Job flourishing is generally defined as an individual’s positive state of mental health, and features psychological, social, and emotional well-being (Keyes, 2002). This positive organizational behavior (OB) construct has become increasingly important in work and organizational studies (Fabricio et al., 2022), and depicts an employee’s positive work experience (Luthans, 2002). Job flourishing also seems to be necessary for other desirable states (e.g., engagement; Erum et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2019), processes (e.g., proactivity behavior, knowledge sharing; Khari & Sinha, 2018; Tu et al., 2020), outcomes in the work domain (e.g., individual, team, and organizational performance; Bakker & Derks, 2010; Cameron & Dutton, 2003; Giolito et al., 2020; Redelinghuys et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2019) and in the life domain (e.g., life satisfaction, physical health, positive behavioral predisposition; Hori et al., 2019; Magnano et al., 2019; Wissing et al., 2021).

Despite these remarkable benefits, “flourishing-at-work” is still under-researched (Fabricio et al., 2022) and often misunderstood or vaguely defined by organizational psychology scholars, and managers/HR practitioners. Several reasons may explain this situation. First, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and operationalization of (job) flourishing. As a mental health construct, flourishing was originally studied in the general (life) domain and later contextualized in the work domain (Fabricio et al., 2022). In spite of being commonly viewed as a multidimensional and ultimate well-being construct (Seligman, 2011; VanderWeele, 2017), flourishing has been conceptualized in different ways comprising different components (see Table 1). Although most authors agree that flourishing should entail both hedonic (i.e., feeling good) and eudemonic (i.e., functioning effectively) components (Huppert & So, 2013; Keyes, 2002), in the life domain some authors only accounted for one of the components (e.g., Diener et al., 2010). Conversely, the flourishing-at-work conceptualization includes both components of well-being to capture a comprehensive positive psychological state (Bono et al., 2012; Rothmann, 2013). Even so, this overarching construct of well-being has not been fully understood, most likely due to its shared features with other more popular constructs such as job thriving or engagement (Bono et al., 2012; Fabricio et al., 2022; Fisher, 2014; Rothmann, 2013). This confusion has subsequently led to further disagreements on how to measure (job) flourishing.

Table 1 Conceptualizations and operationalizations of flourishing in life and at work
Full size table

Second, the concept of flourishing in work contexts has only recently blossomed, thereby calling for more robust research to advance the understanding of the work-related phenomena. In their systematic review, Fabricio et al. (2022) did not find specific studies on “flourishing at work” during their search and review process. The studies they examined were dominated by flourishing in the life domain and only a few explored the concept in the work domain. Furthermore, even though those few studies aimed to explain work-related phenomena, the authors adopted the conceptualization and measurement of flourishing in the life domain. This has become a point of concern for those scholars who aim to study job flourishing, since there are likely to be inaccuracies when trying to depict a work-related construct with its counterpart from the life domain (Fisher, 2014; Jones, 2006; Rothmann, 2013).

Lastly, even though some conceptual frameworks do address general flourishing at length (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Fredrickson, 2001), a rigorous overview of what factors may influence and be influenced by job flourishing and their dynamics, is still missing. Furthermore, the many theoretical frames used to explain the unfolding of job flourishing need more integration in our view.

Therefore, our study thoroughly explores how theoretical frameworks have guided empirical research on flourishing-at-work to enable organizational practitioners and researchers understand better how job flourishing can benefit both employees and other organizational stakeholders. Hence, the goal of this state-of-the art study was to answer the following questions: (1) What are the trends in prior job flourishing studies? (2) Which theories and variables can guide us well in the continuation of research on the antecedents and/or effects of job flourishing?

Consequently, this review aims to make three contributions to the organizational psychology/behavior literature. First, by systematically perusing current empirical studies on flourishing-at-work, we offer a rigorous synthesis of the evidence and theorizing in publications so far. Second, by integrating these results, we develop a multilevel model to shed light on the dynamics of job flourishing, including the mechanisms, processes, and variables of how it arises and unfolds. Lastly, through the propositions embedded in our model, we specify what is needed for future research on job flourishing.

The review is structured as follows. After stating how we conducted it, we present and discuss the main results followed by a plausible multilevel conceptual model with matching propositions, practical and theoretical implications as well as conclusions.

