1Магистрант, Санкт-Петербургский Государственный университет
ПСИХОЛОГИЧЕСКОЕ БЛАГОПОЛУЧИЕ СОТРУДНИКОВ
Требования организаций к компетенциям сотрудников постоянно изменяются из-за постоянно изменяющих социально-экономических условий. Персонал вынужден непрерывно приспосабливаться к ним, не жертвуя при этом эффективностью работы. Тревога из-за несоответствия изменяющимся требованиям приводит к снижению уровня психологического благополучия сотрудников, а он может влиять на качество работы в целом. Цель исследования – изучить индивидуальные факторы психологического благополучия. Результаты исследования могут быть использованы для создания и коррекции системы адаптации сотрудников.
Ключевые слова: психологическое благополучие, гедонистический подход, эвдемонистический подход.
Rushchak E.A. 1
1Master student, Saint-Petersburg State University
EMPLOYEES’ PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
Requirements imposed by organisation to employees are changing all the time due to socio-economic conditions’ permanent changing. Staff has to adapt continuously to them without sacrificing the efficiency of work. Worry about discrepancy to changing requirements leads to decrease level of psychological well-being of employees, and it can have negative influence on quality of work as a whole. The purpose of the study – to study individual factors of psychological well-being. Research’s results can be used for creation and correction of system of employees’ adaptation.
Keywords: psychological well-being, hedonic approach, eudemonic approach.
Modern commercial organisations are developing and leading their activity in conditions, which are changing all the time. Such situation has influence on the requirements imposed by employers to employees. Thus, the staff has to constantly adapt to them and the personnel is compelled to work effectively in situations of uncertainty. Dismay about their own discrepancy to changing requisitions of professional activity can reduce the feeling of psychological well-being in all of life’s spheres. Consequently, the psychological well-being of the employees can be one of the indicators which allow indirectly estimate and predict activity of employees.
There is no single definition of the psychological well-being in psychological science, so that we introduce definitions of two dominating approaches: hedonic and eudemonic.
The first approach defines the psychological well-being as a state without displeasure and increasing states, bringing pleasure. As pleasure it understands physical satisfaction, positive feelings about goals achievement. Within this approach “experience of happiness” and the personality’s subjective well-being acts as the indicator of psychological well-being. [1, 3] In hedonic approach the most known modern researchers of well-being of the personality are N. M. Bradburn, E. Diner, M. Seligman, E. Galloun, R. Cummings, A. Lau, M. Argayl, R. M. Shamionov, etc.
The psychological well-being is person’s completeness of the self-realisation in certain conditions and in specific circumstances, the capacity to develop their own identity and to comply the demands of the social environment. Such definition suggests eudemonic approach.
Eudemonic approach is considering vital difficulties, crisis life situations as a basis for increase of level of the personality’s well-being. It is achieved through a better understanding of life and personal’s own goals. In the approach K. Ryff developed six-factors model of psychological well-being, her model is based on research by M. Yagoda.  Russian scientists studying well-being of the personality within eudemonic approach are A.A. Kronik, R. A Akhmerov, A.V. Voronina, A.E.Sozontov, T.D. Shevelenkova, P.P. Fesenko, Buchatskaya M. V., Shiryaeva O. S., etc.
The purpose of our research consisted in investigation individual factors of psychological well-being.
In research 177 employees from commercial organisations took part.
Results of research are below.
Fig.1 – Mean of psychological well-being of the respondents who have and not having children
There is statistically significant difference in the level of psychological well-being (p≤0,05) among respondents with and without children (fig.1). According with this data, we can say that respondents who have children possess higher level of psychological well-being than respondents who not having children. Thus, those who have children tend to be more positive to their lives, to feel fuller sense of satisfaction with life and, by that occurs round them, they find it easier to cope with daily activities, and to find a balance between self-expression and social conformity requirements, keeping save their outlook. It is possible to add that their lives are more purposeful, than those who have no children.
Fig.2 – Mean of psychological well-being of the married and unmarried respondents
Also, we received statistically significant difference in the level of psychological well-being (p≤0,01) among married and unmarried respondents (fig.2). So married respondents realize fuller their potential in certain conditions given them by environment than unmarried respondents. In addition to this they can easier come up to a society’s standard. At the same time married respondents are more satisfied with achievement their goals, they higher appreciate level of their realization all of elements of psychological well-being. They like their lives in the past and present as distinct from unmarried respondents.
- Bradburn, N.M. The structure of psychological well-being /N.M. Bradburn. – Chicago.: Aldine publishing company, 1969 – 319 p.
- Ryff, C. The structure of psychological well-being revisited / C. Ryff // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. – 1995. – № 4. – Vol. 69. – p. 719 -727
- Созонтов А. Е. Гедонистический и эвдемонистический подходы к проблеме психологического благополучия / А. Е. Созонтов // Вопросы психологии. –2006. – № 4. – с. 105 -114
- Голубева, Н. М. К проблеме дифференциации понятий психологического и субъективного благополучия личности / Н. М. Голубева // Известия саратовского университета им. Н. Г. Чернышевского. Новая серия. Акмеология образования. Психология развития. – 2010. – № 3. – Т. 3. – с. 36 – 42