Annual Reviews, 2015

arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Review in Advance first posted online

on January 22, 2015. (Changes may
still occur before final publication
online and in print.)
Dynamics of Well-Being
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
Sabine Sonnentag
Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, D-68131 Mannheim, Germany;
email: sonnentag@uni-mannheim.de
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.

2:17.117.33
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior is online at
orgpsych.annualreviews.org
This articles doi:
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111347
Copyright 2015 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved
Keywords
strain, affect, burnout, change, longitudinal research,
intraindividual variability
Abstract
Well-being refers to a persons hedonic experience of feeling good and
to the eudaimonic experience of fulfillment and purpose. Employee
well-being is influenced by experiences at work and, in turn, has an
effect on task performance and other on-the-job behaviors. In this
article, I describe well-being as a dynamic construct that changes over
time and fluctuates within a person. I review and integrate longitudinal, experience-sampling, and related research on well-being change
and variability. I address the role of job stressors, job resources, the
interpersonal and organizational environment, personal resources,
the workhome interface, and performance. I discuss questions of
affect symmetry, homology of the between-person and within-person
level, and reciprocity between well-being and other variables. The
article concludes with suggestions for future research.
17.1
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
INTRODUCTION
Well-being (i.e., feeling good and/or experiencing fulfillment and purpose) is a desirable state
for many individuals and is increasingly targeted by organizations and societies (Costanza
et al. 2014, Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller 2011). Accordingly, research has tried to identify
individual factors that contribute to well-being, often focusing on the question of what
differentiates people with a high level of well-being from those with a lower level. However,
although individual dispositions influence individual well-being (Friedman & Kern 2014),
this approach focusing only on individual differences neglects the dynamic nature of wellbeing.
Well-being is not stable: It fluctuates within shorter periods of time (e.g., days and weeks), and
it can increase or decrease over longer periods of time (e.g., months and years). In this article, I
focus on these dynamic aspects of well-being by discussing longer-term changes as well as shorterterm fluctuations and linking these changes and fluctuations to a persons experiences and
behaviors at work. Specifically, I look at job-related factors (job stressors, job resources, interpersonal factors), personal resources, and factors at the workhome interface as potential
predictors of changes and fluctuations in well-being. Furthermore, I examine how well-being
relates to changes and fluctuations in performance.
I approach the empirical literature in a way that allows drawing conclusions about three important aspects of well-being dynamism: affect symmetry, homology, and reciprocity. First, the
idea of affect symmetry is rooted in the observation that positive and negative affect are linked to
two fundamentally different biobehavioral systems. Reactions to positive events and experiences
are reflected mainly in positive affective states and reactions to negative events and experiences are
reflected mainly in negative affective states (Thoreson et al. 2003, Watson et al. 1999). I therefore
describe positively and negatively valenced predictors in their relationship to positive and negative
well-being indicators. Second, the discussion of homology refers to the question of whether
relationships between constructs are similar across different levels of analysis (Chen et al. 2005).
Specifically, when looking at the dynamism of well-being, we need to understand whether variables that stimulate longer-term changes in well-being are also important for explaining shorterterm fluctuations in well-being, and vice versa (Dalal et al. 2014). Accordingly, I cover both
between-person and within-person processes. Third, not only might factors that are usually
discussed as predictors of employee well-being (e.g., job stressors) cause changes and fluctuations
in well-being, but well-being might also contribute to changes or fluctuations in these factors,
pointing to potentially reciprocal processes. Consequently, I address potential reverse processes in
this article.
This article is organized into seven sections. In the next section, The Concept of Well-Being,
I begin by presenting the well-being concept, describing conceptualizations of work-related
well-being, and discussing approaches to the study of well-being dynamics. In the subsequent
main sections of this article, I review empirical research, largely focusing on studies published
after the year 2000. Figure 1 shows the overall organizing framework. Specifically, in BetweenPerson Differences in Well-Being Change over Time, I describe change processes over time by
examining predictors of changes in well-being and by discussing how well-being, in turn,
predicts changes in performance. In addition, I address possible reverse processes. In WithinPerson Variability, I turn to within-person fluctuations in well-being and describe factors that
predict this within-person fluctuation and how this fluctuation predicts fluctuations in performance. Again, I present potential reverse processes. In the last two main sections, I integrate
the empirical findings and discuss directions for future research. In the final section, I present
a conclusion.
17.2
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Job stressors
Job resources
Interpersonal factors
Personal resources
Change in
well-being
Performance
Fluctuation of
well-being
Workhome interface
Figure 1
An organizing framework of the dynamics of well-being.
THE WELL-BEING CONCEPT

Conceptualizations of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being
Well-being is a broad concept that refers to peoples evaluations of their lives and to their optimal
psychological functioning and experience (Ryan & Deci 2001, p. 142). Research on well-being
follows two distinct perspectives that are grounded in different philosophical traditions and
worldviews. The first perspective adopts a hedonic view and focuses on well-being as pleasure or
happiness. This perspective is referred to as subjective well-being and comprises as core components the experience of positive affect, the experience of low levels of negative affect, and high
levels of life satisfaction (Diener 2000). The second perspective adopts an eudaimonic view that
regards well-being as (a) personal growth and self-realization, (b) authenticity and personal
expressiveness, and (c) the pursuit of meaning in life (Ryff 1995, Waterman 1993). Thus, whereas
hedonic well-being is conceptualized mainly as a subjective experience of feeling good, eudaimonic
well-being refers mainly to living a good and meaningful life. Some authors regard intrinsic
motivation as an aspect of eudaimonic well-being (Ryan et al. 2008), making it difficult to define
clear conceptual boundaries of the eudaimonic well-being concept. It is important to keep in mind
that the core of the well-being conceptas also used in this articleis the subjective experience of
feeling good and/or feeling authentic and meaningful in ones life. Well-being may result from
perceptions of positive features in ones own self, ones (working) life, and ones action in the
world, and it may contribute to these perceptions as well as to motivational and action processes;
but importantly, well-being is conceptually distinct from these perceptions, motivations, and
actions.
Work-Related Well-Being
Organizational research covers both hedonic and eudaimonic conceptualizations of well-being.
Many scholars emphasize the hedonic perspective, thereby focusing on affective and psychosomatic well-being (Fisher 2010, Nixon et al. 2011). Despite the dominance of the hedonic perspective, organizational research incorporates eudaimonic aspects of well-being as well, for
instance when addressing meaning at work (Rosso et al. 2010) or growth (Sonenshein et al. 2013).
When focusing on affective well-being, organizational research builds partly on the circumplex
model of affect (Russell 1980). This model describes affective experiences in a two-dimensional
structure comprising pleasure (i.e., affect valence) and activation (i.e., arousal). Moreover, organizational research on affective well-being strives to understand and predict specific symptoms
www.annualreviews.org
17.3
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
of (un)well-being. Burnout as one specific configuration of symptoms has received substantial

attention in the organizational literature. Maslach et al. (2001) described emotional exhaustion,
cynicism, and reduced personal accomplishment as core burnout dimensions. Other burnout
concepts have been proposed, including exhaustion and disengagement (Demerouti et al. 2001)
and physical fatigue and cognitive weariness (Shirom & Melamed 2006).
During the past 1015 years, researchers have increasingly addressed positive aspects of
work-related well-being, such as work engagement and thriving. Work engagement refers to the
physical, cognitive, and emotional process by which employees bring in. . . their personal selves
during work role performances (Kahn 1990, p. 694). Several conceptualizations have been
discussed, most of them centering around different aspects (May et al. 2004, Maslach & Leiter
2008, Rich et al. 2010, Schaufeli & Bakker 2004), including effort and intensity (physical aspect),
attention and absorption (cognitive aspect), and enthusiasm and energy (emotional aspect). For
instance, in their widely used conceptualization, Schaufeli & Bakker (2004) proposed that work
engagement comprises three core components: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Spreitzer et al.
(2005) introduced thriving at work as another concept of positive well-being that incorporates
both a hedonic and eudaimonic view. Thriving encompasses the joint sense of vitality and learning.
Vitality means to feel energetic and alive, whereas learning refers to the experience of acquiring and
applying new knowledge and skills. Work engagement and thriving as positive well-being concepts
seem to be closely related to motivational and behavioral processes. Conceptually, however, they
emphasize the experience of energy, dedication, absorption, and growthas opposed to actual
behaviors.
arop2Sonnentag
Well-Being as a Dynamic Concept

Well-being can change over time and also fluctuates within weeks, days, or even hours. To reflect
these different aspects of nonstability in psychological concepts, life-span developmental psychology has differentiated between intraindividual change and intraindividual variability (Nesselroade 1991, Ram & Gerstorf 2009)a differentiation that is also useful for describing the
dynamics of well-being in organizational contexts. In its original sense, intraindividual change
refers to more or less enduring changes that are construed as developmental by virtue of the
nature of their antecedents, their consequences, and their correlates (Nesselroade 1991, p. 215).
Consequently, from a life-span perspective, intraindividual change captures developmental
change occurring in the context of maturation and aging. In a broader sense, it can be understood
as a more general time-dependent process occurring over months or years. Within research practice,
most scholars capture intraindividual change by analyzing between-person differences in change.
Intraindividual variability refers to relatively short-term changes that are construed as more
or less reversible and that occur more rapidly than the intraindividual changes (Nesselroade
1991, p. 215). A meta-analysis by Shockley et al. (2012) illustrates that this intraindividual
variability in work-related affect is substantial: 39.5% of the total variance in positive affect and
53.17% of the total variance in negative affect were found to be attributable to within-person
variation (i.e., variability between days in most of the studies included in the meta-analysis).
BETWEEN-PERSON DIFFERENCES IN WELL-BEING CHANGE OVER TIME

A persons well-being can change over time. For instance, age shows a curvilinear relationship with
work-related well-being (Warr 1992, Zacher et al. 2014): Well-being decreases from early
adulthood until midlife and then increases again. Within the organizational socialization process,
well-being can also undergo changes, with a noticeable decline in positive and an increase in
17.4
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
negative states over the first few months after organizational entry (Dunford et al. 2012, KammeyerMueller et al. 2013).
Importantly, well-being changes not only as a function of age or tenure, but also as a reaction to
the task and social environment that the employee is exposed to over longer periods of time.
Therefore, organizational research has examined factors in employees job environments, along
with personal resources and nonwork processes, as predictors of changes in work-related wellbeing over time. These changes, along with reverse processes, are described in this section. In
addition, this section discusses how well-being might predict changes in performance.
Predictors of Changes in Well-Being over Time