Methods

To allow future replications of this review, we provide transparency through the PRISMA protocol (Moher et al., 2009) which suggests four review steps: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of the studies. The first step was conducted between October and November 2020, then updated in June 2021 and March 2022. The key search terms were flourish*, “mental health” or “well-being”, and the validated scales used to measure flourishing (i.e., PERMA, mental health continuum). Moreover, we specified the context of the flourishing construct: work* OR job OR employee*. This same search string was used in both Web of Science and Scopus (Loon et al., 2019). Furthermore, we did not limit the search to any starting date but did limit the scholarly publication types to peer-reviewed journal articles, thereby excluding proceedings, theses, and book chapters, since they do not consistently undergo a rigorous review process. The databases yielded a total of 1202 records (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The systematic review phases based on the PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

In the screening step, we removed all duplicates (N = 331) and then checked the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the remaining 871 records. Only empirical English publications were included with flourishing as the key variable, and research whose samples consisted solely of workers, managers, or owners. We eliminated experimental studies conducted outside real-world organizations which, after removing a further 749 records, left a total of 122 records for analysis.

In the subsequent eligibility step, we read all the papers thoroughly. Our main inclusion criterion was theory-guided empirical studies in which authors explicitly drew on theoretical frameworks to develop their hypotheses/propositions. We thus dismissed studies that used theories without clearly articulating how they influenced the selection of variables/mechanisms/processes, and qualitative studies that did not express theoretical contributions. Consequently, we were left with 40 articles.

Data Analysis & Extraction

An inductive bottom-up approach was employed to identify knowledge from the papers. Following other systematic literature reviews (e.g., Feine et al., 2019; Ruhlandt, 2018), we conducted open, axial, and selective coding, based on our research questions (Gioia et al., 2013; Wolfswinkel et al., 2013). More specifically, we (1) identified theories and variables related to flourishing-at-work through open coding, (2) clustered the theories and variables with great similarities via axial coding and, (3) integrated the clusters showing common patterns into higher-level constructs or categories through selective coding. The interplay between the main theory and variable categories were then interpreted to build a dynamic model of job flourishing relationships, leading to propositions as part of a new conceptual model (Fig. 4).

Results & Discussion

To answer our research questions, we first noted the trends in the job flourishing studies (Table 2) and, second, the theories and variables used so far to explain job flourishing dynamics.

Table 2 Characteristics of the studies
Full size table

Prevailing Job Flourishing Study Trends

Cross-Sectional Studies

The first article on job flourishing was published in 2013, after which seven more studies appeared before 2019. Since then, 32 studies have been published. Perhaps due to this young legacy, most of the studies made use of cross-sectional research (72.5%) and single-level designs (97.5%) thereby possibly demonstrating common method bias and reverse causation (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Furthermore, one study examined job flourishing as an independent variable, 15 studies as a mediator, and 24 studies as a dependent variable.

Conceptual and Measurement Issues

Even though the job flourishing construct has grown over the past decade (Bono et al., 2012; Rautenbach, 2015; Rothmann, 2013), most authors still prefer the more generic conceptualization and operationalization of flourishing in the life domain (Table 1). In general, flourishing has been conceptualized to cover the hedonic (i.e., emotional) well-being such as demonstrating positive affect or happiness and life satisfaction (e.g., Seligman, 2011; VanderWeele, 2017) and the eudemonic (i.e., psychological and social) well-being such as having positive social relationships, meaningful life, and autonomy (e.g., Diener et al., 2010; Keyes, 2002). Thirty-one of the 40 studies applied three generic flourishing-in-life measures: (i) the flourishing scale (Diener et al., 2010; 27 studies); (ii) the mental health continuum (Keyes, 2005; two studies); and (iii) the PERMA profiler (Butler & Kern, 2016; three studies) – one of those studies utilized two of these generic measures. In the work context, the hedonic well-being part of flourishing is considered to constitute happiness at work and job satisfaction, while the eudemonic components comprise learning, autonomy, engagement, and self-determination (Bono et al., 2012; Rothmann, 2013). Nine studies measured job flourishing through: (i) the flourishing-at-work scale (Rautenbach, 2015; five studies) or (ii) the work-adaptation of Diener et al.’s (2010) generic flourishing scale (Mendonça et al., 2014; four studies). This variation may have led to non-accumulable findings since job flourishing, although sharing a moderate variance with flourishing-in-life, can be explained far better by a measure that is specifically focused on work-related aspects (Rothmann, 2013).

Theoretical Frameworks and Variables Explaining Job Flourishing

Theoretical Frameworks Explaining Job Flourishing

We identified 20 theoretical/conceptual frameworks that could be clustered into three main categories: (i) resources-based theories; (ii) person-job interaction theories; and (iii) other cognitive/affective-based theories (Table 3). Below, we sum up the uncovered theory-based mechanism of the set of reviewed studies.

