hack-
man and Oldham (1980). Sample items included “Generally speaking, I am satisfied with my current job” and “Gen-
erally speaking, I feel satisfied with my responsibilities in the current job.” The scale’s α value was .89.

Affective organizational commitment

We used Allen and Meyer’s (1990) affective organizational commitment scale, which included six items, such as “I
would feel happy to continue to work for this company.” The scale’s α value was .74.

Turnover intention
We adapted five items from Bozeman and Perrewé’s (2001) turnover intention scale. Sample items included “I
will probably look for a new job in the future” and its opposite, “I do not intend to quit my job.” The scale’s α value
was .74.

Job performance
We used the seven in-role behavior items developed by Williams and Anderson (1991) to measure employee job
performance. Sample items included “This worker always completes the duties specified in his/her job

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONS 635

Table 7. Study 6: Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables (N = 277).

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. EWB 5.15 0.76 (.91)

2. LWB 4.55 1.16 .88** (.87)
3. WWB 5.05 0.99 .84** .58** (.87)
4. PWB 5.86 0.67 .68** .42** .40** (.84)
5. Job satisfaction 5.02 1.26 .43** .37** .49** .12* (.89)
6. Affective commitment 5.35 1.15 .32** .21** .37** .17** .29** (.86)
7. Turnover intention 3.62 0.91 .22** .18** .32** .04 .39** .43** (.74)
8. Job performance 4.78 0.68 .21** .13* .16** .27** .13* .20** .05 (.80)
Note: Numbers in parentheses are the Cronbach alpha values.
EWB, employee well-being; LWB, life well-being; WWB, workplace well-being; PWB, psychological well-being; PA, positive affect; NA, neg-
ative affect.
*p < .05; **p < .01.

description” and “This worker meets all of the formal performance requirements of the job.” The scale’s α value
was .80.
The correlation analysis showed that EWB had significant positive correlations with job satisfaction (r = .43,
p < .01), affective organizational commitment (r = .32, p < .01), and job performance (r = .21, p < .01). EWB dem-
onstrated a significant negative correlation with turnover intention (r = .22, p < .01). Table 7 summarizes these
results.
Furthermore, we found that, after controlling for the confounding effects of gender, age, years of education, years
of employment, and work position, EWB still predicted affective organizational commitment (β = .29, p < .01), turn-
over intention (β = .19, p < .01), and job performance (β = .20, p < .01), as shown in Table 8. These results indi-
cated that EWB has predictive validity.
We also examined whether EWB had incremental predictive validity relative to job satisfaction. As shown in
Table 9, after all of the control variables and job satisfaction were added into the equation, EWB was still signifi-
cantly related to affective organizational commitment (β = .22, p < .01) and job performance (β = .18, p < .01). Al-
though no longer significant, the effect of EWB on turnover intention was negative (β = .05, p = .47). Overall,
then, the findings showed that the EWB scale has predictive validity.

Table 8. Study 6: Regression analysis of EWB on affective organizational commitment, turnover intention, and job performance
(N = 277).
Affective commitment Turnover intention Job performance

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Age .11 .08 .17** .16* .06 .04

Gender .09 .08 .11 .10 .14* .13*
Education .12 .09 .12 .10 .19** .22**
Years of work .06 .04 .06 .07 .13 .11
Position level .00 .03 .03 .01 .13* .11
EWB .29** .19** .20**
R2 .05 .13 .05 .08 .10 .14
ΔR2 .08** .03** .04**
F 2.75* 6.51** 2.90* 4.10** 5.79** 7.08**
Note: EWB, employee well-being.
*p < .05; **p < .01.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
636 X. ZHENG ET AL.

Table 9. Study 6: Incremental regression analysis of EWB on affective organizational commitment, turnover intention, and job
performance (N = 277).
Affective organizational commitment Turnover intention Job performance

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Age .07 .06 .11 .11 .04 .03

Gender .09 .08 .10 .10 .14* .13*
Education .08 .07 .06 .06 .22** .23**
Years of work .06 .05 .06 .06 .13 .11
Position level .00 .03 .02 .01 .12* .11
Job satisfaction .26** .17** .37** .35** .14* .07
EWB .22** .05 .18**
R2 .11 .15 .18 .18 .12 .14
ΔR2 .04** .00 .02**
F 5.59** 6.72** 9.75** 8.41** 5.87** 6.25**
Note: EWB, employee well-being.
*p < .05; **p < .01.