The question of what predicts a change in a persons well-being over time has received a lot
of research attention. By looking at job-related factors (job stressors, job resources, and the
interpersonal environment), personal resources, and employees workhome interfaces, studies
identified factors that predict changes in positive (e.g., work engagement) as well as negative wellbeing indicators (e.g., exhaustion, psychosomatic complaints).
Job stressors. Job stressors are features of the work situation that potentially elicit physiological
and psychological strain reactions (Kahn & Byosiere 1992). Such stressors can have a predominantly challenging nature (e.g., job demands, workload, responsibilities) or they can predominantly hinder task accomplishment (e.g., hassles, constraints, role ambiguity) (LePine et al.
2005). Literally hundreds of studies have addressed the question of whether job stressors relate to
well-being. Over the years, more and more studies have used longitudinal research designs that
offer the possibility to examine how job stressors are related to changes in well-being over time.
Most studies addressed negative well-being indicators. More recently, however, researchers have
also examined how job stressors may be related to changes in positive well-being indicators.
With respect to changes in positive well-being indicators, job stressors do not matter much.
Most studies did not find any evidence for a lagged relationship between job stressors and changes
in overall work engagement (Mauno et al. 2007, Tims et al. 2013). Only a few studies reported that
work engagement decreases over time when employees experience a high level of job stressors
(Hakanen et al. 2008b, Sonnentag et al. 2010). The overall pattern of findings suggests that
employees can uphold work engagement under demanding circumstances.
The picture looks different for negative well-being indicators: When employees face a high level
of job stressors, strain symptoms increase over time. Sonnentag & Frese (2012) summarized
empirical evidence from 70 longitudinal studies on job stressors and predominantly negative wellbeing indicators (e.g., emotional exhaustion, psychological distress). The majority of these studies
found both positive relationships between job stressors assessed at time 1 and an increase in
negative well-being indicators from time 1 to time 2. In a meta-analysis, Ford et al. (2014) pursued
a similar goal and analyzed lagged relationships between job stressors and indicators of psychological and physical strain. They found a significant lagged relationship between stressors
assessed at time 1 and strain assessed at time 2, controlling for time-1 strain, which indicates that
strain increases after exposure to job stressors. Effect sizes were relatively small for exhaustion and
fatigue, but larger for symptoms such as anxiety, irritation, and tension. In terms of temporal
patterns, this meta-analysis suggests that lagged effect sizes increase within time lags up to two to
three years; beyond that, lagged effect sizes decline. Another meta-analysis that focused on
musculoskeletal symptoms as a negative well-being indicator found that high job demands and
highly monotonous work were associated with an increase in musculoskeletal problems (e.g.,
lower back symptoms) over time (Lang et al. 2012). Although most studies on job stressors and
17.5
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
negative well-being indicators focused on perceptions of stressors, there is also evidence that job
stressors as assessed by external observers predict changes in strain symptoms (Leitner & Resch
2005).
Research on job stressors and eudaimonic well-being is limited. Clausen & Borg (2010)
identified work pace and emotional demands as predictors of an increase, and role ambiguity as
predictor of decrease, in meaning at work over time. These findings point to an interesting tradeoff between negative well-being indicators and eudaimonic well-being: Some types of stressors
contribute to an increase of strain symptoms while also increasing the experience of meaning.
It might even be that the experience of meaning makes highly demanding jobs bearablebut
nevertheless, these jobs may cause exhaustion over time.
Job resources. Job resources are physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the
job that help to either achieve work goals, reduce job demands and the associated physiological
and psychological costs, or stimulate personal growth, learning, and development (Bakker et al.
2014, p. 392). Typical job resources are autonomy (i.e., job control), feedback, and task variety, as
well as opportunities for learning and development.
With respect to positive well-being indicators, research has shown that perceptions of job
resourcesparticularly autonomypredict an increase in work engagement over time (De Lange
et al. 2008, Hakanen et al. 2008a, Xanthopoulou et al. 2009a; cf. Kinnunen & Feldt 2013).
Findings are a bit less consistent for negative well-being indicators. In some studies, job resources
predicted a decrease in strain symptoms such as exhaustion (Akkermans et al. 2013, Hakanen et al.
2008b), depression (Holman & Wall 2002) or musculoskeletal symptoms (Lang et al. 2012).
Other studies, however, failed to find any association between job resources and changes in
negative well-being indicators (De Lange et al. 2004, Xie et al. 2008) or found changes with respect
to some resources, but not others (Leiter et al. 2013).
Overall, autonomy and other job resources are linked to positive changes in well-being over
time. These changes are reflected more in an increase in work engagement and other positive wellbeing indicators than in a decrease in negative indicators. One reason for this pattern of findings
could be that job resources in themselves are experienced as something positive, resulting in
feelings of energy and positive affect; job resources, however, might not always be fully effective in
removing job stressors, thereby leaving the strain level unaffected.
The interpersonal environment. Studies have examined how interpersonal factors predict
changes in well-being over time, addressing social support, negative social interactions, and
leadership processes as possible predictors. Studies focusing on social support have resulted in
mixed findings. Although cross-sectional research has demonstrated that social support is related
to well-being (Halbesleben 2006), social support seems not always to be powerful enough to
predict changes in well-being. For instance, social support predicted an increase in work engagement for some measurement waves and some subsamples, but not for others (Biggs et al. 2014,
Brough et al. 2013, Weigl et al. 2010). Several studies addressing negative well-being indicators
found that a lack of social support at work is associated with an increase in negative well-being
indicators over time (Halbesleben & Buckley 2006, ter Doest & de Jonge 2006), whereas others
suggest that social support is not associated with any change in strain symptoms (Brough et al.
2013, Diestel & Schmidt 2012). Meta-analytical evidence also remains inconclusive (Lang et al.
2012).
Social supports effectiveness in changing well-being seems to depend on specific contingencies:
Looking at reciprocity processes, Nahum-Shani et al. (2011) found an association between received social support and a decrease of depressive symptoms and somatic complaints over time
17.6
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
when exchange was perceived to be reciprocal. Westman et al. (2011) showed that social support
as well as cohesiveness in a team can backfire: In teams with high team-level exhaustion, social
support and cohesiveness predicted an increase in individual exhaustion over time, probably
because the interpersonal closeness of team members facilitated a crossover of exhaustion from
one team member to another. Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2013) reported an interesting finding on
social support during the socialization processes of organizational newcomers. The intercept of
supervisor and coworker support, as well as the slope of supervisor support, predicted well-being
over time, suggesting that not only the level of social support but also its perceived trajectory
matter.
Relatively little attention has been paid to the question of how negative interaction processes (e.
g., interpersonal conflicts) predict changes in well-being over time. A notable exception is a study
by Hoobler et al. (2010) that found that experiencing workplace aggression is linked to an increase
in poor mental health over time. Similarly, Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2013) reported that social
undermining from coworkers negatively relates to well-being over time.
Longitudinal studies addressing the association between leadership and well-being mostly
found synchronous relationships between positive leadership behaviors and well-being, but
leadership did not predict changes in well-being over time, neither for positive (Nielsen et al. 2008)
nor for negative well-being indicators (Van Dierendonck et al. 2004). An exception is a study by
Theorell et al. (2012) that followed a large Swedish sample over several years. This study found
that self-centered, nonparticipative leadership predicted an increase in subordinates depressive
symptoms over time.
Overall, findings for the interpersonal environment remain inconclusive, possibly because
researchers have examined different concepts and used different time lags. As discussed with respect to social support, contingencies might play a crucial role: The interplay among various
features of the interpersonal environment and the influence of personality factors are probably
highly complex and may not be uniform over time.
Personal resources. Well-being might be influenced not only by job resources, but also by personal resources (i.e., individual factors that help one to master the environment and to achieve
ones goals; Xanthopoulou et al. 2009a). When looking at positive well-being indicators, most
studies found that factors such as self-efficacy, optimism, organization-based self-esteem, and
active coping predicted an increase in work engagement over time (Simbula et al. 2011, Weigl et al.
2010; cf. Mauno et al. 2007). With respect to negative well-being outcomes, findings are less
consistent (Gonzles-Morales et al. 2010).
The workhome interface. Experiences at the interface between work and home contribute to
changes in well-being over time. Research has paid particular attention to conflicts between work
and family life (i.e., experienced interference between work and family; Greenhaus & Beutell
1985) and to recovery processes. With respect to positive well-being indicators, there is some
evidence that conflicting demands from work and family are related to a decrease in well-being
over time (Grant-Vallone & Donaldson 2001). With respect to negative well-being indicators,
a recent meta-analyses based on longitudinal studies showed that both work-to-family conflict
(i.e., work interfering with family) and family-to-work conflict (i.e., family interfering with work)
were related to an increase in strain symptoms over time (Nohe et al. 2015). Matthews et al. (2014),
however, reported that work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict predicted an increase
in well-being, when taking into account concurrent levels of work-to-family conflict and family-towork conflict. This finding suggests that over time, employees may adjust to conflicts between
different life domains. Hammer et al. (2005) have shown that not only ones own but particularly
17.7
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
ones spouses experiences at the workfamily interface are relevant for changes in depression
over time.
Research on recovery processes suggests that psychological detachment from work during
nonwork time predicts a decrease in exhaustion and buffers the relationship between high job
demands and psychosomatic complaints (Sonnentag et al. 2010). Worry and rumination during
respite periods predict an increase of exhaustion and anxiety over time (Flaxman et al. 2012).
However, beneficial effects of recovery on well-being were not evident in all studies (Kinnunen &
Feldt 2013).
Well-Being as a Predictor of Changes in Performance

The belief that happy workers are more productive is widespread (Wright & Cropanzano 2007).
Although most research on the association between well-being and performance is cross-sectional,
some studies have addressed the question of whether well-being predicts changes in task performance, extrarole performance, and other indicators over time.
Task performance. With respect to positive well-being indicators, Binnewies et al. (2009) showed
that feelings of recovery during leisure time predict an increase in self-rated job performance over
a period of 6 months. Akkermans et al. (2013) reported that dedicationone aspect of work
engagementpredicted an increase in self-rated task performance over time; by contrast, emotional exhaustion predicted a decrease in self-rated task performance over time. Similarly, Shi et al.
(2013) reported that poor emotional health predicted a decrease in self-rated performance over
a 12-month period.
Extrarole performance: organizational citizenship behavior and proactive behavior. Positive
well-being indicators are related to an increase in extrarole behaviors over time. For instance,
Hakanen et al. (2008a) found that work engagement predicted an increase in personal initiative,
one specific aspect of proactive behavior. Bindl et al. (2012, study 2) reported that a change in
activated positive affect over time was positively related to a change in proactive goal regulation
over time. In a study by Simbula & Guglielmi (2013), work engagement predicted changes in
teachers organizational citizenship behavior over the course of a school year (however, for
nonsignificant findings, see Binnewies et al. 2009).
When it comes to negative well-being indicators, findings are less clear. Mental health problems
(e.g., feeling constantly under strain) did not predict changes in organizational citizenship behavior in Simbula & Guglielmis (2013) study. Addressing proactive behavior, Bindl et al. (2012)
even found that an increase in low-activated negative affect (i.e., feeling depressed) over time was
related to an increase in envisioning as one component of proactive behavior.
Other indicators. Wright et al. (2002) examined whether well-being can predict a composite performance score capturing work facilitation, goal emphasis, and team building. They found that a
measure comprising both positive and negative well-being indicators predicted an increase in performance over a 2-year period. Moreover, negative well-being indicators such as burnout and poor
emotional health are related to an increase in absence over time (Shi et al. 2013, Ybema et al. 2010).
Reverse Processes
Although most longitudinal studies examining well-being have focused on factors that predict
changes in well-being over time, the reverse causal process also has received research attention.
17.8
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Studies have examined whether an employees current well-being predicts changes in job stressors,
job resources, the interpersonal environment, personal resources, and experiences at the work
home interface, with the great majority of studies looking at perceptions of stressors, resources,
and other environmental factors. Moreover, studies have tested whether performance predicts
changes in well-being over time. Figure 1 illustrates these reverse processes.
Well-being as a predictor of changes in job stressors. De Lange et al. (2005) suggested that a
reverse process between well-being and changes in job stressors and other work characteristics
might operate via a rosy-perception mechanism (in people with good well-being), a gloomyperception mechanism (in people with poor well-being), an upward-selection mechanism (in
people with good well-being), and a drift toward a less favorable workplace (in people with poor
well-being). But empirically, there is no evidence that positive well-being indicators such as work
engagement predict changes in job stressors over time (Hakanen et al. 2008b, Kinnunen & Feldt
2013). The picture looks different for negative well-being indicators. In the abovementioned metaanalysis, Ford et al. (2014) found significant lagged relationships between psychological and
physical strain indicators, on one hand, and job stressors, on the other, with increasing effect sizes
as the time lag between the measurement points increased. Effect sizes, however, were relatively
small.
Well-being as a predictor of changes in job resources. Work engagement as a positive well-being
indicator has been shown to predict increases in autonomy, learning opportunities, and other job
resources (Hakanen et al. 2008a, Reis et al. 2015, Xanthopoulou et al. 2009a), although findings
have not always been consistent across all measurement waves (Biggs et al. 2014, Weigl et al.
2010). Major mediating pathways to such increases in job resources include promotions to more
resourceful jobs (De Lange et al. 2008) and job-crafting efforts in which employees expand the
scope of their existing jobs (Lu et al. 2014). Negative well-being indicators do not predict change in
job resources (De Lange et al. 2004, Hakanen et al. 2008b, Schaufeli et al. 2009). It seems that it is
the specific positive and energetic feature of work engagement that stimulates employees to achieve
more job resources or to arrive at a better appreciation of their existing job resources.
Well-being as a predictor of changes in the interpersonal work environment. There is some
albeit not unequivocalevidence that work engagement predicts an increase in positive work
relationships (Weigl et al. 2010) and social support (Biggs et al. 2014) over time. Interestingly, De
Lange et al. (2008) reported that work engagement was related to an increase in social support for
employees who stayed at their workplace over time, but to a decrease in social support for
employees who moved to another organization. These findings suggest that the potential benefits
of well-being are not uniform for everyone. Career decisions and specific context variables may
influence whether and how employees use their well-being as a resource that helps in gaining other
resources.
In contrast to the predictive power of work engagement, negative well-being indicators do not
predict change in social support over time (Houkes et al. 2003, ter Doest & de Jonge 2006).
However, across three samples, Lang et al. (2011) found that depressive symptoms were related
to a decrease in justice perceptions over time.
Well-being as a predictor of changes in personal resources. Work engagement predicts a change in
personal resources over time. Specifically, when work engagement is high, efficacy beliefs, optimism, and active coping increase over time (Reis et al. 2015, Weigl et al. 2010, Xanthopoulou et al.
17.9
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
2009a). Feeling energetic probably helps employees to see themselves and their lives in a positive
light, which in turn triggers a more active approach toward demands.
Well-being as a predictor of changes at the workhome interface. Well-being predicts changes in
employees views of their workhome interfaces. For instance, Daniel & Sonnentag (2014) found
that work engagement predicted an increase in work-to-family enrichment over time, with affective and cognitive pathways as the underlying mediating mechanisms. Meta-analytical evidence
suggests that strain symptoms predict an increase in workfamily conflict over time (Nohe et al.
2015).
Performance as a predictor of changes in well-being. Most organizational research has regarded

