Professional well-being: an overview of key concepts and scientific research of the phenomenon

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

PROFESSIONAL WELL-BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF KEY CONCEPTS AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OF THE PHENOMENON

Pakhol B.E.

Relevance of the research topic. Despite the fact that the relationship between professional health and emotional state has been defined in the early 20th century in the framework of occupational therapy (C. E. Atwood, 1907, G. E. Barton, 1915; H. J. Hall, 1905; M. F. Driver, 1968), the phenomenon of «professional well-being», as the state of the optimal human functioning in the context of his/her professional activity is relatively new for the psychological science.

The development of this concept has been significantly influenced by Elton Mayo's experiment (1924-1932), being the first to identify the powerful influence of socio-psychological climate on work performance [27]. These studies significantly influenced the changing of views on the human health, and a few years later it led to re-defining health in the framework of the positive psychology as «a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity» (Preamble of the WHO Constitution, 1946).

As for the «occupational health», it can be defined in the broadest context as a state of a person's physical, mental and social well-being in the professional context. But if the objective measures of physical and social well-being are significantly different from the psychological well-being, the subjective evaluation of any of these three aspects is always a psychological phenomenon, the subjective attitude of the individual to various aspects of his/her life (subjective well-being). This significantly differentiates the general «psychological well-being» (objective and subjective assessment) as an important and necessary condition for the general health and professional identity [1].

Moreover, a professional activity occupies a central place in the identity of most people. In different cultures, you can come across with many names, one way or another, related to professions, for example: Archer, Baker, Barber, Brewer, Judge, Currier, Cook, Farmer, Hunter and others. More than half of the adult population spends a considerable part of their conscious life engaged in a professional activity. Thus, the study of the general psychological well-being cannot be complete without considering psychological well-being precisely in the professional sphere.