Study 7: Cross-cultural measurement invariance of EWB

Measurement invariance is an important issue for researchers who intend to make group (e.g., cross-
cultural) comparisons (e.g., Byrne et al., 2009; Byrne & Watkins, 2006; Chen et al., 2005; Vandenberg
& Lance, 2000). Examples of groups across which comparisons are commonly made include gender,
age, ethnicity, culture, and experimental versus control groups (Chen et al., 2005; Vandenberg & Lance,
2000).
Cross-cultural researchers should be especially attentive to the potential measurement error (Byrne &
Watkins, 2006; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000; Wersing, 2014). For example, employees’ interpretation of
survey items and particular ways of responding to these items might potentially affect researchers’ com-
parison of levels of a latent construct such as EWB across different cultures (Byrne & Watkins, 2006).
In our study, we sought to examine the invariance of the measurement EWB across Chinese and American
contexts. When testing for measurement invariance across groups, there are three primary levels of poten-
tial invariance to examine: (i) configural, (ii) metric, and (iii) scalar (Meredith, 1993; Vandenberg &
Lance, 2000).
To assess the measurement invariance across the Chinese sample, we relied on the sample used for conducting
the CFA in Study 3. For the American sample, we entrusted a research company (http://www.usamp.com) to
solicit responses of 1094 U.S. employees from a broad variety of industries. The research company sent the sur-
vey link to these potential participants on our behalf. We randomly selected 250 of the 1094 cases for the study.
These participants rated their own level of EWB. The detailed information about this sample is shown in
Table 1.
Configural invariance (i.e., specified structure of measured items to latent constructs) confirms that similar latent
factors are present in two different groups (Widaman & Reise, 1997). In the current study, configural invariance
would confirm that the latent constructs associated with the concept of EWB (the first-order constructs and the
second-order latent construct) were similarly reflected in either culture because the observed items would load on
the latent variables as hypothesized. Metric invariance confirms that the factor loadings of individual items on the
first-order factors—that is, those of first-order factors on the second-order factor—can be held equal across two
groups. Scalar equivalence reflects that the scoring of the latent construct (item factor loadings) and the level of scale
origin (item intercept and means) are equivalent across two groups.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONS 637

Table 10. Study 7: Summary of fit statistics for testing measurement invariance of employee well-being across China and the
United States.
Model
Model χ2 df χ 2/df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR comparison Δχ 2 Δdf

Model 1: Two-group 504.56 264 1.91 0.95 0.95 0.05 0.04

configural invariance
(equal form)
Model 2: First- and second-order 567.91 279 2.04 0.95 0.94 0.06 0.06 2 vs. 1 63.34** 15
factor loadings invariant
Model 3: Partial first- and 513.11 273 1.88 0.95 0.95 0.05 0.04 3 vs. 2 54.80** 6
second-order factor loadings 3 vs. 1 8.55 9
invariant
Note: **p < .01.