performance as an outcome variable. However, performance can also be seen as a predictor of
changes in well-being. For instance, Akkermans et al. (2013) have shown that self-rated performance predicts an increase in dedication and a decrease in emotional exhaustion over time.
Relatedly, Hakanen et al. (2008a) found that personal initiative predicts an increase in work
engagement over time.
Conclusion. Taken together, studies testing reverse causal relationships reported that positive
well-being indicators, particularly work engagement, predict more positive perceptions of job
resources, social relationships, personal resources, and the workfamily interface. Negative wellbeing indicators seem to be largely irrelevant for these positive changes over time. However,
negative well-being tends to predict an increase in perceived job stressors and workfamily conflict.
Self-rated performance can contribute to better well-being over time. Overall, these findings
question the view that a persons well-being is simply the result of environmental influences and
personal resources. Well-being also has the potential to shape (perceptions of) the environment and
personal resources.
WITHIN-PERSON VARIABILITY
Well-being fluctuates within a person. Most studies addressing this within-person variability have
used an experience-sampling or daily-survey approach and looked at day-to-day fluctuations,
but some research has also examined fluctuations within shorter (i.e., within-day) and longer
(i.e., week-to-week) time intervals.
Predictors of Intraindividual Variability of Well-Being

Variability of well-being does not reflect arbitrary fluctuations but is systematically linked to
events and experiences that employees encounter at work and in their nonwork lives. Studies have
investigated potential predictors of this within-person variability of well-being, looking at job
stressors, job resources, interpersonal factors, personal resources, and regulatory processes, as
well as factors at the workhome interface.
Job stressors. Stressors have often been examined as potential causes of fluctuations in well-being.
Typically, studies have examined whether well-being deteriorates when employees face more job
stressors than usual on a specific day. Overall, positive well-being suffers on days when employees
experience a high level of job stressors (Harris & Daniels 2007, Hoppmann & Klumb 2012).
Because of their energizing potential, challenge stressors such as workload and time pressure,
17.10
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
however, seem to boost work engagement (Sonnentag et al. 2012, Garrick et al. 2014) and attentiveness (Rodell & Judge 2009).
Negative indicators of well-being become elevated on highly stressful days. For instance, on
days when employees have to deal with hindrance stressors, they experience high levels of activated negative affect (Rodell & Judge 2009, Zohar et al. 2003). But on days when facing challenge
stressors, employees typically experience a higher level of activated negative affect during work
(Ilies et al. 2007, Rodell & Judge 2009), at the end of the workday (Story & Repetti 2006, Zohar
et al. 2003), and after work (Ilies et al. 2007). Similarly, fatigue and exhaustion tend to increase as
a reaction to stressors (Garrick et al. 2014, Gross et al. 2011, Kammeyer-Mueller et al. 2009).
Findings on associations between stressors and physical or physiological indicators of poor wellbeing are mixed (Bono et al. 2013, Harris & Daniels 2007, Ilies et al. 2010).
Specific factors moderate the day-level relationship between job stressors and negative wellbeing indicators. For instance, positive events (Bono et al. 2013, Gross et al. 2011); more stable
job features, such as autonomy, perceived organizational support, and psychological safety climate
(Garrick et al. 2014, Ilies et al. 2010); and individual-difference variables, such as emotional
stability (Kammeyer-Mueller et al. 2009) and the use of self-regulatory strategies (Schmitt et al.
2012), all buffer the association between job stressors and negative well-being indicators.
Employees beliefs that stressors increase negative affect (Daniels et al. 2006) as well as chronic
social stressors (Gross et al. 2011), however, intensify the associations.
In summary, there is rather consistent evidence that when employees experience a higher level
of stressors than they usually do, negative well-being indicators increase, particularly when the
employees lack positive experiences or resources that could help to counteract the negative impact
of the elevated stressor level. It is noteworthy that challenge stressors can increase both positive
and negative activated states. There seems to be a fine line between a challenge stressors potential
to trigger positively toned work engagement and its potential to elicit negatively toned anxiety and
anger. The intensity and duration of the stressor, as well as job and personal resources, may
influence whether challenge stressors stimulate engagement or lead to negative arousal.
Until recently, eudaimonic well-being had received little attention in research on job stressors.
In a week-level study, Bakker & Sanz-Vergel (2013) found that the experience of flourishing is
lower when work pressure is high.
Job resources and other task features. Autonomy and other task features predict fluctuations
in well-being and are particularly important in boosting positive well-being indicators. Studies
have shown that day-level autonomy predicts day-level work engagement (Petrou et al. 2012,
Xanthopoulou et al. 2009b) and day-level positive emotions (Xanthopoulou et al. 2012).
Moreover, when experiencing task importance, task confidence, and goal enhancing events (e.g.,
having had the opportunity to perform a challenging task) during the working day, employees
enjoy elevated levels of positive affective states later on the day (Fisher et al. 2013, Zohar et al.
2003). Autonomy and other positive task features have rarely been examined in relation to
negative well-being indicators, and findings remain inconclusive (Fisher et al. 2013, Gabriel et al.
2014, Vandercammen et al. 2014).
The interpersonal environment. Interpersonal factors play an important role in fluctuations in
well-being. Research has looked specifically at social support (and other positive features of the
social environment), social conflicts, and leadership processes. Social support from coworkers
predicts fluctuations in positive well-being indicators. On days when employees receive more
social support from their coworkers than they usually do, they report higher levels of work
engagement and mental health (Simbula 2010, Xanthopoulou et al. 2008). Likewise, when
17.11
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
experiencing a positive team climate (e.g., a good team spirit) and more positive social interactions,
employees have higher levels of work engagement and positive affect (Dimotakis et al. 2011,
Khnel et al. 2012, Xanthopoulou et al. 2012). Findings on the role of social support for negative
well-being indicators are less consistent (Dimotakis et al. 2011, Ilies et al. 2011, Totterdell et al.
2006), suggesting that although social support, a positive team climate, and positive social
interactions boost positive states, they are less powerful in alleviating negative states.
Negative interpersonal experiences such as workplace conflicts tend to be related to negative
well-being indicators (Ilies et al. 2011), at least under certain circumstances. Specific conflict
features and a persons general level of well-being play a crucial role in determining whether
workplace conflicts translate into day-specific impairments of well-being. Relationship conflicts
(i.e., disagreements about personal issues) in particular, but not task conflicts (i.e., disagreements
about how to achieve work goals), predict negative states (Meier et al. 2013). Moreover, employees with a high level of chronic depressive symptoms are more vulnerable than usual when
facing interpersonal conflicts at work (Meier et al. 2014).
Leadership processes are influential in explaining employee well-being. Research has provided
some evidence that interactions with leadersas opposed to social interactions with other people
at workcan dampen employee well-being (Bono et al. 2007). In addition, interaction quality is
relevant for employee well-being. For instance, on days when supervisors show more transformational leadership behaviors, employees experience a higher level of work engagement
(Breevaart et al. 2014, Tims et al. 2011). In their week-level study, Bakker & Bal (2010) identified
positive exchange with the supervisor as a positive predictor of work engagement in the same week,
but not in the next week, suggesting that the impact of these positive exchanges is relatively short
lived. With respect to negative well-being indicators, negative supervisory behaviors in particular
(e.g., a low level of interpersonal justice, abusive supervision) play a role (Judge et al. 2006b,
Wheeler et al. 2013).
Overall, the majority of studies have identified positive features of social interaction, such as
social support, team climate, interaction positivity, and positively toned leadership behaviors, as
significant predictors of positive well-being indicators. Evidence on the relevance (or lack thereof)
of social support for negative indicators is mixed. Negatively toned leadership behaviors and interpersonal conflicts tend to predict negative states; particularly with respect to conflicts, however,
specific personal characteristics and situational features play a moderating role.
arop2Sonnentag
Personal resources and regulatory processes. Personal resources, as well as how employees regulate their emotions and how they cope with demanding situations, are important for day-specific
well-being. For instance, day-specific levels of self-efficacy, organization-based self-esteem, and
optimism predict day-level work engagement (Xanthopoulou et al. 2008, 2009b).
Emotion regulation in the context of emotional labor (e.g., in customer-service jobs) is closely
linked to employee day-specific well-being: Surface acting (i.e., adjusting the display of ones
emotion according to the jobs requirements) is associated with a decline in day-specific work
engagement, but not necessarily with a decline in positive affect (Judge et al. 2009, Schreurs et al.
2014, Scott & Barnes 2011). Deep acting (i.e., modifying ones felt emotions so that they are in line
with the jobs requirements) is positively related to work engagement and positive affect (Schreurs
et al. 2014, Scott & Barnes 2011), particularly for extraverted employees (Judge et al. 2009).
Surface acting and suppressing negative emotions are related to negative affect, emotional
exhaustion, and fatigue (Beal et al. 2013, Hlsheger et al. 2013, Wagner et al. 2014), particularly
in employees with high levels of chronic exhaustion (Trougakos et al. 2015). Deep acting, however,
is unrelated to negative states (Schreurs et al. 2014, Wagner et al. 2014), or even predicts low levels
of negative affect in introverted employees (Judge et al. 2009). Thus, it seems that surface acting in
17.12
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
particular contributes to an increase in negative well-being indicators, whereas the empirical

evidence for deep acting is more mixed.
In a series of studies, Daniels et al. (2008, 2009) examined how coping efforts are related to
subsequent affective states. Their research provides some evidence that enacting control as well as
eliciting social support can contribute to an increase in positive states. With respect to negative
affective states, findings are mixed, pointing to rather complex patterns of relationships between
coping efforts and changes in negative affect.
Taken together, not only factors rooted in the job environment but also personal resources and
regulatory processes predict fluctuations in well-being. For positive well-being states, personal
resources and deep acting are particularly relevant, whereas for negative indicators, surface acting
is the most powerful predictor.
The workhome interface. Employees nonwork lives can impact their well-being at work. Specifically, affective experiences in the home domain can spill over into the work domain, impacting
affect on the job (Heller & Watson 2005). For instance, positive mood experienced at home predicts
positive mood at work, and negative mood experienced at home predicts negative mood at work
(Song et al. 2008).
In addition, unwinding and recuperation processes at home relate to subsequent well-being at
work. When employees feel well recovered before the start of the working day, they experience
a higher level of work engagement during the day (Sonnentag 2003, Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker
2012), whereas morning depletion (e.g., feeling drained) is negatively related to work engagement
during the day (Lanaj et al. 2014). Moreover, sleep matters for both positive and negative wellbeing indicators (Scott & Judge 2006).
Conflicts between work and family life impede well-being. For instance, on days when employees feel that family demands are interfering with their work, they experience elevated levels of
guilt and hostility at work (Judge et al. 2006a). Moreover, interferences between work and family
can be reflected in physiological indicators of poor well-being (i.e., heart rate and blood pressure),
particularly when family-supportive supervision is low (Shockley & Allen 2013).
Well-being as a Predictor of Intraindividual Variability in Performance