Table 3 Theories involved in examining flourishing at work and its underlying components
Full size table

Resources-Based Theories

This category highlights the importance of resources in affecting workers’ motivation (i.e., mental health, well-being or other motivational states) and their outcomes. We extrapolated three theoretical mechanisms of how job flourishing occurs: through (i) resource expansion (i.e., conservation of resources [COR] and broaden-and-build [B&B] theories; Hobfoll et al., 2003; Fredrickson, 2001), (ii) resources interaction with demands (i.e., job demands-resources [JDR] model; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014), and (iii) resource spillover from off-work environments (i.e., work-home resources model and the spillover concept; ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012; Zedeck, 1992). The first two mechanisms are embedded in the workplace, whereas the third explains mostly the non-work dynamics through which job flourishing may (co-)develop. In our reviewed studies, this category of theories explained job flourishing with its underlying hedonic and eudemonic well-being components (e.g., Rautenbach & Rothmann, 2017a, 2017b). In addition, in some papers, resources-based theories were also used to explain other hedonic-type of well-being state such as job satisfaction (Diedericks & Rothmann, 2014), and other eudemonic-type of well-being state such as work engagement (Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013) and thriving (Imran et al., 2020).

Person-Job Interaction Theories

These theories focus on the interaction between employees and their job characteristics, which are important for inducing states of congruence and, in turn, affecting flourishing-at-work and its outcomes. The studies guided by these theories addressed three types of mechanisms propelling job flourishing: (i) meeting individuals’ needs and aspirations (i.e., self-determination theory [SDT]; path goal theory; Deci et al., 2017; House, 1996); (ii) congruence between individuals and their job environment (i.e., human values theory; person-environment fit; social and ethnolinguistic identity theory; work-family boundary and border theory; Cable & DeRue, 2002; Clark, 2000; Giles et al., 1987; Nippert-Eng, 1996; Schwartz, 1992; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), or (iii) there is an equal exchange between individuals and their job (i.e., social exchange theory; effort-reward imbalance; Blau, 1964; Siegrist, 1996). The fulfilment of any of those conditions motivates individuals at work, allowing them to flourish. In our reviewed studies, the theories under this category provided some explanation of the job flourishing construct operationalized by its hedonic and eudemonic components (e.g., Van Rensburg et al., 2017). These theories could also explain some eudemonic-type of well-being construct other than flourishing, such as work engagement (Rosales et al., 2020; Schuetz et al., 2021).

Cognitive/Affective-Based Theories

These theories explain flourishing-at-work in terms of an individual’s positive cognitive and/or affective sense-making of work experiences that consequently affect various outcomes. This category is comprised of the achievement goal orientation theory (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), transaction theory of stress (Lazzarus & Folkman, 1984), implicit theory (Dweck, 2012), the rumination concept (Cropley & Zijlstra, 2011), affective event theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), and the work frustration aggression model (Fox & Spector, 1999). Like the other theoretical categories of theories, this category of theories could also explain the concept of hedonic and eudemonic well-being as parts of job flourishing (e.g., Mohamad Ibrahim et al., 2022).

Each set of theories emphasizes a specific dynamic (i.e., motivation, congruence, cognitive/affective) of flourishing-at-work. Out of the 40 studies, 21 utilized the resources -based theory, 10 adopted the person-job interaction theories, and only three used the cognitive/affective-based theories. Moreover, eight studies employed multiple theories within one category and six utilized multiple theories across categories, thereby providing stronger arguments when explaining job flourishing. All categories of theories could be applied to offer a stronger rationale to the conceptualizations of job flourishing (i.e., both for its hedonic and eudemonic well-being components) together with its predictor and outcome variables.

Variables Related to Job Flourishing

The variables associated with job flourishing can be summarized into six types: (i) direct predictors, (ii) indirect predictors, (iii) direct moderators, (iv) indirect moderators, (v) direct outcomes, and (vi) indirect outcomes. Figure 2 illustrates and summarizes this specific evidence.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Summary of the job flourishing variables in the current literature

Full size image

Direct Predictors

Most of the fifty direct predictor variables identified in the reviewed studies were examined only once. The eight variables studied more than once (e.g., job crafting, work engagement, psychological capital, etc.) were significantly related to job flourishing. The significant negative relationships with flourishing were mostly associated with demands at work (e.g., workload pressures, etc.).

Indirect Predictors

Thirty variables were explored only once as indirect predictors. More than 30% of them were also examined as direct predictors of job flourishing in other studies. Those that were only indirect predictors included empowering leadership, ethical climate, etc. Most of the variables in the list showed positive relationships with flourishing-at-work, with only five being negatively related (e.g., work-related stress, etc.).

Direct Moderators

Ten variables were identified as moderators between some of the direct predictors and flourishing-at-work; an example is job meaningfulness.

Indirect Moderators

Two variables, curiosity and gender, affected the relationship between the indirect predictors of job flourishing.