We conducted the multi-group CFA techniques using MPLUS 6.12 (Muthen & Muthen, 2010) and followed the
instructions to perform the measurement invariance test (Billiet & McClendon, 2000; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002;
Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Before conducting the analysis, we confirmed the normality of all question items,
the four first-order factors, and the EWB scale. We discovered that none of them violated the normality assumption,
in that the indicators of skewness and kurtosis for most items and for the four first-order factors were smaller than
1.0, and all such indicators were smaller than 2.0.
Following the steps outlined by scholars (e.g., Byrne, 2012; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000; Van de Schoot et al.,
2012), we conducted an analysis of configural equivalence across the two countries and specified the second-order
hierarchical factor structure for EWB for the Chinese and American samples independently (Byrne, 2008, 2012).
The fitness indexes for both the Chinese sample (as shown in Table 4) and the American sample (χ 2 = 190.44,
df = 132, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.04) were higher than the minimally borderline accept-
able level of model fit (Chen et al., 2005; Hu & Bentler, 1999), confirming that the form of the latent construct of
EWB seemed to hold in the two cultures separately.
We further conducted two-group CFAs to examine the measurement invariance. The results of the model fit for
the two-group configural baseline are shown in model 1 in Table 10 and were confirmed as an acceptable fit
(χ 2 = 504.56, df = 264, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04), which demonstrated configural invari-
ance across the Chinese and American samples. Thus, the second-order factor structure of EWB held in both the
Chinese and American contexts.
We continued to examine the metric invariance of EWB, which constrains factor loadings, by including this in-
variance in the three first-order latent factor loadings and the first- to second-order factor loadings, such that it
was equivalent across these two samples. As shown in model 1 in Table 10, constraining the item factor loadings
to be invariant across these two samples did reduce the model fit (Δχ 2 = 63.34**, df = 15); thus, the loading values
of all items were not invariant across these two samples.
We went on to use the modification indexes (critical value = 3.59, p < .05) to check those loading values
that needed to be free rather than constrained to be invariant. We found the loading values of six items on
two first-level factors that needed to be free, the loading values of five items (i.e., Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, and
Q12, shown in the Appendix) for the WWB factor, and the loading value of one item (Q17, shown in the Ap-
pendix) for PWB. We then freed these six loading values from the invariant constraint. The fitness indexes of
this partial loading value invariance (χ 2 = 513.11, df = 273, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04)
were no worse (Δχ 2 = 8.55, df = 9) than the two-group configural baseline (model 1), indicating that the partial
loading values invariance (or partial metric invariance) of EWB was achieved. We concluded that EWB has
configural invariance and partial loading values invariance and noted that the second-order factor EWB held
across two samples.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
638 X. ZHENG ET AL.

Discussion
Although EWB is attracting more attention from both managers and scholars (Robertson & Cooper, 2010), there are
multiple ways to conceptualize EWB, and there remains a lack of consensus regarding its structure and measures. To
fill this theoretical gap, we employed both qualitative and quantitative methods to identify the theoretical structure of
EWB, which is made up of LWB, WWB, and PWB. Furthermore, through a series of quantitative studies, we de-
veloped an 18-item EWB scale and established the initial reliability and validity of this new scale. Using data col-
lected from the United States and China, the configural invariance of EWB was confirmed.

Theoretical contributions

This study makes several important contributions to the EWB field in China. First, by proposing a theoretical model
and developing a scale of EWB, this study enriches Chinese organizational behavior theories. Most prior studies
have focused on the antecedents and outcomes of EWB, but they tended to use different scales to measure EWB.
There is no agreement regarding the fundamental definition, content, and structure of EWB.
In this study, we used both qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the structural dimensions of EWB based
on Page and Vella-Brodrick’s (2009) theoretical model of EWB. The research findings show that EWB has three dimen-
sions: LWB, WWB, and PWB. We used the term “life well-being” instead of “subjective well-being” to better illustrate
the meaning of this concept, because it is related to happiness in one’s life. What distinguishes the new EWB scale from
that proposed by Diener (1984) is that our scale does not include any negative emotion. This orientation probably arises
because Chinese culture teaches people to evaluate their well-being from a more positive perspective ( , be content
with life) and to suppress anger, thereby avoid expressing their negative emotions ( ), if possible. The
absence of negative emotions in our scale is an issue worthy of further discussion in the future. WWB includes not only
job satisfaction but also the positive emotions that an individual experiences regarding work.
Ryff (1989b) conceptualized PWB as encompassing six dimensions: self-acceptance, personal growth, purpose in
life, positive relations with others, environment mastery, and independence. However, there are no items
representing independence and purpose in life in our scale. One explanation is that the purpose in life has been
reflected in the aspect of LWB. Moreover, unlike personal independence in the West, independence represents a so-
cial orientation or demonstration of the interdependent self in a collectivistic culture, such as China. In a Western
individualistic culture, the notion of the “independent self” highlights the person’s degree of self-focus and ex-
presses his or her unique inner characteristics as an important life purpose (Markus et al., 1996). In a collectivist cul-
ture like that of China, the notion of the “interdependent self” emphasizes the need to establish harmonious
relationships with other members of the group to which an individual belongs as a significant life purpose (Markus
& Kitayama, 1998). The findings of the current research indicate that the structural dimensions of EWB as proposed
in our model are consistent with Page and Vella-Brodrick’s model. However, the specific content of our model mir-
rors the unique influence of Chinese culture on the Chinese people’s perception of well-being, which undoubtedly
expands the theoretical development of Chinese indigenous organizational behavior.
Second, this study provides a scientific measurement scale for conducting indigenous Chinese organizational be-
havior research. Although the configural invariance of EWB was confirmed between China and the United States,
we carried out the research on the basis of Chinese enterprise samples, where harmony and the social value orien-
tation of Chinese culture still have significant influence. This influence is, in turn, reflected in the scale items. For
instance, an item in the subdimension of PWB is “People think I am willing to give and to share my time with
others,” which reflects the fact that people in a collectivistic culture such as China highly value the interpersonal ori-
entation of sharing time with other people. Another item, “I love having deep conversations with family and friends
so that we can better understand each other,” reflects the high value that Chinese people place on establishing har-
monious relationships with other people. In summary, the new scale provides a new reliable and valid scale for
conducting research into Chinese organizational behavior.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONS 639