When it comes to potential consequences of within-person fluctuations of well-being, studies have
looked at task motivation and task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, proactive
work behavior, creative behavior, and counterproductive work behavior.
Task motivation and task performance. Studies that have examined positive well-being indicators suggest that when persons feel better than they usually do they spend more effort on their tasks
(Foo et al. 2009, Seo et al. 2010) and achieve a higher level of task performance (Seo & Ilies 2009,
Zelenski et al. 2008). In an attempt to disentangle the process of how affect influences job
performance in a service setting, Rothbard & Wilk (2011) examined the relationship between
start-of-workday affect, perceptions of work events, and performance indicators throughout the
day. Data from all-center employees showed that morning positive affect predicted perceived
customer positive affective display and positive affect subsequent to interaction events with
customers, suggesting that morning positive affect enables favorable perception processes that in
turn trigger positive affect. Positive affect predicted verbal fluency during the subsequent calls of
the call-center agents.
Research on work engagement has provided some evidence that experiencing vigor, dedication, and absorption at work is associated with performance benefits. For instance, work
17.13
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
engagement throughout the working day was associated with objective performance in a fast-food
restaurant setting (Xanthopoulou et al. 2009b). Likewise, teachers who felt high levels of work
engagement throughout the week reported higher levels of job performance during the same week
(Bakker & Bal 2010). Miner & Glomb (2010) tested how pleasant affect (i.e., hedonic tone as a
specific combination of items capturing positive and negative affect with high scores indicating
a dominance of positive affect over negative affect) relates to the performance of call-center
employees. Their analysis showed that call time was shorter (indicating better performance)
when employees experienced pleasant affect; pleasant affect, however, was unrelated to selfrated service quality.
When it comes to negative well-being indicators as predictors, performance seems to suffer
when negative affect (Seo & Ilies 2009) and exhaustion (Halbesleben & Wheeler 2011) are high;
results for effort, however, are less consistent, and negative affect may even trigger more effort (Foo
et al. 2009), which is a finding that can be explained by the mood-as-information framework
(Schwarz & Clore 1983). According to this framework, negative affect signals to the person that
not everything in the environment is going well. Therefore, the person may want to address the
problematic situation by exerting more effort. Little is known about how eudaimonic well-being
may affect performance-related processes. Using the thriving framework (Spreitzer et al. 2005),
Niessen et al. (2012) found that on days when employees perceived positive meaning at work, they
experienced a higher task focus and showed more exploratory behavior (i.e., more information
search) than on days when they perceived their work to be less meaningful. Taken together, high
positive and low negative affective states as well as eudaimonic well-being seem to be important for
performance. Interestingly, high levels of negative affect can stimulate effort expenditure; this
effort, however, does not necessarily translate always into high levels of performance.
arop2Sonnentag
Organizational citizenship behaviors. Within-person variability of well-being predicts organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Positive affective states in particular are related to high levels
of OCB in general (Ilies et al. 2006, Spence et al. 2011) and to OCB specifically directed toward the
supervisor, toward coworkers, and toward the organization (Spence et al. 2014).
It seems that a short time lag between an assessment of well-being and the OCB plays a role in
finding a relationship between positive affect and OCB. For instance, in a study by Glomb et al.
(2011), positive affective states at one measurement occasion did not predict altruism or courtesy
at the next measurement occasion (cf. Dalal et al. 2009). Moreover, personality factors play a role:
Ilies et al. (2006) reported that the relationship between positive affect and OCB was stronger when
agreeableness was low. Conway et al. (2009) found that momentary positive affect predicted
helping behavior when altruism was low, but not when it was high. These findings suggest that
for employees who are generally more inclined to show OCB (i.e., highly agreeable and highly
altruistic persons), positive affect does not matter so much; but for employees less inclined to show
OCB, positive affect is needed for this behavior to occur.
Studies that included negative affective states as predictors of OCB paint a mixed picture.
Negative activated affect was unrelated to OCB in most of the studies (Dalal et al. 2009, Spence
et al. 2011). Halbesleben & Wheeler (2011) suggested that the underlying processes are different
for deactivated negative states. These authors argued that when employees are exhausted, they
deliberately engage in OCB toward fellow coworkers (but not in in-role performance or OCB
directed toward the organization) because they hope that these coworkers will reciprocate their
efforts. Empirical data from two daily-survey studies supported this hypothesis. Taken together,
the majority of studies examining positive well-being indicators support the view that positive
states predict OCB; for negative indicators, the evidence is less consistent, and a differentiation
between activated and deactivated states seems important.
17.14
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Proactive work behavior. Individual fluctuations in well-being are relevant for proactive work
behaviorsthat is, work behaviors that aim at bringing about change in the work environment
(Parker & Collins 2010). Several studies suggest that within-person fluctuations of positive wellbeing indicators such as positive affect (Fritz & Sonnentag 2009, Fay & Sonnentag 2012) and
work engagement (Sonnentag 2003) predict proactive work behaviors. Bissing-Olson et al. (2013)
looked at proenvironmental behavior as a specific type of proactivity. Their study showed that,
overall, neither day-specific activated nor day-specific deactivated positive affect predicted
proenvironmental proactive behavior. However, for employees who had a less positive proenvironmental attitude, day-specific activated positive affect predicted proenvironmental
behavior. This result mirrors the findings on OCB reported above: Positive affect seems to be
particularly helpful in stimulating certain behaviors in people who are less inclined to show such
behaviors.
Within-person fluctuations in negative affect did not turn out to be a predictor of proactive
work behavior (Bissing-Olson et al. 2013, Fay & Sonnentag 2012). Taken together, this pattern of
findings supports the conceptual model proposed by Parker et al. (2010) that emphasizes the role
of feeling energized in a positive way as a core pathway to proactive behavior.
Creative behavior. Well-being can be beneficial for creativity at work (i.e., the generation of novel
and useful ideas; Amabile 1988). In a pioneering study, Amabile et al. (2005) collected daily
narrative reports of affect and creative thought from 222 employees over several weeks. Their
analysis showed that self-rated and coder-rated positive affect predicted creative thought on the
same and on the next day. Based on a study with interior architects, Binnewies & Wrnlein (2011)
reported that morning positive affect predicted creativity throughout the day. When differentiating between activating and nonactivating positive affect, To et al. (2012) found that activating
positive affect in particular is positively related to creative process engagement. Examining weekly
fluctuations in affect, Madrid et al. (2014) replicated this finding for innovative work behavior
(i.e., having ideas, mobilizing support for innovative ideas, transforming ideas into applications).
Thus, high positive arousal is essential for creative and innovative behavior.
Bledow et al. (2013) examined the dynamic interplay of negative and positive affect in the
prediction of day-specific creativity. Based on an affective-shift model, they argued that creativity
will benefit from an episode of negative affect, when this episode is followed by a decrease in
negative affect and an increase in positive affect. Experience-sampling data supported this assumption and showed a significant interaction effect of a decrease in negative affect from morning
to afternoon and an increase in positive affect from morning to afternoon on day-level creativity
(assessed in the afternoon). Importantly, positive affect in the morning and in the afternoon
showed (marginally) significant main effects on creativity as well.
Taken together, fluctuations in positive well-being indicators are important for creativity,
particularly when the affective state reflects high arousal. With respect to fluctuations in negative
affect, a specific combination with subsequent positive affect seems to be crucial (Bledow et al.
2013).
Counterproductive work behavior. Studies have examined how fluctuations in well-being are
related to counterproductive work behavior (CWB), such as abuse of others, sabotage, theft, and
withdrawal. For positive well-being indicators, findings are inconsistent: Whereas some studies
did not find an association between positive affect and CWB (Judge et al. 2006b, Scott & Barnes
2011), others reported negative associations, at least for some of the performance indicators (Dalal
et al. 2009, study 2; Ferris et al. 2012).
17.15
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
The picture is more coherent with respect to negative well-being indicators. Discrete negative
affective states such as day-specific hostility, anger, and anxiety are related to deviant work behavior on this specific day (Judge et al. 2006b, Rodell & Judge 2009). Also, broader measures of
negative affect predicted CWB in some of the studies (Dalal et al. 2009, study 2; Scott & Barnes
2011), but not in others (Ferris et al. 2012, Judge et al. 2006b). Personality factors are possibly
relevant here, with conscientiousness and agreeableness attenuating the association between negative emotions and CWB (Yang & Diefendorff 2009).
A series of studies have focused specifically on work withdrawal (i.e., doing something other
than ones work task while being on the job) as one aspect of CWB (Miner et al. 2005, Miner &
Glomb 2010). In these studies, pleasant affect was positively related to concurrent work withdrawal. Miner and coworkers (2005) argued that withdrawal might serve as a mood-maintenance
or as a mood-repair mechanism. In line with the mood-repair argument, Miner & Glomb (2010)
reported that an employees tendency to cognitively regulate his or her mood attenuated the
relationship between pleasant affect and work withdrawal, suggesting that employees who use
other mood-regulation strategies do not need to engage in work withdrawal in order to improve
their well-being.
Overall, fluctuations in negative affective states are stronger predictors of CWB than fluctuations in positive affective states are. It seems that the propensity to engage in CWB is particularly
high on days when employees experience discrete negative emotions such as hostility, anger, and
anxiety. In addition, the findings on work withdrawal demonstrate that the effects of fluctuations
in well-being are not uniform for all types of CWB.
arop2Sonnentag
Reverse Processes
Not only does well-being as a result of job stressors and other fluctuating factors in the workenvironment, the person, or the nonwork domain; fluctuations in well-being can also stimulate
fluctuations in work-related and nonwork variables.
Well-being as a predictor of fluctuations in work-related variables. In contrast to the extensive
research on job stressors, job resources, and other task features as predictors of within-person
variability of well-being, there are only a few studies examining whether within-person variability of well-being predicts these job-related features. One reason for this paucity of research
might be that substantial changes in job stressors, job resources, and other task features cannot be
expected within the short time frames usually covered in within-person studies. However, there
might be jobs in which employees have the discretion to choose among several tasks, contingent on
their momentary well-being. For instance, they might choose to work on the most challenging
tasks when they feel particularly energetic. Moreover, momentary well-being might have a large
impact on the perception of job stressors, job resources, and other task features (Rothbard & Wilk
2011). Finally, momentary states might stimulate employees to bring about changes in their job
environment (Parker et al. 2010)a process by which within-person variability of well-being can
influence job stressors and other features of the work environment.
First studies show that well-being indeed predicts within-person fluctuations of workrelated variables such as (perceptions of) job resources (Bakker & Bal 2010), personjob fit
perceptions (Gabriel et al. 2014), personal resources (Xanthopoulou et al. 2012), and coping
behavior (Daniels et al. 2013). Because the number of studies is still small, it would be premature to draw any conclusions about differences between positive and negative well-being
indicators.
17.16
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Well-being as a predictor of fluctuations in nonwork variables. In addition to studies that examine nonwork variables as predictors of fluctuations of work-related well-being, there is also
evidence for the reverse process: With respect to positive well-being, Judge & Ilies (2004) reported
that positive affect experienced at work predicts positive affect at home, but not negative affect
at home. Other studies replicated the positive association between positive affect at work and
subsequent positive affect at home (Ilies et al. 2007, Song et al. 2008, Sonnentag & Binnewies
2013). Moderator analyses suggest that the relationship between positive well-being experienced
at work and positive states at home is particularly strong when employees have a propensity to
experience positive affect (Judge & Ilies 2004), when they focus on the positive (Culbertson et al.
2012), and when they refrain from mentally segmenting between work and nonwork life
(Sonnentag & Binnewies 2013).
Mirroring the findings of positive well-being indicators, negative affective states experienced at
work are related to negative affective states at home (Judge & Ilies 2004, Ilies et al. 2007, Song et al.
2008). Trait negative affectivity (Judge & Ilies 2004) and variables related to the way employees
manage their worklife interface influence the association between well-being at work and home.
The spillover of negative well-being from work to home is particularly strong when employees
have a strong work orientation and have no clear boundaries between the two life domains (Ilies
et al. 2009, Song et al. 2008).
Focusing on eudaimonic well-being, Culbertson et al. (2010) found that on days when
employees experienced a high level of purpose, growth, and environmental mastery at work, they
enjoyed a better mood and a higher level of life satisfaction at home. In a study on firefighters and
rescue workers, Sonnentag & Grant (2012) found that after workdays when workers had experienced prosocial impact, they engaged more in positive reflection about their work and experienced higher levels of positive affect at home. Interestingly, positive affect at the end of the
workday was not elevated after highly impactful days, suggesting a delayed effect of this eudaimonic
experience. Although empirical evidence on the effects of day-specific eudaimonic well-being is still
limited, these first studies suggest that eudaimonic experiences at work are reflected in better wellbeing at home.
Performance as a predictor of changes in well-being. Performance and goal-related processes
predict fluctuations in well-being at work. Specifically, studies found that objective performance (Seo & Ilies 2009) as well as perceived performance (Fisher & Noble 2004) and taskaccomplishment satisfaction (Gabriel et al. 2011) predict positive affective states. In addition, the
experience of making progress toward ones work goals (Harris et al. 2003, Hoppmann & Klumb
2012, Scott et al. 2010) and extrarole behaviors (e.g., altruistic and courtesy behaviors; Glomb
et al. 2011) are predictors of positive affective states. Looking at thriving as an aspect of
eudaimonic well-being, Niessen et al. (2012) found that on days when employees strongly focused
on their tasks, they experienced a higher level of vitality and learning than on days when their task
focus was weak.
Findings for negative affect are less conclusive. Some studies found that poor performance,
dissatisfaction with task accomplishment, and lack of goal progress predict negative affect (Fisher &
Noble 2004, Gabriel et al. 2011, Hoppmann & Klumb 2012), whereas others did not (Scott et al.
2010, Seo & Ilies 2009). Glomb et al. (2011) even found that courtesy behaviors were associated with
an increase in negative affect.
Taken together, performing well and experiencing progress toward ones goal are associated with a boost in positive affective states. Negative affect decreases in some instances, but
not in all.
17.17
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
SYNOPSIS OF EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
To examine the affect symmetry, homology, and reciprocity in well-being dynamics, the evidence
from empirical studies is summarized in Table 1. The columns refer to the well-being aspects
discussed in this article: change versus variability, well-being as an outcome versus a predictor, and
positive versus negative well-being indicators. The rows in the upper part of the table display the
aggregated evidence for positive factors (job resources, positive aspects of the interpersonal environment, personal resources, and positive aspects of the work-home interface), the rows in the
middle part show the aggregated evidence for negative factors (job stressors, negative aspects of the
interpersonal environment and of the work-home interface), and the rows in the lower part show
the aggregated evidence for positive and negative performance indicators. For some cells of this
table, empirical evidence is still limited and does not provide enough information for a reliable
analysis.
Affect Symmetry
Affect symmetry refers to the idea that positive factors in a persons work and nonwork life are
linked to positive well-being indicators and that negative factors are linked to negative well-being
indicators, with no asymmetric links between positive factors and negative well-being indicators
and vice versa. To examine whether affect symmetry exists in well-being dynamics, columns 1 and
2, columns 3 and 4, and columns 5 and 6 have to be compared. When looking at predictors of
change in well-being (columns 1 and 2), there is some weak evidence for affect symmetry (indicated
with a white triangle, 4): Job stressors tend to predict negative but not positive well-being
indicators, and job as well as personal resources tend to predict positive well-being indicators; the
evidence for negative indicators is more mixed.
When it comes to the prediction of within-person variability of well-being (columns 3 and 4),
the pattern is clearer. Job resources, positive aspects of the interpersonal environment, personal
resources, and positive aspects of the workhome interface predict (or tend to predict) variability
in positive well-being indicators, and job stressors, negative interpersonal factors, and negative
aspects of the work-home interface tend to predict negative well-being indicators. For asymmetric
relationships, evidence is mostly mixed.
For well-being as a predictor of change in job-related and workhome interface variables
(columns 5 and 6), the pattern of findings supports the idea of affect symmetry: Positive well-being
indicators predict (or tend to predict) positive factors, but not job stressors as a negative factor.
Negative well-being indicators, however, tend to predict negative, but not positive factors.
With respect to the link between well-being and performance, the overall pattern is in line with
affect symmetry: Positive well-being indicators tend to predict positive performance indicators
(task performance, OCB, proactive behavior, creativity), whereas negative well-being indicators
tend to predict negative performance indicators (i.e., CWB). For asymmetric patterns, evidence is
more mixed.
Taken together, with respect to the symmetric links, the evidence tends to support affect
symmetry, although there are deviations from this symmetry in individual studies. Interestingly,
the findings regarding asymmetric links are mostly mixed, meaning that in some studies positively
toned predictors are unrelated to negative well-being indicators (speaking for affect symmetry),
but in others, they are negatively related to the negative well-being indicators (speaking against
affect symmetry). It is possible that job and personal resources as well as positive workhome
experiences not only foster positive well-being but enable people to offset the negative strain
process as well.
17.18
Sonnentag
Workhome interface:
negative aspects
(NO)
4d
YES
MIXED
Interpersonal environment:
negative aspects
Job stressors
Workhome interface:
positive aspects
Personal resources
Interpersonal environment:
positive aspects
4d
4d
YES
4d
(YES)
4
MIXED
4d
YES
(YES)
4d
(YES)
Negative factors
(YES)
MIXED
MIXED
MIXED
YES
4d
(YES)
(YES)
4d
YES
indicators
Negative
well-being
Positive factors
indicators
Positive
well-being
(YES)
MIXED
MIXED
MIXED
indicators
indicators
(YES)
Negative
well-being
Positive
well-being
NO
4d
YES
4
YES
(YES)
4d
(YES)
indicators
Positive
well-being
4d
YES
4
(YES)
(NO)
NO
indicators
Negative
well-being
Well-being as a predictor of
change
d
YES
d
YES
indicators
Positive
well-being
(Continued )
d
(YES)
indicators
Negative
well-being
Well-Being as Predictor of
Within-Person Variability
14 January 2015
Job resources
Variable
Predicting within-person
variability in well-being
ARI
Predicting change in well-being
Table 1 Synopsis of empirical findings1
arop2Sonnentag
17:46
17.19
17.20
Negative performance
indicators
4
YES
MIXED
4d
(YES)
well-being
indicators
Positive
4d
YES
MIXED
well-being
indicators
Negative
Well-being as a predictor of
change
MIXED
well-being
indicators
Positive
well-being
indicators
Negative
Well-Being as Predictor of
Within-Person Variability
Columns 1 through 4 summarize the empirical evidence of how job factors, personal factors, and performance indicators predict change and within-person variability in well-being. Columns 5
through 8 summarize the empirical evidence of how well-being predicts change and within-person variability in job factors, personal factors, and performance indicators.
Abbreviations: 4, evidence for affect symmetry; d, evidence for homology; , evidence for reciprocal processes; , not enough studies to draw conclusions; MIXED, evidence is mixed; (NO), overall
no evidence, but some exceptions; NO, no evidence; YES, strong evidence; (YES), overall evidence, but some exceptions.
Negative
well-being
indicators
Performance
well-being
indicators
Positive
Predicting within-person
variability in well-being
14 January 2015
Positive performance
indicators
Negative
well-being
indicators
Positive
well-being
indicators
Predicting change in well-being
ARI
Variable
Table 1 (Continued )
arop2Sonnentag
17:46
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Homology
Table 1 provides insights about homology, allowing, for instance, a comparison of column 1 with
3 and column 2 with 4. Overall, factors that predict change in well-being are similar to factors that
predict variability in well-being, supporting the idea of homology (indicated with a black circle, d).
Some exceptions, however, can be observed for positive aspects of the interpersonal environment,
in that the mainly supportive evidence at one level is not in line with the mixed evidence in the
corresponding analysis at the other level. Moreover, there is hardly any evidence for job stressors
predicting changes in positive well-being indicators over time, and evidence from within-person
studies is quite mixed. A closer look at the individual studies suggests that in between-person
studies, challenge stressors (like other stressors) tend to be unrelated to an increase in work
engagement over time, whereas in within-person studies, challenge stressors predict high levels
of work engagement. Thus challenge stressors operate quite differently at the within-person and
between-person levels: The energizing effect they can have within a single workday does not
translate into longer-term growth of work engagement.
For performance, it is difficult to arrive at strong conclusions about homology because the
number of studies is limited. Information that is available from studies examining well-being as
a predictor of performance change and variability supports the homology perspective: The evidence from within-person studies is very similar to the evidence from between-person studies.
Reciprocal Processes
Not only is well-being predicted from work and nonwork factors; it also predicts these factors.
Comparing column 1 with 5 and column 2 with 6 in Table 1 offers insights about what reciprocal
change processes might look like. Overall, the evidence seems to support the idea that positive
factors and positive well-being indicators are reciprocally linked and that negative factors and
negative well-being indicators are reciprocally linked (indicated in Table 1 with a star icon, ). For
instance, job resources tend to predict an increase in positive well-being indicators, and positive
well-being indicators, in turn, tend to predict an increase in job resources. Similarly, job stressors
tend to predict an increase in negative well-being indicators, and negative well-being indicators, in
turn, predict an increase in job stressors. No reciprocity seems to exist for asymmetric patterns. For
instance, job resources sometimes predict change in negative well-being indicators, but these negative
well-being indicators do not predict change in job resources; job stressors do not predict change
in positive well-being indicators, and positive well-being indicators do not predict change in job
stressors. Taken together, the reciprocal change processes over time show clear affect symmetry.
With respect to within-person processes, it would be premature to draw strong conclusions.
But from the data that are available, it seems that there are reciprocal processes between job
resources and positive well-being indicators as well as between positive (negative) aspects of the
workhome interface and positive (negative) well-being indicators.
Again, for performance, strong conclusions about reciprocity are not yet warranted. However,
available evidence suggests that particularly positive performance indicators explain within-person
variability of positive well-being indicators, and these positive well-being indicators explain withinperson variability of positive performance indicators, pointing to a mutually reinforcing process.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The research summarized in this article has shown that factors in an employees job environment,
his or her personal resources, and factors at the workhome interface are closely and mostly
17.21
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
reciprocally linked to changes and fluctuations in well-being. Despite this insight, many questions
on work-related well-being remain unanswered (see Table 2). Here, I present four key areas in
which future research effort is needed.
Study Cross-Cultural Differences