Direct Outcomes

Of the fifteen direct outcome variables, the most frequently examined were extra-role and in-role performance, work engagement, and intention to leave the organization. The other variables were examined only once. Most of these variables had a positive outcome, although extra-role performance was non-significant in one study. Furthermore, three outcomes (e.g., intention to leave) were negatively related to flourishing-at-work.

Indirect Outcomes

As distal outcomes of flourishing-at-work, one study found counterproductive work behavior, intention to leave, and extra-role performance.

Figure 2 shows that more than 15 variables were examined as outcomes of flourishing while more than 70 variables were tested as either (in)direct predictors and/or moderators/mediators of job flourishing. Since most of the examined variables were tested only once, replications are still needed. Even though job flourishing has captivated much scholarly interest regarding the possible relationships with a wide variety of individual or work-related variables, the data also implies inconsistency in the role of some variables in explaining flourishing, with some appearing to be both direct and indirect predictors (e.g., job crafting, psychological capital, occupational calling, etc.), and moderators (i.e., meaningfulness) or were examined as the outcome of flourishing (i.e., work engagement).

Considering the roles of the variables, i.e., as predictors or outcomes of job flourishing, we inductively interpreted them based on each variable’s characteristic (i.e., its nature and context). This analysis resulted in four groups consisting of significant predictors: (i) intrinsic and personal-context variables; (ii) work-context variables; (iii) person-work emerging–state variables; and significant outcomes: (iv) health and behavioral outcomes (Table 4).

Table 4 Group of significant predictors and outcomes of job flourishing
Full size table

Intrinsic & Personal-Context Variables

This group was constructed from two sub-categories, namely individual-difference variables, involving intrapersonal variables that make a person unique (e.g., personality trait, an individual’s psychological state, etc.), and personal-context variables (e.g., family, friends, communities). Overall, this group entails personal level resources and demands that are brought to work.

Work-Context Variables

We developed this group out of two sub-groups, namely the individual-level work-context variables (e.g., job responsibility, workload), and unit-level work-context variables (e.g., leaders, co-workers, organization). A note of caution is due in the naming of the latter sub-group since the variables clustered here were mostly explored at the individual level, even though they are, by nature, higher-level variables. The work-context variables can be resourceful and/or demanding as well as have significant effects on job flourishing or as boundary conditions in the relationship between individual variables and job flourishing.

Person-Work Emerging-State Variables

This group subsumes individuals’ psychological states resulting from the interaction between intrinsic/personal-context variables and people’s experiences at work. It encompasses two sub-groups: motivational states, representing one’s motivational propensity, and congruent states, entailing attitudes reflecting the perceived compatibility between individuals and their jobs. This set of variables can also induce resources or demands for individuals at work.

Health, Behavioral, & Performance Outcomes

The reviewed studies demonstrated various outcomes, with one sub-group representing any psychological or physical conditions related to health and one sub-group representing behavioral predispositions in the work and life domains.

Table 4 shows that, in total, there were 71 significant predictors (26 intrinsic and personal-context variables, 27 work-context variables, and 18 person-work emerging states) and 13 significant outcomes. We highlight the variables that were frequently found to be predictors of job flourishing (i.e., examined more than once) and pinpoint those with a relatively strong association with job flourishing (i.e., examined more than twice) namely, psychological capital (r = .43 to .66) as an intrinsic/personal-context variable, job resources (r = .12 to .39) as a work-context variable, and job crafting (r = .16 to .49) and work engagement (r = .35 to .69) as person-work emerging states. We also highlight the most consistent health and behavioral outcomes: extra-role (r = .26 to .56) and in-role performance (r = .33 to .39), work engagement (r = .27 to .69), and intention to leave (r = −.22 to − .51).

The Interplay between the Variables and Theories in Explaining Job Flourishing

Given the many inconsistent findings and great variety of theories in our corpus, we condensed the results to identify patterns of job flourishing dynamics. Without any intention of discrediting other variables and theories used so far, but out of parsimony, we focused on those theories and variables that had shown a strong association with job flourishing. Out of our 40 studies, 22 matched this criterion (see the asterisks in Table 3). We investigated the interplay between the theoretical arguments and the variables explicating job flourishing (see Table 5 and Fig. 3).