Finally, this study extends the well-being research findings obtained in the West to the East. Page and Vella-
Brodrick (2009) proposed a three-dimensional EWB structure, but no empirical studies have been carried out to ex-
amine their proposed theoretical model. The new scale we developed generally resonates with these authors’ pro-
posed theoretical model, indicating that the general structure of EWB holds in both Chinese and Western
contexts. Therefore, this study makes an important contribution to EWB studies in cross-cultural contexts and plays
a complementary role in enriching and extending the existing EWB theories and empirical research in the Western
contexts. The configural invariance of EWB between China and the United States leads us to believe that the three-
dimensional EWB model developed in our study would be applicable in yet more countries with different cultures.
The loading values of the six items on two first-level factors differed across our two samples, however, so we en-
courage researchers to conduct studies to further adapt and refine this scale, and to enhance its reliability and validity
when applied to other countries with different cultures.

Practical implications

We also would like to note the practical implications of this study. First, on the individual level, this scale can serve
as a diagnostic tool that enables employees to monitor and manage their own well-being and improve job perfor-
mance. Improving job performance is an issue that is not just important to the organization—it also provides a solid
foundation for personal career development. We found that EWB has a positive impact on individual performance,
which confirmed the prior findings on this topic (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002). The new EWB scale enables individuals
to gain insights into their own well-being and make necessary adjustments to improve it, which in turn can boost
their positive work outcomes, such as job performance.
Second, this research offers a new angle—and a scientific measurement tool—for managers to use when
implementing EWB management initiatives. The research shows that EWB comprises LWB, WWB, and PWB, im-
plying that managers should not only focus on employees’ job satisfaction but also show genuine concern for em-
ployees’ LWB and PWB, including work–life balance, family happiness, emotional health, personal growth, and
environment mastery. In addition, the new EWB scale can be used to effectively measure, monitor, and manage
EWB in organizations. Managers can use the scale to understand employees’ level of well-being and conduct inter-
ventions in a timely manner. Such efforts might help organizations avoid tragic situations, such as the employee sui-
cides mentioned earlier in this paper, and promote more harmonious labor–management relations. Companies that
implement well-being enhancement programs, such as Microsoft Research Asia and Alibaba in China, can use the
EWB measurement tool to analyze the results of their EWB practices, enhance their effectiveness, and support their
sustainability.
Finally, from a societal perspective, the results of this study can be used to facilitate a nation’s initiatives toward
building a people-oriented and harmonious society. Achieving and maintaining well-being are the fundamental pur-
pose of people’s lives; thus, all aims of individual activities are directed to realize this goal (Aristotle, 1990). In turn,
research into well-being can yield meaningful guidance for people’s real-life activities. Chinese society is currently
undergoing dramatic transformations, and the convergence of numerous ideological changes and values is threaten-
ing to overwhelm many people. The critical question “What is well-being, and how does one achieve it?” is an urgent,
yet controversial one for many Chinese people (Gao et al., 2010). The multidimensional EWB construct can enlighten
people as to what well-being really means and guide them in becoming beacons for others in the pursuit of it. In this
sense, our study offers valuable insights into the quest to build a people-oriented, harmonious society in China.