Research has shown that well-being differs between countries and cultures (Diener et al. 2003,
Fischer & Boer 2011). These differences are due not only to identifiable differences in objective
living conditions (Diener 2012), but also to differences in values associated with positive emotions
(Bastian et al. 2014). Much less is known about cultural differences in well-being dynamicsthat
is, whether, across cultures, the same factors influence well-being change and variability and wellbeing predicts performance in a uniform way.
The studies presented in this article were conducted in different cultures, with the majorities of
the samples coming from North America, Europe, and Australia. Findings from studies conducted
in Asia (e.g., Foo et al. 2009, Song et al. 2008, Yang & Diefendorff 2009) or Latin America
(Madrid et al. 2014) did not differ substantially from findings obtained in Western cultures.
However, the number of studies is too small to arrive at reliable conclusions; moreover, systematic
direct comparisons between cultures are mostly absent. Future research should therefore address
possible cross-cultural differences in well-being dynamics. Based on the observation that fit between cultural values and individual characteristics plays an important role for individual wellbeing (Diener et al. 2003), one might assume that factors that are valued within a culture are more
influential for changes and fluctuations in well-being than are less-valued factors.
Explore Dynamic Processes More Fully

Organizational research on well-being dynamics has tested relatively parsimonious models,
thereby neglecting more complex dynamic processes. For instance, most studies have looked at
longer-term change and shorter-term variability of well-being in isolation. Future research should
strive for an integration of these two lines of research. Interesting questions to be addressed include
the following: Do longer-term change trajectories have an impact on how employees react to dayspecific events? Does within-person variability of day-specific well-being predict longer-term
changes in well-being? For instance, in a process of becoming increasingly exhausted over time,
fluctuations in day-specific well-being might change and reactions to negative events might become more intense because they are perceived as more threatening.
Table 2 Perspectives for future research
Future issues
Exemplary question to be addressed
Cross-cultural issues
How do cultures differ in well-being dynamics?
More complex dynamics
How are longer-term change trajectories linked to shorter-term fluctuations of well-being?
Reciprocal processes
When and how are well-being and its potential predictors and consequences reciprocally
linked?
Dynamics of eudaimonic well-being
How are fluctuations in eudaimonic experiences at work related to long-term hedonic

well-being?
Interpersonal differences
Which personality factors intensify versus buffer well-being dynamics?
Research methodology
What are the time lags during which changes in well-being unfold?
17.22
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Studies on well-being change have focused mainly on overall change in well-being over time
and have neglected possible adaptation processes that might have occurred in between. According
to the hedonic treadmill model, people respond to life events with short-term reactions, but they
adapt to the new situation over time (Brickman et al. 1978), implying that it is unlikely to find
substantial longer-term changes in well-being. With respect to the findings of most of the change
studies presented in this article, it is unclear whether the observed change in well-being is the
net change after a partial adjustment process has occurred or it is the overall change (because no
adjustment has occurred). As meta-analytic data show, adjustment processes are not uniform
across different types of events happening in peoples lives (Luhmann et al. 2012). As a consequence, we need to develop theoretical models of adaptation processes that differentiate between
different types of job-related and nonwork factors and that specify how long such an adaptation
may take. To disentangle adaptation processes from persistent change in empirical studies, we
need frequent and well-chosen measurement occasions (Pitariu & Ployhart 2010).
A synthesis of individual studies suggests that changes and fluctuations of well-being are embedded in reciprocal processes. This element of reciprocity has also been addressed in some of the
individual studies itself, with respect to both change over time (Hakanen et al. 2008b) and withinperson fluctuation (Sonnentag et al. 2012). However, reciprocal processes might be much more
complex, occurring at different paces and being amplified versus dampened by situational and
personal factors. Moreover, we need more insights in the underlying mediating mechanisms.
Future research should shed more light on such dynamic processes in their complexity, possibly by
using computational modeling (Vancouver & Weinhardt 2012).
Address Neglected Research Topics