Table 5 The interplay between the significant variables and theories in the reviewed studies
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Visualization of the dynamic relationship between the most frequently found variables associated with job flourishing and the utilized theoretical frameworks

Full size image

Table 5 shows that the most frequent predictors and outcomes of job flourishing were theoretically justified by 15 of the 20 identified theories which fall into three different categories. The intrinsic and personal-context variables (e.g., psychological capital) were explored using all three theory categories whereas the work-context variables (e.g., job resources) were only examined using the resources-based theories. Person-work emerging states (e.g., job crafting) were tested by adopting the resources-based and person-job interaction theoretical frameworks. Finally, the health and behavioral outcomes (e.g., extra-role and in-role performance) were explored using all three theory categories. The evidence obtained thus far shows that the resources-based theories have been used the most in examining predictors and outcomes of job flourishing, followed by the person-job interaction theories, while the cognitive/affective-based theories were used the least. Given this fact, it is evident that resources-based theories, compared to the other theories in the remaining two categories, could offer a more comprehensive explanation of the mechanisms/processes of job flourishing (i.e., predictors) and how it leads to various outcomes. However, some specific dynamics (e.g., individuals’ interactions with their job, intrapersonal motivation or sense-making mechanisms), could be justified even more thoroughly by the other two categories of theories. For instance, in the reviewed papers, we found limited evidence of studies applying non-resources-based theories to explain the relationships between job flourishing with work-context variables (Fig. 3). Furthermore, potential interactions between work-context variables with the intrinsic/personal-context variables were not articulated either. Yet, the explanations of such relationships could be clearly justified and supported by the person-job interaction theories as well as by the cognitive/affective theories. Hence, the examination of mainly one theoretical strand (e.g., resources-based theories) might lend an incomplete view of job flourishing. The integration of different theoretical perspectives could thus offer more comprehensive arguments about the dynamics of job flourishing.

With regard to our findings, several points are worth noting to move the literature forward. First, so far, only a few variables have been consistently reported on to explain job flourishing, mostly in relation to resources (i.e., individual-different and individual-level work-context variables, motivational states). Other variables, especially those belonging to different sub-groups (i.e., personal-context variables, unit-level variables, and congruent states) are still under-explored. Second, all categories of theories could provide some arguments about the underlying conceptualization of job flourishing (i.e., hedonic and eudemonic components) and its dynamics (i.e., represented by the sets of predictor and outcome variables). Despite the specific features of each category of theories, researchers have tended to utilize the resources-based theories, without integrating them with tenets of other theory categories, thus offering a restricted view. Finally, all the job flourishing outcome studies utilized cross-sectional, single-level designs at the individual level.

Future Agenda of Job Flourishing Research

In this section, we advance what is currently known about job flourishing for future research.

More Predictors and Outcomes

Job flourishing does not only entail affective but also behavioral and cognitive (ABC-type) elements (Wissing et al., 2021). Given its multifaceted nature, our findings show that only a handful of predicting factors and outcomes has been examined repetitively in relation to flourishing-at-work. Many other variables explaining the dynamics of job flourishing are still under-explored or in need of replication, such as the personal-context and the congruent-state variables. Indeed, individuals take personal attributes and conditions to work which might ultimately affect job flourishing and performance by influencing their “fuel” of resources (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). Similarly, emerging states at work, namely congruent states (e.g., person-environment fit) and motivational states (e.g., work engagement), need further examination. Congruent states, for example, might serve as resourceful conditions that can spark motivation due to the interaction between individuals and their jobs (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Deci et al., 2017; Schwartz, 1992). Thus, future research should examine more predictors and outcomes of job flourishing (see Table 4) which account for its multidimensional nature, and should explore the full spectrum of affective, behavioral, and cognitive aspects.

Concrete Theoretical Propositions that Integrate Frameworks

We argue that a more elaborative or comprehensive use of the manifold used theoretical frameworks is needed to justify assumptions about job flourishing relationships and dynamics. Out of the three theoretical categories identified, the category of resources-based theories was the most used, likely due to its ability to provide a fairly comprehensive rationale for the dynamics of job flourishing. Yet, each of the other two less used theories has features that may complement the resources-based theories. We now advance three generic propositions while taking a comprehensive view of job flourishing.

The Role of Resources in Affecting “Motivation”

Resources-based theories highlight the importance of “motivational” resources (i.e., various motivational states, including job flourishing; see also Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) and performance. Accordingly, when individuals have abundant resources, they are more inclined to “self-expand”, feel more motivated, and subsequently flourish (Fredrickson, 2001; Hobfoll, 2002). This motivational process may happen due to the ability of some resources to curb the harmful effects of job demands, ultimately leading to various positive outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Additionally, resources-based theories offer some unique explanations regarding the spillover of resources and demands from the life domain to the work domain and vice versa (Bakker, 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014; ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012; Zedeck, 1992), which can justify the association between job flourishing and the categories of all predictors and outcomes. Hence, we propose the following proposition:

Proposition 1:

The resourceful/demanding characteristics of intrinsic/personal-context (e.g., PsyCap) and work-context variables (e.g., job resources), and/or their interaction, may affect employee “motivation” (i.e., motivational states such as work engagement and job flourishing) and their outcomes (e.g., in-role performance); an abundance of such resources counterbalances the potential harmful effects of work-context demands (e.g., work pressure).