Limitations and future research recommendations

Like all studies, this research has some limitations. First, in the predictive validity test (i.e., Study 6), although
we collected job performance data from multiple sources at different points in time to lessen the same-source

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
640 X. ZHENG ET AL.

bias, the other two criterion variables (affective organizational commitment and turnover intention) were self-
rated by employees—a technique that cannot rule out common method bias. We did try to reduce this common
method variance by collecting EWB at Time 1 and collecting affective organizational commitment and turnover
intention at Time 2.
Second, we used only affective commitment, turnover intention, and job performance as criterion variables. We
encourage future studies to include other important outcomes variables, such as physical health, work-related
stresses, organizational citizenship behaviors, and organizational performance.
Third, we did not test the antecedent variables of EWB in this study. Some antecedent variables might include
personal characteristics such as personality, job characteristics such as work autonomy (Warr, 1987) and work
stress, and organizational elements such as organizational support, support from superiors, superiors’ leadership
style (Thompson & Prottas, 2006), and family factors. Future research might focus on exploring this type of
question.
In addition, experiences themselves are dynamic in nature. In recognition of this fact, researchers might do well to
look beyond the description of experience as a snapshot and pay more attention to the fluctuations of employees’
feelings, perceptions, and behaviors; the potential reasons for and consequences of these fluctuations; and the inter-
relations among different experiences over time (Liu, Zhan, & Wang, 2011; Wang et al., 2013). To meet this goal,
future research might further explore the dynamic nature of EWB fluctuations across different time periods using the
scale developed in this study.
We also want to note cultural differences that distinguish well-being between individualistic and collectivistic cul-
tures. In our study, the configural invariance of EWB between China and the United States was confirmed, but the
factor loading values were different. The validity of the structure and scale of EWB as well as the factors and their
respective impact on EWB need to be further investigated in different cultures.
Despite the limitations summarized here, this study also demonstrates many strengths. First, we used a qualitative
method (including theoretical deduction, interview, and expert evaluations) to identify and clarify the structural
dimensions of EWB, and we used multiple quantitative studies to validate this scale. Second, we developed a
crystal-clear structure of EWB in organizations: it consists of the trinity of LWB, WWB, and PWB. In this way,
our study enriched the connotations of EWB. We intend for this study to stimulate greater interest in EWB research
with the goal of creating a comprehensive, integrative understanding of this important issue in China and other parts
of the world.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. Haibo Yu and Prof. Jin Zhang for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this
article. We are especially grateful to the action editor and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive
comments in the review process. We also acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (grant no. 71272022).

Author biographies

Xiaoming Zheng is an associate professor in the School of Economics and Management at Tsinghua University in
China. He earned his PhD degree from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. His main research interests include lead-
ership, positive organizational behavior, and strategic human resources management.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONS 641

Weichun Zhu is an assistant professor at the School of Labor and Employment Relations, Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity. He earned his PhD degree in Management from the University of Nebraska. His research interests include
transformational leadership, crisis leadership and its functional mechanisms, and ethical leadership/decision making
in organizations.
Haixia Zhao is a research associate in the School of Economics and Management at Tsinghua University in China.
She earned her PhD degree from Hua Zhong University of Science and Technology, China. Her main research in-
terests include human resource management and positive organizational behavior.
Chi Zhang is a senior manager of Human Resources Department in Xinxing Cathay International Group Co., Ltd.
He earned his master’s degree in Management from Tsinghua University in China. His main research interests in-
clude leadership and positive organizational behavior.