Although there is an increased general interest in eudaimonic well-being, the dynamics of eudaimonic well-being at work have remained largely unexplored. Little is known about the predictors
of change and within-person fluctuation in eudaimonic well-being at work. Future research could
take a closer look at the interplay between eudaimonic and hedonic well-being, both from a change
as well as a variability view. For instance, studies might examine whether a change in eudaimonic
well-being is associated with a parallel change in hedonic well-being and whether a change in eudaimonic well-being attenuates versus intensifies the impact of environmental factors on changes in
hedonic well-being.
People differ in the degree to which their affect fluctuates in daily life (Kuppens et al. 2007). For
instance, one person may carry his or her negative emotions from one moment to the next, whereas
another person may quickly change from a negative emotion to a more positive one. Such differences in emotional inertia and affective spin matter for well-being in the organizational context
(Beal et al. 2013) and may act as a powerful moderator when testing within-person fluctuations of
well-being. Thus, future studies should pay more attention to individual differences in well-being
variability.
Many studies have already included moderator variables in their analyses of well-being change
and variability. Overall, however, the use of moderator variables has not been very systematic and
seems to be driven more by immediate research questions than by an overarching theoretical
framework. In the future, researchers should develop a comprehensive model that integrates
moderator effects into well-being dynamics.
To date, research has looked at well-being dynamism mainly from an individual perspective.
However, employees working together in teams often share the experience of (un)well-being
(Collins et al. 2013, Semmer et al. 1996). Therefore, future studies should investigate how wellbeing dynamics unfold beyond the individual level.
17.23
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Improve Research Methodology

To further advance knowledge on the dynamics of well-being, it is crucial to build on strong research methods. First, study designs need more attention. Although the studies on change and
intraindividual variability presented here overcame the obvious limitations of cross-sectional designs, improvements are needed. For instance, research on change should include more than two
measurement points and should deliberately specify the time lags between these measurement
points. Research on variability should strive for more fine-grained assessments and should realize
more than one measurement point per day in order to gain more insight into the temporal order of
the underlying processes.
Second, most of the research summarized in this article has built on self-report measures that
might have inflated the empirical relations between predictor and outcome measures. Although
the specific study designs rule out some contaminations (e.g., by controlling for the initial level of
the outcome variables in the change studies and for using person-mean centered predictor scores
in the variability studies), future research would benefit from using additional types of measures,
including objective and observational data as well as reports from other sources. Moreover,
using only self-report measures obscures the mechanisms underlying well-being dynamics. For
instance, the finding that positive well-being predicts changes in perceptions of job resources
might imply that job resources actually have changed or that employees perceive more job
resources over time. Therefore, research needs to build more on measures that avoid the limitations of self-report data. Overcoming self-reports is particularly needed when it comes to
performance measures.
Third, person-centered analysis has been suggested as a fruitful approach to study processes
related to health and well-being (Wang et al. 2013). In essence, this approach aims at identifying
specific patterns of change and/or variability and relating these patterns to predictor or outcome
variables. First studies have shown the feasibility of this method in the context of work-related
well-being (Mkikangas et al. 2011), and it seems promising to develop this perspective further.
In Table 3, I present some practical implications of the empirical research on the dynamics of
well-being discussed in this review.
Table 3 Practical implications

Implications targeting changes in well-being over time
Implications addressing within-person fluctuations of well-being
To increase work engagement and positive affect over time,

provide job resources (e.g., autonomy) and enhance personal
resources (e.g., self-efficacy).
To alleviate exhaustion, psychosomatic complaints, and other
strain symptoms over time, reduce job stressors and help
employees to overcome interferences between work and family.
Encourage employees to take advantage of their work
engagement to improve job and personal resources.
Provide support and guidance for employees so that poor wellbeing does not result in higher levels of job stressors over time.
To boost work engagement and other positive states during the