The Role of Emerging Congruent States in Activating “Motivation”

Even though resources-based theories emphasize the role of resources in the motivational process, they do not offer explanations for their motivational dynamics. Conversely, the person-job interaction type theories do specify such dynamics by pointing out the importance of congruence between individuals and their work. This set of theories focuses on the interplay between workers and their work environment, and the underlying interaction in affecting motivational states. Accordingly, individuals have attributes (i.e., values, abilities, expectations, needs) that fit with, or are met by, their work environment, leading to a congruent state that may activate their work motivation. Here, the work-context variables serve as the boundary conditions to prompt the feeling of congruence, triggering motivation. More specifically, congruent states may either influence job flourishing and individual outcomes directly or indirectly via motivational states (e.g., job crafting, etc.; Cable & DeRue, 2002; Deci et al., 2017; Schwartz, 1992). The benefits gained by individuals will be manifested in outcomes like their attitudinal and behavioral orientation towards the organization (Blau, 1964; Lazzarus & Folkman, 1984; Siegrist, 1996). Therefore, we highlight the specific motivational mechanism resulting from the person-job interaction, as categorized in the person-work emerging-state variables. We deduce that the congruent and motivational states can act as serial or paralel mediators between the individual’s variables and job flourishing. Hence, building also on proposition 1, we suggest the following integrative proposition:

Proposition 2:

The intrinsic/personal-context variables (e.g., PsyCap) may interact with the boundary conditions of the resourceful/demanding work-context variables (e.g., job resources) to activate “motivation” (i.e., motivational states such as work engagement and job flourishing) and outcomes (e.g., in-role performance) by triggering congruent states (e.g., person-environment fit).

The Role of Sense-Making Processes in the Dynamics of “Motivation”

The two mentioned sets of theories do not exhaustively address micro-level factors that might affect job flourishing (e.g., an individual’s mindset and goal orientation) as they do not appear to be directly associated with mental health and/or well-being. This gap is filled by the third set of theories (i.e., cognitive-and affective-based theories), which account for the intra-personal/psychological processes underpinning individuals’ experiences in the workplace. These theories can explain antecedents and outcomes of job flourishing by pointing out cognitive and affective mechanisms influencing individuals’ sense-making of their work environment. Individuals have an innate cognitive ability and affectivity to perceive and respond to any experiences during the person-job interaction process which consequently affect their attitudes towards their job (Dweck, 2012; Lazzarus & Folkman, 1984; Eid & Diener, 1999; Larsen & Diener, 1987). Moreover, what happens emotionally at work can affect individuals’ cognitive appraisals of their job and responses. The cognitive and affective sense-making of job experiences may positively influence job attitudes and flourishing towards, in turn, positive outcomes. Vice-versa, failing to maintain positive cognitive-and-affective sense-making can lead to negative outcomes (Du et al., 2018; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Therefore, combining this theoretical category’s lenses with elements of the other two theory categories, we propose that:

Proposition 3a:

The positive cognitive/affective predispositions or individual-difference variables (e.g., growth mindset) may serve as personal resources to counterbalance the potential harmful effects of work-context demands (e.g., work pressure) which affect “motivation” (i.e., motivational states such as work engagement and job flourishing), leading to relevant outcomes (e.g., in-role performance).

Proposition 3b:

The work-context variables (e.g., perceived organizational support) are important for the positive sense-making of job experiences which affect congruent states (e.g., organizational embeddedness) and “motivation” (i.e., motivational states such as job meaningfulness and job flourishing), leading to relevant outcomes (e.g., extra-role performance).

Proposition 3c:

Positive interactions between the intrinsic/personal-context (e.g., core self-evaluation) and work-context variables (e.g., responsibilities) are important for the positive sense-making of work experiences which affect congruent states (e.g., basic needs satisfaction) – serving as job resources – which, in turn, may affect “motivation” (i.e., motivational states such as job crafting and job flourishing), leading to relevant outcomes (e.g., in-role performance).