References
Agho, A. O., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1992). Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and
negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(3), 185–195.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to
the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.
Aristotle. (1990). Nicomachean ethics. Beijing, China: China Social Sciences Press (in Chinese).
Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 7(4), 608–628.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bozeman, D. P., & Perrewé, P. L. (2001). The effect of item content overlap on Organizational Commitment Questionnaire:
Turnover cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 161–173.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-
ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.
Busseri, M. A., Sadava, S. W., & Decourville, N. (2007). A hybrid model for research on subjective wellbeing: Examining
common- and component-specific sources of variance in life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect. Social Indicators
Research, 83(3), 413–445.
Byrne, B. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20(4),
872–882.
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with MPLUS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Byrne, B. M., Oakland, T., Leong, F. T. L., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Hambleton, R. K., & Cheung, F. M. (2009). A critical analysis
of cross-cultural research and testing practices: Implications for improved education and training in psychology. Training and
Education in Professional Psychology, 3, 94–105.
Byrne, B. M., & Watkins, D. (2006). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34
(2), 155–175.
Ceja, L. A., & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic patterns of flow in the workplace: Characterizing within-individual variability using a
complexity science approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 627–651.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage.
Chen, F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equa-
tion Modeling, 12(3), 471–492.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness of fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.
Cotton, P., & Hart, P. M. (2003). Occupational wellbeing and performance: A review of organizational health research. Austra-
lian Psychologist, 38(2), 118–127.
Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of five aspects of affective well-being at work. Human Relations, 53(2), 275–294.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of
Management, 25(3), 157–384.
DeVellis, R. F., & Dancer, L. S. (1991). Scale development theory and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(1),
79–82.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
642 X. ZHENG ET AL.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist,
55(1), 34–43.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life scale. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 49(1), 71–75.
Diener, E., & Ryan, K. (2011). Subjective well-being: A general overview. South African Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 391–406.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81–84.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological
Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.
Dimotakis, N., Scott, B. A., & Koopman, J. (2011). An experience sampling investigation of workplace interactions, affective
states, and employee well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 572–588.
Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you’re not: Organizational disidentification and the
National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12(4), 393–413.
Gao, L., Zheng, X., & Yan, B. B. (2010). The differences of well-being between the East and the West: From the view of self-
construal. Advances in Psychological Science, 18(7), 1041–1045 (in Chinese).
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
He, L. X., & Pan, C. Y. (2011). Uncover the “Easterlin Paradox” of China: Income gap, inequality of opportunity and happiness,
Management World, 8, 11–22 (in Chinese).
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research
Methods, 1(1), 104–121.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959)
bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 561–567.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criterion for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., & Heller, D. (2007). Employee well-being: A multilevel model linking work and nonwork domains.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 326–341.
Jin, L. L. (2007). The relationship of subjective well-being and psychological well-being. Master’s thesis, Hebei Normal Univer-
sity, Hebei, China (in Chinese).
Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007–1022.
Kuznetsov, V. N., Grjibovski, A. M., Mariandyshev, A. O., Johansson, E., Enarson, D. A., & Bjune, G.A. (2013). Hopelessness as a
basis for tuberculosis diagnostic delay in the Arkhangelsk region: A grounded theory study. BMC Public Health, 13, 712–723.
Leavitt, K., Fong, C. T., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Asking about well-being gets you half an answer: Intra-individual processes
of implicit and explicit job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 672–687.
Liu, S., Zhan, Y., & Wang, M. (2011). Person-centric work psychology: Additional insights into its tradition, nature, and research
methods. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(1), 105–108.
Lu, L., Gilmour, R., Kao, S. F., & Huang, M. T. (2006). A cross-cultural study of work/family demands, work/family conflict and
well-being: The Taiwanese vs British. Career Development International, 11(1), 9–27.
Lu, L., Kao, S. F., Siu, O. L., & Lu, C. Q. (2011). Work stress, Chinese work values, and work well-being in the greater China.
Journal of Social Psychology, 151(6), 767–783.
Lyubomirs, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive motivational processes in well-being.
American Psychology, 56(3), 239–249.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1),
63–87.
Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S., & Heiman, R. T. (1996). Culture and “basic” psychological principles. New York, NY: Guilford.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., & Herscovitch, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A
meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Page, K. M. (2005). Subjective wellbeing in the workplace. Unpublished honors thesis, Deakin University, Burwood, Melbourne,
Australia.
Page, K. M., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2009). The “what,” “why” and “how” of employee well-being: A new model. Social In-
dicators Research, 90(3), 441–458.
Page, K. M., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2013). The Working for Wellness program: CT of an employee well-being intervention.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 1007–1031.
Peng, Y., & Chen, H. (2010). Reconstruction on the connotation of well-being based on an integrative perspective. Advances in
Psychological Science, 18(7), 1052–1061 (in Chinese).