workday, increase (the perception of) job resources, positive
social interactions, personal resources, deep acting as an
emotion-labor strategy, and recovery at home.
To enhance positive well-being during the workday, enable goal
progress and task performance.
To stimulate task performance, organizational citizenship
behavior, proactive and creative behavior during the
workday, foster positive affect.
To dampen exhaustion and other negative affective states
during the workday, reduce job stressors, interpersonal
conflict, and surface acting.
To reduce counterproductive work behavior, prevent and
manage negative emotions such as hostility and anger.
17.24
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
CONCLUSION
Over the past 15 years, empirical research on well-being change and fluctuation has grown substantially. Meanwhile, there is clear evidence that work-related well-being changes and fluctuates
based on the experiences employees have at work and at the workhome interface. Change and
variability in well-being, in turn, predict change and variability in performance, as well as in
perceived workplace characteristics and workhome factors. However, because the underlying
processes are probably even more complex than uncovered in past research, this research is just
a starting point for future theorizing and empirical studies on the dynamics of well-being.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Susan J. Ashford, Christine Bosch, Frederick P. Morgeson, and Anna-Sophia Pinck
for very helpful comments on an earlier draft.
LITERATURE CITED
Akkermans J, Brenninkmeijer V, Van den Bossche SNJ, Blonk RWB, Schaufeli WB. 2013. Young and going
strong? A longitudinal study on occupational health among young employees of difference educational
levels. Career Dev. Int. 18:41635
Amabile TM. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Research in Organizational
Behavior, ed. BM Staw, LL Cummings, pp. 12367 . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Amabile TM, Barsade SG, Mueller JS, Staw BM. 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Adm. Sci. Q. 50:367403
Bakker AB, Bal PM. 2010. Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among starting teachers.
J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83:189206
Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Sanz-Vergel AI. 2014. Burnout and work engagement: the JDR approach. Annu.
Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1:389411
Bakker AB, Sanz-Vergel AI. 2013. Weekly work engagement and flourishing: the role of hindrance and
challenge job demands. J. Vocat. Behav. 83:397409
Bastian B, Kuppens P, De Roover K, Diener E. 2014. Is valuing positive emotion associated with life satisfaction? Emotion 14:63945
Beal DJ, Trougakos JP, Weiss HM, Dalal RS. 2013. Affect spin and the emotional regulation process at work.
J. Appl. Psychol. 98:593605
Biggs A, Brough P, Barbour JP. 2014. Strategic alignment with organizational priorities and work engagement:
a multi-wave analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 35:30117
Bindl UK, Parker SK, Totterdell P, Hagger-Johnson G. 2012. Fuel of the self-starter: how mood relates to
proactive goal regulation. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:13450
Binnewies C, Sonnentag S, Mojza EJ. 2009. Feeling recovered and thinking about the good sides of ones work:
a longitudinal study on the benefits of non-work experiences for job performance. J. Occup. Health
Psychol. 14:24356
Binnewies C, Wrnlein S. 2011. What makes a creative day? A diary study on the interplay between affect, job
stressors, and job control. J. Organ. Behav. 32:589607
Bissing-Olson MJ, Iyer A, Fielding KS, Zacher H. 2013. Relationships between daily affect and proenvironmental behavior at work: the moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. J. Organ. Behav.
34:15675
17.25
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Bledow R, Rosing K, Frese M. 2013. A dynamic perspective on affect and creativity. Acad. Manag. J.
56:43250
Bono JE, Foldes HJ, Vinson G, Muros JP. 2007. Workplace emotions: the role of supervision and leadership.
Bono JE, Glomb TM, Shen W, Kim E, Koch AJ. 2013. Building positive resources: effects of positive events and
positive reflection on work-stress and health. Acad. Manag. J. 56:160127
Breevaart K, Bakker AB, Hetland J, Demerouti E, Olsen OK, Espevik R. 2014. Daily transactional and
transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 87:13857
Brickman P, Coates D, Janoff-Bulman R. 1978. Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative?
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 36:91727
Brough P, Timms C, Siu O, Kalliath T, ODriscoll MP, Sit CHP. 2013. Validation of the job demands-resources
model in cross-national samples: cross-sectional and longitudinal predictions of psychological strain and
work engagement. Hum. Relat. 66:131135
Chen G, Bliese PD, Mathieu JE. 2005. Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and
testing multilevel theories of homology. Organ. Res. Methods 8:375409
Clausen T, Borg V. 2010. Do positive work-related states mediate the association between psychosocial work
characteristics and turnover? A longitudinal analysis. Int. J. Stress Manag. 17:30824
Collins AL, Lawrence SA, Troth AC, Jordan PJ. 2013. Group affective tone: a review and future research
directions. J. Organ. Behav. 34:S4362
Conway JM, Rogelberg SG, Pitts VE. 2009. Workplace helping: interactive effects of personality and momentary positive affect. Hum. Perform. 22:32139
Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Giovannini E, Lovins H, McGlade J, Pickett KE. 2014. Time to leave GDP behind.
Nature 505:28385
Culbertson SS, Huffman AH, Alden-Anderson R. 2010. Leader-member exchange and work-family interactions: the mediating role of self-reported challenge and hindrance-related stress. J. Psychol. 144:1536
Culbertson SS, Mills MJ, Fullagar CJ. 2012. Work engagement and work-family facilitation: making homes
happier through positive affective spillover. Hum. Relat. 65:115577
Dalal RS, Bhave DP, Fiset J. 2014. Within-person variability in job performance: a theoretical review and
research agenda. J. Manag. 40:1396436
Dalal RS, Lam H, Weiss HM, Welch ER, Hulin CL. 2009. A within-person approach to work behavior and
performance: concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 52:105166
Daniel S, Sonnentag S. 2014. Work to non-work enrichment: the mediating roles of positive affect and positive
work reflection. Work Stress 28:4966
Daniels K, Beesley N, Cheyne A, Wimalasiri V. 2008. Coping processes linking the demands-control-support
model, affect and risky decisions at work. Hum. Relat. 61:84574
Daniels K, Beesley N, Wimalasiri V, Cheyne A. 2013. Problem solving and well-being: exploring the instrumental role of job control and social support. J. Manag. 39:101643
Daniels K, Boocock G, Blover J, Hartley R, Holland J. 2009. An experience sampling study of learning, affect,
and the demands control support model. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:100317
Daniels K, Hartley R, Travers CJ. 2006. Beliefs about stressors alter stressors impact: evidence from two
experience-sampling studies. Hum. Relat. 59:126185
De Lange AH, De Witte H, Notelaers G. 2008. Should I stay or should I go? Examining the longitudinal relation
between job resources and work engagement for stayers versus movers. Work Stress 22:20123
De Lange AH, Taris TW, Kompier MAJ, Houtman ILD, Bongers PM. 2004. The relationships between work
characteristics and mental health: examining normal, reversed and reciprocal relationships in a 4-wave
study. Work Stress 18:14966
De Lange AH, Taris TW, Kompier MAJ, Houtman ILD, Bongers PM. 2005. Different mechanisms to explain
the reversed effects of mental health on work characteristics. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 31:314
Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. 2001. Job demandsresources model of burnout.
arop2Sonnentag
17.26
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Diener E. 2000. Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am.
Psychol. 55:3443
Diener E. 2012. New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research. Am. Psychol. 67:59097
Diener E, Oishi S, Lucas RE. 2003. Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: emotional and cognitive
evaluations of life. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54:40325
Diestel S, Schmidt KH. 2012. Lagged mediator effects of self-control demands on psychological strain and
absenteeism. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 85:55678
Dimotakis N, Scott BA, Koopman J. 2011. An experience sampling investigation of workplace interactions,
affective states, and employee well-being. J. Organ. Behav. 32:57288
Dunford BB, Shipp AJ, Boss RW, Angermeier I, Boss AD. 2012. Is burnout static or dynamic? A career
transition perspective of employee burnout trajectories. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:63750
Fay D, Sonnentag S. 2012. Within-person fluctuations of proactive behavior: how affect and experienced
competence regulate work behavior. Hum. Perform. 25:7293
Ferris DL, Spence JR, Brown DJ, Heller D. 2012. Interpersonal injustice and workplace deviance: the role of
esteem threat. J. Manag. 38:1788811
Fischer R, Boer D. 2011. What is more important for national well-being: money or autonomy? A metaanalysis of well-being, burnout, and anxiety across 63 societies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 101:16484
Fisher CD. 2010. Happiness at work. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12:384412
Fisher CD, Minbashian A, Beckmann N, Wood RE. 2013. Task appraisals, emotions, and performance goal
orientation. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:36473
Fisher CD, Noble CS. 2004. A within-person examination of correlates of performance and emotions while
working. Hum. Perform. 17:14568
Flaxman PE, Mnard J, Bond FW, Kinman G. 2012. Academics experiences of a respite from work: effects
of self-critical perfectionism and perseverative cognition on postrespite well-being. J. Appl. Psychol.
97:85465
Foo M-D, Uy MA, Baron RA. 2009. How do feelings influence effort? An empirical study of entrepreneurs
affect and venture effort. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:108694
Ford MT, Matthews RA, Wooldridge JD, Mishra V, Kakar UM, Strahan SR. 2014. How do occupational
stressor-strain effects vary with time? A review and meta-analysis of the relevance of time lags in longitudinal studies. Work Stress 28:930
Friedman HS, Kern ML. 2014. Personality, well-being, and health. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65:71942
Fritz C, Sonnentag S. 2009. Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: a look at job stressors and positive
affect experienced during the workday. J. Manag. 35:95111
Gabriel AS, Diefendorff JM, Chandler MM, Moran CM, Greguras GJ. 2014. The dynamic relationships of
work affect and job satisfaction with perceptions of fit. Pers. Psychol. 67:389420
Gabriel AS, Diefendorff JM, Erickson RJ. 2011. The relations of daily task accomplishment satisfaction with
changes in affect: a multilevel study in nurses. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:1095104
Garrick A, Mak AS, Cathcart S, Winwood PC, Bakker AB, Lushington K. 2014. Psychosocial safety climate
moderating the effects of daily job demands and recovery on fatigue and work engagement. J. Occup.
Organ. Psychol. 87:694714
Glomb TM, Bhave DP, Miner AG, Wall M. 2011. Doing good, feeling good: examining the role of organizational citizenship behavior in changing mood. Pers. Psychol. 64:191223
Gonzles-Morales MG, Rodrgues I, Peir JM. 2010. A longitudinal study of coping and gender in a femaledominated occupation: predicting teachers burnout. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 15:2944
Grant-Vallone EJ, Donaldson SI. 2001. Consequences of work-family conflict on employee well-being over
time. Work Stress 15:21426
Greenhaus JH, Beutell NJ. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Acad. Manag. Rev.
10:7688
Gross S, Semmer NK, Meier LL, Klin W, Jacobshagen N, Tschan F. 2011. The effect of positive events at work
on after-work fatigue: They matter most in face of adversity. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:65464
Hakanen JJ, Perhoniemi R, Toppinen-Tammer S. 2008a. Positive gain spirals at work: from job resources to
work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. J. Vocat. Behav. 73:7891
17.27
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Hakanen JJ, Schaufeli WB, Ahola K. 2008b. The job demands-resources model: a three-year cross-lagged study
of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work Stress 22:22441
Halbesleben JRB. 2006. Sources of social support and burnout: a meta-analytic test of the conservation of
resources model. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:113445
Halbesleben JRB, Buckley MR. 2006. Social comparison and burnout: the role of relative burnout and received
social support. Anxiety Stress Coping 19:25978
Halbesleben JRB, Wheeler AR. 2011. I owe you one: coworker reciprocity as a moderator of the day-level
exhaustionperformance relationship. J. Organ. Behav. 32:60826
Hammer LB, Cullen JC, Neal MB, Sinclair RR, Shafiro MV. 2005. The longitudinal effects of work-family
conflict and positive spillover on depressive symptoms among dual-earner couples. J. Occup. Health
Psychol. 10:13854
Harris C, Daniels K. 2007. The role of appraisal-related beliefs in psychological well-being and physical
symptom reporting. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 16:40731
Harris C, Daniels K, Briner RB. 2003. A daily diary study of goals and affective well-being at work. J. Occup.
Heller D, Watson D. 2005. The dynamic spillover of satisfaction between work and marriage: the role of time
and mood. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:127379
Holman DJ, Wall TD. 2002. Work characteristics, learning-related outcomes, and strain: a test of competing
direct effects, mediated, and moderated models. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7:283301
Hoobler JM, Prospenda KM, Lemmon G, Rosa JA. 2010. A within-subject longitudinal study of the effects of
positive job experiences and generalized workplace harassment on well-being. J. Occup. Health Psychol.
15:43451
Hoppmann CA, Klumb PL. 2012. Daily management of work and family goals in employed parents. J. Vocat.
Behav. 81:19198
Houkes K, Janssen PPM, de Jonge J, Bakker AB. 2003. Specific determinants of intrinsic work motivation,
emotional exhaustion and turnover intention: a multisample longitudinal study. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol.
76:42750
Hlsheger UR, Alberts HJEM, Feinholdt A, Lang JWB. 2013. Benefits of mindfulness at work: the role
of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol.
98:31025
Ilies R, Dimotakis N, De Pater IE. 2010. Psychological and physiological reactions to high workloads:
implications for well-being. Pers. Psychol. 63:40736
Ilies R, Johnson MD, Judge TA, Keeney J. 2011. A within-individual study of interpersonal conflict as a work
stressor: dispositional and situational moderators. J. Organ. Behav. 32:4464
Ilies R, Schwind KM, Wagner DT, Johnson MD, DeRue DS, Ilgen DR. 2007. When can employees have
a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect on work-family conflict and social behavior at work.
Ilies R, Scott BA, Judge TA. 2006. The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on
intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Acad. Manage. J. 49:56175
Ilies R, Wilson KS, Wagner DT. 2009. The spillover of daily job satisfaction onto employees family lives: the
facilitating role of work-family integration. Acad. Manag. J. 52:87102
Judge TA, Ilies R. 2004. Affect and job satisfaction: a study of their relationship at work and at home. J. Appl.
Psychol. 89:66173
Judge TA, Ilies R, Scott BA. 2006a. Work-family conflict and emotions: effects at work and at home. Pers.
Psychol. 59:779814
Judge TA, Kammeyer-Mueller J. 2011. Happiness as a societal value. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 25:3041
Judge TA, Scott BA, Ilies R. 2006b. Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel model.
Judge TA, Woolf EF, Hurst C. 2009. Is emotional labor more difficult for some than for others? A multilevel,
experience-sampling study. Pers. Psychol. 62:5788
Kahn RL, Byosiere P. 1992. Stress in organizations. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. MD Dunnette, LM Hough, pp. 571650. Palo Alto, CA: Consult. Psychol.
arop2Sonnentag
17.28
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Kahn WA. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag.
J. 33:692724
Kammeyer-Mueller JD, Judge TA, Scott BA. 2009. The role of core self-evaluations in the coping process.
Kammeyer-Mueller JD, Wanberg C, Rubenstein A, Song Z. 2013. Support, undermining, and newcomer
socialization: fitting in during the first 90 days. Acad. Manag. J. 56:110424
Kinnunen U, Feldt T. 2013. Job characteristics, recovery experiences and occupational well-being: testing
cross-lagged relationships across 1 year. Stress Health 29:36982
Khnel J, Sonnentag S, Bledow R. 2012. Resources and time pressure as day-level antecedents of work engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 85:18198
Kuppens P, Van Mechelen I, Nezlek JB, Dossche D, Timmermans T. 2007. Individual differences in core affect
variability and their relationship to personality and psychological adjustment. Emotion 7:26274
Lanaj K, Johnson RE, Barnes CM. 2014. Beginning the workday yet already depleted? Consequences of latenight smartphone use and sleep. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 124:1123
Lang J, Bliese PD, Lang JWB, Adler AB. 2011. Work gets unfair for the depressed: cross-lagged relations
between organizational justice perceptions and depressive symptoms. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:60218
Lang J, Ochsmann W, Kraus T, Lang JWB. 2012. Psychosocial work stressors as antecedents of musculoskeletal problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis of stability-adjusted longitudinal studies. Soc.
Sci. Med. 75:116374
Leiter MP, Hakanen JJ, Ahola K, Toppinen-Tanner S, Koskinen A, Vnnen A. 2013. Organizational
predictors and health consequences of changes in burnout: a 12-year cohort study. J. Organ. Behav.
34:95973
Leitner K, Resch MG. 2005. Do the effects of job stressors on health persist over time? A longitudinal study with
observational stressor measures. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 10:1830
LePine JA, Podsakoff NP, LePine MA. 2005. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor
framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Acad.
Manag. J. 48:76475
Lu C, Wang H, Lu J, Du D, Bakker AB. 2014. Does work engagement increase person-job fit? The role of job
crafting and job insecurity. J. Vocat. Behav. 84:14252
Luhmann M, Hofmann W, Eid M, Lucas RE. 2012. Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: a metaanalysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 102:592615
Madrid HP, Patterson MG, Birdi KS, Leiva PI, Kausel EE. 2014. The role of weekly high-activated positive
mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: a multilevel and interactional model.
J. Organ. Behav. 35:23456
Mkikangas A, Hyvnen K, Leskinen E, Kinnunen U, Feldt T. 2011. A person-centred approach to investigate
the development trajectories of job-related affective well-being: a 10-year follow-up study. J. Occup.
Maslach C, Leiter MP. 2008. Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:498512
Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. 2001. Job burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52:397422
Matthews RA, Wayne JH, Ford MT. 2014. A work-family conflict/subjective well-being process model: a test
of competing theories of longitudinal effects. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:117387
Mauno S, Kinnunen U, Ruokolainen M. 2007. Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement:
a longitudinal study. J. Vocat. Behav. 70:14971
May DR, Gilson RL, Harter L. 2004. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability
and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 77:1137
Meier LL, Gross S, Spector PE, Semmer NK. 2013. Relationship and task conflict at work: interactive shortterm effects on angry mood and somatic complaints. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18:14456
Meier LL, Semmer NK, Gross S. 2014. The effect of conflict at work on well-being: depressive symptoms as
a vulnerability factor. Work Stress 28:3148
Miner AG, Glomb TM. 2010. State mood, task performance, and behavior at work: a within-persons approach. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 112:4357
17.29
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Miner AG, Glomb TM, Hulin C. 2005. Experience sampling mood and its correlates. J. Occup. Organ.
Psychol. 78:17193
Nahum-Shani I, Bamberger PA, Bacharach SB. 2011. Social support and employee well-being: the conditioning
effect of perceived patterns of supportive exchange. J. Health Soc. Behav. 52:12339
Nesselroade JR. 1991. The wrap and the woof of the developmental fabric. In Visions of Developments, the
Environment, and Aesthetics: The Legacy of Joachim F. Wohlwill, ed. R Downs, L Liben, D Palermo,
pp. 21340. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Nielsen K, Randall R, Yarker J, Brenner SO. 2008. The effects of transformational leadership on followers
perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study. Work Stress 22:1632
Niessen C, Sonnentag S, Sach F. 2012. Thriving at worka diary study. J. Organ. Behav. 33:46887
Nixon AE, Mazzola JJ, Bauer J, Krueger JR, Spector PE. 2011. Can work make you sick? A meta-analysis of the
relationships between job stressors and physical symptoms. Work Stress 25:122
Nohe C, Meier LL, Sonntag K, Michel A. 2015. The chicken or the egg? A meta-analysis of panel studies of the
relationship between work-family conflict and strain. J. Appl. Psychol. In press
Parker SK, Bindl UK, Strauss K. 2010. Making things happen: a model of proactive motivation. J. Manage.
36:82756
Parker SK, Collins CG. 2010. Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors.
J. Manag. 36:63362
Petrou P, Demerouti E, Peeters M, Schaufeli WB, Hetland J. 2012. Crafting a job on a daily basis: contextual
correlates and the link to work engagement. J. Organ. Behav. 33:112041
Pitariu AH, Ployhart RE. 2010. Explaining change: theorizing and testing dynamic mediated longitudinal
relationships. J. Manag. 36:40529
Ram N, Gerstorf D. 2009. Time-structured and net intraindividual variability: tools for examining the development of dynamic characteristics and processes. Psychol. Aging 24:77891
Reis D, Hoppe A, Schrder A. 2015. Reciprocal relationships between resources, work and study engagement,
and mental health: evidence for gain cycles. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 24: 5975
Rich BL, LePine JA, Crawford ER. 2010. Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad.
Manag. J. 53:61735
Rodell JB, Judge TA. 2009. Can good stressors spark bad behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in
links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. J. Appl.
Psychol. 94:143851
Rosso BD, Dekas KH, Wrzesniewski A. 2010. On the meaning of work: a theoretical integration and review.
Res. Organ. Behav. 30:91127
Rothbard NP, Wilk SL. 2011. Waking up on the right or wrong side of the bed: start-of-workday mood, work
events, employee affect, and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 54:95980
Russell JA. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 39:116178
Ryan RM, Deci EL. 2001. On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52:14166
Ryan RM, Huta V, Deci EL. 2008. Living well: a self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia.
J Happiness Stud. 9:13970
Ryff CD. 1995. Psychological well-being in adult life. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 4:99104
Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 25:293315
Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Van Rhenen W. 2009. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout,
work engagement and sickness absenteeism. J. Organ. Behav. 30:893917
Schmitt A, Zacher H, Frese M. 2012. The buffering effect of selection, optimization, and compensation strategy
use on the relationship between problem solving demands and occupational well-being: a daily diary
study. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 17:13949
Schreurs B, Guenter H, Hlsheger U, Van Emmerik H. 2014. The role of punishment and reward sensitivity in
the emotional labor process: a within-person perspective. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 19:10821
Schwarz N, Clore GL. 1983. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: informative and directive
functions of affective states. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 45:51323
arop2Sonnentag
17.30
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Scott BA, Barnes CM. 2011. A multilevel field investigation of emotional labor, affect, work withdrawal, and
gender. Acad. Manag. J. 54:11636
Scott BA, Colquitt JA, Paddock EL, Judge TA. 2010. A daily investigation of the role of manager empathy on
employee well-being. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 113:12740
Scott BA, Judge TA. 2006. Insomnia, emotions, and job satisfaction: a multilevel study. J. Manag. 32:62245
Semmer N, Zapf D, Greif S. 1996. Shared job strain: a new approach for assessing the validity of job stress
measurements. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 69:293310
Seo MG, Bartunek JM, Barrett LF. 2010. The role of affective experience in work motivation: test of
a conceptual model. J. Organ. Behav. 31:95168
Seo MG, Ilies R. 2009. The role of self-efficacy, goal, and affect in dynamic motivational self-regulation.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 109:12033
Shi Y, Sears LE, Coberley CR, Pope JE. 2013. The association between modifiable well-being risks and
productivity: a longitudinal study in pooled employer sample. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 55:35364
Shirom A, Melamed S. 2006. A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of
professionals. Int. J. Stress Manag. 13:176200
Shockley KM, Allen TD. 2013. Episodic work-family conflict, cardiovascular indicators, and social support:
an experience sampling approach. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18:26275
Shockley KM, Ispas D, Rossi ME, Levine EL. 2012. A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between
state affect, discrete emotions, and job performance. Hum. Perform. 25:377411
Simbula S. 2010. Daily fluctuations in teachers well-being: a diary study using the job demands-resources
model. Anxiety Stress Coping 23:56384
Simbula S, Guglielmi D. 2013. I am engaged, I feel good, and I go the extra-mile: reciprocal relationships
between work engagement and consequences. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 29:11725
Simbula S, Guglielmi D, Schaufeli WB. 2011. A three-wave study of job resources, self-efficacy, and work
engagement among Italian schoolteachers. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 20:285304
Sonenshein S, Dutton JE, Grant AM, Spreitzer GM, Sutcliff KM. 2013. Growing at work: employees
interpretations of progressive self-change in organizations. Organ. Sci. 24:55270
Song Z, Foo M-D, Uy MA. 2008. Mood spillover and crossover among dual-earner couples: a cell phone event
sampling study. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:44352
Sonnentag S. 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between
non-work and work. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:51828
Sonnentag S, Binnewies C. 2013. Daily affect spillover from work to home: detachment from work and sleep as
moderators. J. Vocat. Behav. 83:198208
Sonnentag S, Binnewies C, Mojza EJ. 2010. Staying well and engaged when demands are high: the role of
psychological detachment. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:96576
Sonnentag S, Frese M. 2012. Stress in organizations. In Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, ed. NW Schmitt, S Highhouse, pp. 56092. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Sonnentag S, Grant AM. 2012. Doing good at work feels good at home, but not right away: when and why
perceived prosocial impact predicts positive affect. Pers. Psychol. 65:495530
Sonnentag S, Mojza EJ, Demerouti E, Bakker AB. 2012. Reciprocal relations between recovery and work
engagement: the moderating role of job stressors. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:84253
Spence JR, Brown DJ, Keeping LM, Lian H. 2014. Helpful today, but not tomorrow? Feeling grateful as
a predictor of daily organizational citizenship behaviors. Pers. Psychol. 67:70538
Spence JR, Ferris DL, Brown DJ, Heller D. 2011. Understanding daily citizenship behaviors: a social comparison perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 32:54771
Spreitzer G, Sutcliffe K, Dutton J, Sonenshein S, Grant AM. 2005. A socially embedded model of thriving at
work. Organ. Sci. 16:53749
Story LB, Repetti R. 2006. Daily occupational stressors and marital behavior. J. Fam. Psychol. 20:690700
Ten Brummelhuis LL, Bakker AB. 2012. Staying engaged during the week: the effect of off-job activities on next
day work engagement. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 17:44555
ter Doest L, de Jonge J. 2006. Testing causal models of job characteristics and employee well-being: a replication study using cross-lagged structural equation modelling. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 79:499507
17.31
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Theorell T, Nyberg A, Leineweber C, Hanson LLM, Oxenstierna G, Westerlund H. 2012. Non-listening and
self centered leadership: relationships to socioeconomic conditions and employee mental health. PLOS
ONE 7:e44119
Thoreson CJ, Kaplan SA, Barsky AP, Warren CR, de Chermont K. 2003. The affective underpinnings of job
perceptions and attitudes: a meta-analytic review and integration. Psychol. Bull. 129:91445
Tims M, Bakker AB, Derks D. 2013. The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being.
J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18:23040
Tims M, Bakker AB, Xanthopoulou D. 2011. Do transformational leaders enhance their followers daily work
engagement. Leadersh. Q. 22:12131
To ML, Fisher CD, Ashkanasy NM, Rowe PA. 2012. Within-person relationships between mood and creativity. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:599612
Totterdell P, Wood S, Wall T. 2006. An intra-individual test of the demands-control model: a weekly diary
study of psychological strain in portfolio workers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 79:6384
Trougakos JP, Beal DJ, Cheng BH, Ivona H, Zweig D. 2015. Too drained to help: a resource depletion
perspective on daily interpersonal citizenship behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. In press
Van Dierendonck D, Haynes C, Borrill C, Stride C. 2004. Leadership behavior and subordinate well-being.
J. Occup. Health Psychol. 9:16575
Vancouver JB, Weinhardt JM. 2012. Modeling the mind and the milieu: computational modeling for microlevel organizational researchers. Organ. Res. Methods 15:60223
Vandercammen L, Hofmans J, Theuns P. 2014. The mediating role of affect in the relationship between need
satisfaction and autonomous motivation. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 87:6279
Wagner DT, Barnes CM, Scott BA. 2014. Driving it home: how workplace emotional labor harms employee
home life. Pers. Psychol. 67:487516
Wang M, Sinclair RR, Zhou L, Sears LE. 2013. Person-centered analysis: methods, applications, and implications
for occupational health psychology. In Research Methods in Occupational Health Psychology: Measurement, Design, and Data Analysis, ed. RR Sinclair, M Wang, LE Tetrick LE, pp. 349373. New York:
Routledge
Warr P. 1992. Age and occupational well-being. Psychol. Aging 7:3745
Waterman AS. 1993. Two conceptions of happiness: contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and
hedonic enjoyment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 64:67891
Watson D, Wiese D, Vaidya J, Tellegen A. 1999. The two general activation systems of affect: structural
findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
76:82038
Weigl M, Hornung S, Parker SK, Petru R, Glaser J, Angerer P. 2010. Work engagement accumulation of task,
social, and personal resources: a three-wave structural equation model. J. Vocat. Behav. 77:14053
Westman M, Roziner I, Bakker AB, Sonnentag S. 2011. Crossover of job demands and emotional exhaustion
within teams: a longitudinal multi-level study. Anxiety Stress Coping 24:56177
Wheeler RA, Halbesleben JRB, Whitman MV. 2013. The interactive effects of abusive supervision and entitlement on emotional exhaustion and co-worker abuse. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 86:47797
Wright TA, Cropanzano R. 2007. The happy/productive worker thesis revisited. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour.
Manag. 26:269307
Wright TA, Cropanzano R, Denney PL, Moline GL. 2002. When a happy worker is a productive worker:
a preliminary examination of three models. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 34:14650
Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. 2009a. Reciprocal relationships between job
resources, personal resources, and work engagement. J. Vocat. Behav. 74:23544
Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. 2009b. Work engagement and financial returns:
a diary study on the role of job and personal resources. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82:183200
Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. 2012. A diary study on the happy worker: how job
resources relate to positive emotions and personal resources. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 21:489517
Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Heuven E, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. 2008. Working in the sky: a diary study
on work engagement among flight attendants. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 13:34556
arop2Sonnentag
17.32
Sonnentag
arop2Sonnentag
ARI
14 January 2015
17:46
Xie JL, Schaubroeck J, Lam SSK. 2008. Theories of job stress and the role of traditional values: a longitudinal
study in China. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:83148
Yang J, Diefendorff JM. 2009. The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: a diary study in Hong Kong. Pers. Psychol.
62:25995
Ybema JF, Smulders PGW, Bongers PM. 2010. Antecedents and consequences of employee absenteeism:
a longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction and burnout. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol.
19:10224
Zacher H, Jimmieson NL, Bordia P. 2014. Time pressure and coworker support mediate the curvilinear
relationship between age and occupational well-being. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 19:46275
Zelenski JM, Murphy SA, Jenkins DA. 2008. The happy-productive worker thesis revisited. J. Happiness Stud.
9:52137
Zohar D, Tzischinski O, Epstein R. 2003. Effects of energy availability on immediate and delayed emotional
reactions to work events. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:108293
17.33

