Authors : Foh Wah John-Loh

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4vezks4a

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25jun504

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Workplace well-being has gained momentum in contemporary occupational research for its effect on employee engagement, mental health, and organizational productivity. While multiple theoretical frameworks may be found in the literature, there is a dearth of comparative analyses of these in terms of their ability to predict occupational outcomes. This study attempts to assess five prominent models of well-being: Hedonic, Eudaimonic, Social Well-Being, the JD-R Theory, and PERMA-based accomplishments with respect to their relative predictive strengths for employee engagement, stress reduction, and satisfaction at work. A quantitative comparative research design was adopted, using secondary datasets from the Digital Well-being Lab, Swinburne University (2023), WHO Workplace Well-being Report (2024), Ministry of Manpower, Singapore (2024), and Department of Statistics Malaysia (2024). A total of 250 employees participated in the study: 125 employees from Singapore and 125 from Johor, Malaysia, belonging to four major sectors of technology, finance, education, and healthcare. Stratified sampling was done in such a way that all regions and industries had proportional representation. Statistical techniques including regression analysis, ANOVA, and Pearson correlation were employed to assess the influence of each model on specific workplace well-being indicators. The findings revealed that the PERMA model and JD- R theory consistently demonstrated the strongest predictive power for positive outcomes such as employee satisfaction, engagement, and resilience. In contrast, the hedonic model showed limited utility beyond short-term stress relief, lacking sustained predictive effectiveness. These results contribute both theoretically and practically by offering empirical evidence that can guide human resource managers, safety practitioners, and corporate wellness policymakers in the development and deployment of targeted well-being interventions across industries.

Keywords : Occupational Well-Being, Hedonic Model, Eudaimonic Model, Social Well-Being, Jd-R Theory, Perma Model, Quantitative Analysis, Employee Engagement, Occupational Stress, Southeast Asia, Workplace Resilience.

References :

1. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115J.
2. Chuah, S., Ho, C., & Chow, K. (2018). Digital fatigue and workplace well-being: A comparative study of urban and suburban employees. International Journal of Occupational Health, 24(2), 145–159.
3. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The Job Demands-Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
4. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
5. Donaldson, S. I., Dollwet, M., & Rao, M. A. (2020). Positive workplace psychology interventions: A systematic review and future research agenda. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 192. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00192
6. González-Mulé, E., & Kim, M. (2023). Stressor-appraisal coping framework: A meta-analytic test of the JD-R model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000991
7. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
8. Kern, M. L., Waters, L. E., Adler, A., & White, M. A. (2014). Measuring well-being in students: A psychometric validation of the PERMA framework. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(3), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936962
9. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787065
10. Keyes, C. L. M., & Haidt, J. (2003). Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. American Psychological Association.
11. Newman, A., Wang, D., & Miao, Q. (2020). The impact of remote work and digital collaboration on workplace well-being during COVID-19. Human Resource Management Review, 30(4), 100799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100799
12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
13. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
14. Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources model: Implications for improving work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.872758
15. Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
16. Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678
17. Wu, T., Chan, C., & Tan, Z. (2022). Digital well-being and remote work: Coping strategies during post-pandemic transitions. Occupational Health Science, 6(2), 175–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-022-00114-8