Figure 4 offers a comprehensive evidence-based understanding of the job flourishing dynamics. “Motivational dynamics” is the key point of the proposed model, entailing a motivation-activation process due to positive interactions between individual difference/personal-context and work-context variables. The “motivation” concept is, in itself, rather broad and might entail attitudes, behavioral predispositions, or well-being states (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Thus, in the proposed model, “motivation” covers different variable categories (i.e., emerging motivational states and job flourishing). Job flourishing is perceived as the ultimate state of motivation given its multifaceted or holistic well-being features. Other emerging motivational states closely related to job flourishing (e.g., work engagement) may thus be perceived as precursors. Hence, our model could also be invoked for other motivational constructs at work (e.g., job satisfaction, work engagement, or thriving). This is possible because, on the one hand, the theories reviewed herein are focused on motivation, both hedonic and eudemonic types of well-being (Deci et al., 2017; Fredrickson, 2001), and mental health states (Bakker, 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014; Hobfoll, 1989; Lazzarus & Folkman, 1984; Siegrist, 1996); and, on the other hand, the identified antecedents and outcomes are commonly used in similar research on, for instance, work engagement (Bailey et al., 2017; Lesener et al., 2019), job thriving (Kleine et al., 2019) and job satisfaction (Cantarelli et al., 2016; Faragher et al., 2005). Therefore, by testing and advancing our comprehensive model in the context of job flourishing, one may also contribute to the closely related OB-type of literature known as positive organizational behavior (POB; Luthans, 2002) or positive occupational health psychology (Bakker & Derks, 2010).

Fig. 4
figure 4

The multilevel-conceptual model of individual job flourishing

Full size image

We suggest Fig. 4 can be used in future research; applying the resources-based theories can sufficiently explain the dynamics of job flourishing (i.e., proposition 1). However, integrating tenets of the other type of theories is strongly recommended to provide more thorough explanation of the motivational dynamics (i.e., propositions 2 and 3).

Job Flourishing Study Design

Thirty-nine of our 40 reviewed studies collected data at the individual level. Although job flourishing is experienced subjectively by individuals, it can be affected by the social context within organizations (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) which has the power to influence entities at different levels (e.g., Giolito et al., 2020; Schwepker et al., 2020). Hence, it would be fascinating to investigate (the waxing and waning of) job flourishing at the team level, including the top executives and other levels; new studies should thus also incorporate contextual predictors and outcomes at other organizational levels using a multilevel research design (Fig. 4). Our conceptual model suggests the possibility of examining the multilevel phenomenon of job flourishing by investigating simultaneously the variables at individual and unit levels. Alternatively, researchers could test how the unit level variables (i.e., work-context variables) have direct effects on the manifestation of individual level variables (e.g., motivation states and outcomes) at the unit level (i.e., reference-shift or emergence; Chan, 1998; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) as well as moderating effects on the relationships between individual level variables (Yammarino & Gooty, 2019).

Since most of the reviewed studies applied a cross-sectional design, future studies should also implement time-lagged surveys or longitudinal designs to reduce common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The latter is particularly beneficial in identifying changing patterns of job flourishing states within individuals (Menard, 2011), given that some aspects of job flourishing are state-like and might fluctuate overtime (Ilies et al., 2007; Warr, 2013). Alternatively, quasi-experimental designs could be invoked to establish causality after manipulating a set of predictors (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). Similarly, longitudinal qualitative studies are encouraged to improve our understanding of individuals’ perceptions of job flourishing. Finally, a meta-analytical effort would be welcome once more cumulative findings on job flourishing are available. However, for this purpose, researchers should consider the variability of job flourishing measures during the analysis (Borenstein et al., 2021; Cooper, 2017; Jüni et al., 1999).

Measurement and Construct Validation

Most of the reviewed studies were conducted with flourishing-in-life measures that might have biased the overall results. Indeed, it has been long underlined that well-being in the work domain and in the life domain are strongly related, mostly given that the work domain plays a central role in the evaluation of individuals’ state in life (Bloch-Jorgensen et al., 2018; Weziak-Bialowolska et al., 2020). Despite this, in evaluating individuals’ well-being, one should consider domain-specific reference points to get an accurate depiction of individuals’ state (Hsieh et al., 2016; Neumann et al., 2021). This is because, when reporting their states of well-being, individuals consider many aspects in a given context, which influence and might be influenced by different variables (Huppert, 2009; Warr, 2013). Individuals’ states of well-being at work are much affected by their specific experience at work (Ilies et al., 2007). Thus, a better understanding of job flourishing enables better predictions of important outcomes for organizations (Fisher, 2014; Jones, 2006; Rothmann, 2013). Hence, we call for more use of work-based flourishing operationalizations to capture the phenomenon more accurately (Rothmann, 2013).

Future research on job flourishing should also pay more attention to validating the existing measures (e.g., Di Fabio, 2022; Kern, 2014; Mendonça et al., 2014; Rautenbach, 2015; Weziak-Bialowolska et al., 2019). For instance, researchers could test their associations with other motivation state measures such as work engagement and thriving, given that those particular constructs are considered to be components of job flourishing (Bono et al., 2012; Rothmann, 2013). However, when validation is not the main goal of a job flourishing study (i.e., hypothesis testing), researchers should check the possibility of multicollinearity when examining job flourishing together with those motivation states which could potentially cause other problems (Allen, 1997). The field must develop much further to capture job flourishing more precisely, as well as the variables it is significantly connected to.