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
 EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONS 643

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recom-
mendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.
Ragin, C. C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (2004). Workshop on scientific foundations of qualitative research. Arlington VA: National
Science Foundation.
Rice, R. W., Near, J. P., & Hunt, R. G. (1980). The job-satisfaction/life-satisfaction relationship: A review of empirical research.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1(1), 37–64.
Robertson, I. T., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Full engagement: The integration of employee engagement and psychological well-
being. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4), 324–336.
Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction: A longitudinal test of an integrated model. Human Relations, 57(9),
1205–1230.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-
being. Annual Review Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.
Ryff, C. D. (1989a). Beyond Ponce de Leon and life satisfaction: New directions in quest of successful ageing. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 12(1), 35–55.
Ryff, C. D. (1989b). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-
being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13–39.
Siegrist, J., Wahrendorf, M., Knesebeck, O., Jürges, H., & Börsch-Supan, A. (2006). Quality of work, well-being, and
intended early retirement of older employees: Baseline results from the SHARE Study. European Journal of Public
Health, 17(1), 62–68.
Siu, O. L., Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Lu, C. Q. (2005). Work stress, self-efficacy, Chinese work values, and work well-
being in Hong Kong and Beijing. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(3), 274–288.
Sonnentag, S., & Ilies, R. (2011). Intra-individual processes linking work and employee well-being: Introduction into the special
issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 521–525.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spreitzer, G., & Porath, C. (2012). Creating sustainable performance. Harvard Business Review, 90(1), 92–99.
Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control,
and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1), 100–118.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 549–580.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, prac-
tices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.
Vandenberghe, C., Panaccio, A., Bentein, K., Mignonac, K., & Roussel, P. (2011). Assessing longitudinal change of and dy-
namic relationships among role stressors, job attitudes, turnover intention, and well-being in neophyte newcomers. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 652–671.
Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Develop-
mental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492.
Vanhala, S., & Tuomi, K. (2006). HRM, company performance and employee well-being. International Review of Management
Studies, 17(3), 241–255.
Wang, D. H., Tong, Y., & Zhou, L. Q. (2004). Social support and subjective well-being of the elderly. Acta Psychologica Sinica,
36(1), 78–82 (in Chinese).
Wang, M., Liu, S., Liao, H., Gong, Y., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Shi, J. (2013). Can’t get it out of my mind: Employee
rumination after customer mistreatment and negative mood in the next morning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6),
989–1004.
Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(3),
193–210.
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 Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
Wersing, T. (2014). Psychological capital: A test of measurement invariance across 12 national cultures. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 21(2), 179–190.
Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the
substance use domain. In K. J. Bryant, M. Windle, & S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances
from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281–324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job
644 X. ZHENG ET AL.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizen-
ship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.
Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). Job satisfaction and psychological well-being as nonadditive predictors of workplace turn-
over. Journal of Management, 33(2), 141–160.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1997). Well-being, satisfaction and job performance: Another look at the happy/productive
worker relationship. In L. N. Dosier & J. B. Keys (Eds.), Academy of Management Proceedings (364–368). Statesboro,
GA: Office of Publications and Faculty Research Services in the College of Business Administration at Georgia Southern
University.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84–94.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2004). The role of psychological well-being in job performance: A fresh look at an age-old
quest. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 338–351.
Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating effects of employee positive well being in the relation
between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 93–104.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., & Ilies, R. (2012). Everyday working life: Explaining within-person fluctuations in employee
well-being. Human Relations, 65(9), 1051–1069.
Xie, A. G. (2011). Investigation and thinking of happiness of college students. Value Engineering, 5, 255–257 (in Chinese).
Yang, Q. (2013). Boosting happiness of the new generation of migrant workers in the new urbanization. Journal of Guangzhou
University (Social Science Edition), 12(2), 19–23 (in Chinese).

APPENDIX: EWB SCALE ( )

LWB ( )
Q1. I feel satisfied with my life.
Q2. I am close to my dream in most aspects of my life.
Q3. Most of the time, I do feel real happiness.
Q4. I am in a good life situation.
Q5. My life is very fun.
Q6. I would hardly change my current way of life in the afterlife.

WWB ( )
Q7. I am satisfied with my work responsibilities.
Q8. In general, I feel fairly satisfied with my present job.
Q9. I find real enjoyment in my work.
Q10. I can always find ways to enrich my work.
Q11. Work is a meaningful experience for me.
Q12. I feel basically satisfied with my work achievements in my
current job.

PWB ( )
Q13. I feel I have grown as a person.
Q14. I handle daily affairs well.
Q15. I generally feel good about myself, and I’m confident.

Q16. People think I am willing to give and to share my time with

others.
Q17. I am good at making flexible timetables for my work.
Q18. I love having deep conversations with family and friends so
that we can better understand each other.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 621–644 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/job