Annual Reviews, 2015

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Annual Reviews, 2015

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

arop2Sonnentag

Review in Advance first posted online

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.

THE WELL-BEING CONCEPT

of (un)well-being. Burnout as one specific configuration of symptoms has received substantial

Well-Being as a Dynamic Concept

BETWEEN-PERSON DIFFERENCES IN WELL-BEING CHANGE OVER TIME

Predictors of Changes in Well-Being over Time

Well-Being as a Predictor of Changes in Performance

Performance as a predictor of changes in well-being. Most organizational research has regarded

Predictors of Intraindividual Variability of Well-Being

particular contributes to an increase in negative well-being indicators, whereas the empirical

Well-being as a Predictor of Intraindividual Variability in Performance

SYNOPSIS OF EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

Predicting change in well-being

Table 1 Synopsis of empirical findings1

Predicting change in well-being

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Study Cross-Cultural Differences

Explore Dynamic Processes More Fully

Exemplary question to be addressed

How do cultures differ in well-being dynamics?

More complex dynamics

How are longer-term change trajectories linked to shorter-term fluctuations of well-being?

Dynamics of eudaimonic well-being

How are fluctuations in eudaimonic experiences at work related to long-term hedonic

Which personality factors intensify versus buffer well-being dynamics?

Address Neglected Research Topics

Improve Research Methodology

Table 3 Practical implications

Implications addressing within-person fluctuations of well-being

To increase work engagement and positive affect over time,

To boost work engagement and other positive states during the

Você também pode gostar