Practical Implications

Our review has practical implications to promote job flourishing, not only for short-term organizational goals (i.e., job performance), but also for more humanistic goals (i.e., health-related conditions and community embeddedness). First of all, it is important for organizations to conduct analyses of their needs to evaluate the flourishing states of their workers. Through these assessments, organizations could map job flourishing to see which individuals (i.e., in which units, roles, functions) may need extra enhancement (Cummings & Worley, 2015; Holman et al., 2018). Subsequently, to promote flourishing in both its hedonic (i.e., emotional well-being) and eudemonic (i.e., psychological and social well-being) components, organizations could consider the following options.

First, given that job resources are important to balance out job demands to consequently boost job flourishing and performance, organizations should be attentive to job characteristics at the individual level (e,g., autonomy, workload, etc.) when designing jobs (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Organizations should also provide sufficient higher-level resources such as organizational support and development opportunities (e.g., providing counselling), as well as social-based interventions, such as peer support groups or peer coaching/mentoring programs to strengthen the availability and accessibility of social resources (Holman et al., 2018). Moreover, job demands should be viewed as challenges (i.e., as an opportunity to learn) rather than hinderances (i.e., as unnecessarily thwarting personal goals; Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013; Kim & Beehr, 2020a). This cognitive environment-controlling strategy can be developed by stimulating employees’ growth mindsets and job crafting initiatives through training and coaching, among others. (Seaton, 2018; van den Heuvel et al., 2015).

Second, to facilitate positive sense-making processes at work which can lead to job flourishing, organizations should provide a positive environment for employees by: creating and sustaining positive climates (George, 2011; Schwepker et al., 2020), offering sufficient psychological support and career advancement (Imran et al., 2020; Nel & Coetzee, 2020), stimulating more fruitful work relations within each subsystem (Singh et al., 2019), and providing positive leadership (Kim & Beehr, 2020b; Rautenbach & Rothmann, 2017a, 2017b; Schwepker et al., 2020). Alternatively, to nurture employees’ positivity, organizations could offer positive psychology intervention by targeting emotional experiences such as happiness, optimism, and gratitude (Diener et al., 2019; Trudel-Fitzgerald et al., 2019).

Lastly, when developing HR-type policies, organizations should consider individual-differences (e.g., values, needs, expectation, etc.) and the individuals compatibility with the organization (Cable & DeRue, 2002) since this can affect employees’ job flourishing (Redelinghuys et al., 2019; Rosales et al., 2020; van Rensburg et al., 2017). For instance, organizations could integrate some personal goal-based interventions as development plans to facilitate the alignment of individuals’ aspirations and organizations needs (Koydemir et al., 2021; Rothmann et al., 2019). Organizations must also promote psychologically-safe environments to foster employees’ voice behaviors, thereby facilitating employees’ feedback to the organizational stakeholders, as well as consider employees’ contributions to their organizations’ policies/strategies (Constantin & Baias, 2015; Ge, 2020; Xu et al., 2019).

Limitations

Despite a rigorous search process, we may have excluded publications due to our strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. Hence, future research could replicate this review by also applying different search terms/criteria. Since we were aware that each set of terms/criteria could cause selection biases (Drucker et al., 2016; Whiting et al., 2016), we used the PRISMA protocol strictly (Moher et al., 2009). A replication study could be more lenient and inclusive or extend the scope of the review vis-à-vis similar or partly overlapping constructs within OB, like job thriving and meaningfulness, work engagement, etc.

Given that the new conceptual model and propositions were developed through inductive data analysis, they may contain some subjective interpretations. For instance, even though all the reviewed studies were theory-guided, the theoretical frameworks used to test the relationships among the variables depended on the researchers’ interpretations. They might have deviated slightly from the original theories, even though we often referred to the original frameworks. Nevertheless, this review has paved the way for scholarly work that uses the many already invoked theoretical reasoning in this area towards much more comprehensive hypotheses on the dynamics of job flourishing.

Conclusion

Job flourishing, as a treasurable positive psychological state at work, reflects an individual’s mental health and well-being. By integrating what is currently known, including the theoretical and methodological challenges, we offer a new model of how job flourishing can develop, unfold, and be studied, thereby bridging intrapersonal and hierarchical levels of analysis. The aim of the comprehensive model is to enrich our understanding of the interplay between individual and contextual factors at work, vis- à -vis predictors and outcomes of job flourishing. Future studies must empirically test the stipulated propositions for more practice-relevant insights. This is due to the self-experienced positive health-related and behavioral benefits of a high level of job flourishing. Meanwhile, managers are recommended to prioritize job flourishing on a daily basis, both for themselves and for those they cooperate with.