中国科学院心理研究所机构知识库

随着积极心理学的兴起与发展，幸福感的研究得到了学术界和企业界的广泛关注。由于多种幸福感理论的长期共存，幸福感的测量尚缺乏统一的工具，这制约了幸福感研究的进一步发展。作为与工作相关的幸福感，工作幸福感指员工在工作中的情绪体验和心理功能的质量，其研究也面临同样的问题。 主观幸福感(Subjective Well-Being,简称SWB)和心理幸福感(Psychological Well-Being,简称PWB)是最主要的两种幸福感理论。有研究从理论上对两者进行了整合，但缺少实证数据的支持。此外，积极心理学的发展也促进了研究者对积极领导行为的关注。变革型领导理论主张激励和提升员工，被认为是一种积极的领导行为。但变革型领导能在多大程度上促进工作幸福感，其内在的作用机制如何，仍需要进一步的探讨。本研究试图在整合主观幸福感和心理幸福感的基础上，探讨工作幸福感的结构、测量及作用机制，同时考察变革型领导与工作幸福感的关系。 本研究综合采用文献分析、相关事件专家（Subject Matter Experts,简称SMEs）访谈和问卷调查等方法对工作幸福感的结构；工作幸福感的测量；工作幸福感与工作特征（包括工作资源和工作要求）的关系；变革型领导、工作资源、工作幸福感及相关结果变量的关系；变革型领导、工作要求、工作幸福感及相关结果变量的关系；变革型领导、团体工作特征、团体工作幸福感及团体内合作、团体绩效的关系进行了研究。整个研究总共调查了7000多名被试，采用了探索性因素分析、验证性因素分析、结构方程建模和多层线性建模等多种统计分析技术，得到了如下结论： 第一、工作幸福感包括两个高阶因子：情感幸福感(Affective Well-Being, 简称AWB)和认知幸福感(Cognitive Well-Being, 简称CWB)。情感幸福感代表了幸福感中的主观幸福感，包括积极情绪体验和消极情绪体验两个维度。认知幸福感代表了幸福感中的心理幸福感，包括自主工作、学习成长、胜任工作和工作意义四个维度。 第二、不同的工作特征与情感幸福感和认知幸福感具有不同的关系。工作资源直接作用于认知幸福感，并通过认知幸福感的完全中介作用于情感幸福感；工作要求直接作用于情感幸福感，并通过情感幸福感的完全中介作用于认知幸福感。在工作特征的工作要求-资源模型（Job Demands-Resources model, 简称 J D-R）中，情感幸福感和认知幸福感存在互惠关系。该研究结果被归纳为工作幸福感的过程模型（the process model of work well-being）。 第三、情感幸福感和认知幸福感对一系列的结果变量有积极作用，包括工作满意度、团体满意度、组织承诺、离职倾向、工作绩效、组织公民行为，以及一般心理健康和一般生理健康。 第四、变革型领导通过工作资源的完全中介作用于认知幸福感，通过工作要求的部分中介作用于情感幸福感。此外，变革型领导还通过工作特征和工作幸福感的中介作用于一系列的结果变量。 第五、在团体层次，变革型领导通过团体工作资源的完全中介作用于团体认知幸福感；通过团体工作要求的完全中介作用于团体情感幸福感。团体情感幸福感对团体认知幸福感有积极作用，但团体认知幸福感对团体情感幸福感作用不显著。团体工作特征和团体工作幸福感完全中介了变革型领导对团体内合作、团体绩效的作用。

With the emergence and development of positive psychology, happiness has been the focus of academia and business. However, there is no uniform measure of happiness, because of many different theories of happiness, which are not compatible with others. It bounds the further development of happiness theory. It is also the same with the research of work well-being, which refers to the emotional experience and quality of psychological functioning of employee in the workplace. Subjective well-being (SWB) and psychological well-being (PWB) are two major theories of happiness. Prior research has demonstrated the integration of these two theories theoretically, but still needs more empirical support. Besides, in line with the development of positive psychology, a body of knowledge about positive leadership is advocated. Transformational leadership is treated as one kind of positive leadership, since it emphasizes the leader’s motivational and elevating effect on followers. But the extent to which the transformational leadership can enhance work well-being, and what the mechanism is, these are the questions need to be explored. Based on the integration of SWB and PWB, this research tried to investigate the structure, measurement and mechanism of work well-being, and combining with the theory of transformational leadership, this study also tried to investigate the relationship between transformational leadership and work well-being. The structure and measurement of work well-being, the relationships between work well-being and job characteristics (including job resources and job demands), the relationships among transformational leadership, job resources, work well-being and corresponding outcomes, the relationships among transformational leadership, job demands, work well-being and corresponding outcomes, and the relationships among transformational leadership, group job characteristics, group work well-being and corresponding group outcomes were explored by using content analysis, Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) discussion, and structural questionnaire surveys. More than 7000 subjects were surveyed, and Explore Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirm Factor Analysis (CFA), Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) and other statistics methods were used. The following is the major conclusions. Firstly, work well-being is a two high-order factors structure, which includes affective well-being (AWB) and cognitive well-being (CWB). AWB is similar to SWB, and CWB is similar to PWB. Besides, the construct of AWB includes sub-dimensions of positive emotional experience and negative emotional experience. And the construct of CWB consists of work autonomy, personal growth, work competent, and work significance. Secondly, the relationships between job characteristics and AWB and CWB are different. On one hand job demands are directly related to AWB, and are indirectly related to CWB through the full mediation of AWB, on the other job resources are directly related to CWB, and are indirectly related to AWB through the full mediation of CWB, which means AWB and CWB reciprocally influences each other in the model of job demands-resources. These results were concluded as the process model of work well-being. Thirdly, AWB and CWB are positively related to many workplace outcomes, including job satisfaction, group satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, job performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and general psychological health and general physiological health. Fourthly, transformational leadership is indirectly related to CWB through the full mediation of job resources, and is related to AWB through the partial mediation of job demands. Meanwhile, transformational leadership is related to many workplace outcomes through the mediation of job characteristics and work well-being. These results implied that transformational leadership is indeed one kind of positive leadership. Fifthly, in the group level, transformational leadership is indirectly related to group CWB through the full mediation of group job resources, and is related to group AWB through the full mediation of group job demands. Group AWB has positive influence on group CWB, but not vice versa. Group job characteristics and group work well-being fully mediate the relationships between transformational leadership and intragroup cooperation and group performance.