The analysis of recent research and publications. The study of the issue of well-being and professional well-being in its various aspects is associated with such scientists as: E. Mayo, J. C. Taylor, R. S. Uhrbrock, D. Super, E. Locke, M. Jahoda, F. Herzberg, N. Bradburn, E. Diener, C. D. Ryff, C. L. M. Keyes, A. Bandura, J. A. Russell, P. Warr, R. M. Ryan, E. L. Deci, R. A. Karasek, J. Siegrist, M. Seligman, M. Csikszentmihaiyi, P. T. Cotton, T. A. Judge, M. Argyle, J. R. Hackman, G. R. Oldham, V. Vroom, M. L. Schults, D. Anaby, A. B. Bakker, J. E. Van Horn, W. B. Schaufeli, A. Baldschun, M. J. Sirgy, K. Danna, R. W. Griffin, T. A.Wright, N. Polosky, M. W. Fordyce, S. Oishi, A. S. Waterman, P. T. Costa, R. R. McCrae, R. Emmons, S. Levine, M. Eid, J. S. Larson, S. Griffin, E. Singer, K. Magnus, A. Tellegen, A. Campbell, W. Wilson, D. Kahneman, N. Schwarz, S. Vallelly, J. Eyles, A. Williams, M. Joshanloo, G. Ghaedi, V. La Placa, A. McNaught, A. Knight, L. Skilton, D. Brickman, S. Lyubomirsky, L. King, G. Lykken, B. Headey, F. M. Andrews, S. B. Withey, F. Strack, G. L. Clo- re, D. P. Crowne, D. Marlowe, H. T. Reis, U. Schimmack, Chan Mei Fen, W. G. Pavot, C. R. Colvin, E. Sandvik, A. Wearing, R. A. Cummins, A. C. Michalos, A. Zautra, A. Hempel, M. A. Okun, W. A. Stock, K. Ramatula- samma, M. Lynch, A. Maslow, C. Rogers, G. Allport, C. Jung, E. Erikson, J.E. Birren, D. MakKlelland, K. Alderfer, D. Adams, Z. Freid, E. Fromm, K. Khorni, Dzh. Biudzhental, A. Lenhli, A. Adler, Dzh. Boulbi, R. Mei, V. Frankl, I. Bonivell, P. Vonh, R. Inhlekhart, C. L. Rubinshtein, E. A. Klimov, R.M. Shamionov, S. A. Druzhylov, M. Yu. Boiarkyn, Yu. P. Povarenko, A. I. Duka, M. O. Baturin, N. V. Lazareva, S. R. Zenina, E. Y. Rohov, K. Korbut, R.A. Berezovska, T. Yu. Ivanova, K. Rut, D. O. Leontiev, L. V. Kulikov, I. O. Dzhidarian, A. V. Voronina, T. D. Shevelenkova, P. P. Fesenko, O. S. Shyriaieva, Yu. M. Oleksandrov, A. E. Sozontov, T. V. Danilchenko, A. A. Shadrin, Ya. I. Pavlotska, A. V. Kurova, M. O. Baturin, S. A. Vodiakha, I. S. Horbal, B. I. Dodonov, I. F. Arshavy, M. Dmytriieva, O. Dolina, M. Rozanova, T. Tymoshenko, E. Benko, N. S. Nakhabych, S. O. Bashkatov, E. E. Bocharova, S. K. Letiahina, M. V. Sokolova, S. V. Yaremchuk, N. V. Usova, M. V. Hryhorieva, L. V. Karapetian, V. V. Hubska, V. A. Hupalovs- ka, I. I. Semkiv, Yu. A. Zavatskyi, O. V. Kaminska, L. Z. Levit, D. V. Nosen- ko, Ye. A. Ulhanova, N. D. Uzlov, Yu. B. Aloshyna, M. S. Matskovskyi, V. Ye. Tkachenko, V. N. Arhunova, Ya. N. Krupets, Yu. V. Bessonova, Y. V. Merzliakova, Y. Y. Osynskyi, N. A. Kondrateva, L. Y. Mykhailova, M. V. Zakharov, R. A. Akhmierov, N. K. Bakhariev, V. N. Dukhnevych, Ye. Ye. Vakhromova, I. A. Vintina, H. L. Puchkov, L. V. Sokhan, Yu. N. Dolhov, O. Znanetska, E. Pozdniakova, S. Karskanova, L. V. Zhukovska, A. L. Zhuravlev, A. V. Yurevych, E. N. Panina, A. V. Tolstykh, V. Pankratov, E. V. Antonova, Yu. B. Dubovyk, R. Z. Sharapova, A. Syrtsova, N. V. Kliuieva, V. Maryshchuk, E. V. Pyzhianova, E. A. Myshutyna, L. I. Antsyferova, N. V. Tarabryna, Yu. V. Bykhovets, N. N. Kazymova, O. A. Dolhopolova, D. M.Zynovieva, K. A. Abulkhanova, L. Y. Bozhovych, N. V. Pidbutska, A. H. Zuieva, N. V. Hafarova, T. V. Beskova, H. S. Khafizova, T. V. Vasylova, L. Kozmina, S. V. Lisovets, Yu. P. Povarenkov, Ye. I. Rohov, I. H. Antypova, S.V. Zholudieva, M. V. Naumenko, I. A. Pankratova, O. Ye. Rohova, N. Ye. Skrynnyk, A. M. Shevelova, I. A. Rudaleva, I. A. Kabasheva, N. V. Karhina, Yu. I. Kashliuk, K. O. Sanko, V. L. Pankovets and etc.

In numerous scientific studies, there is a significant variety of constructs used to describe this phenomenon: happiness at work (P. Warr, 2007; E. Diener, Biswas-Diener, 2008; A. B. Bakker, D. Derks, 2010); professional health (V. L. Pankovets, 2004; R. A. Berezovska, 2012; S. A. Druzhylov, 2016); quality of working life (J. R. Hackman, G. R. Oldham, 1974; J. C. Taylor, C. L. Cooper, E. Mumford, 1979; E. E. Lawler, 1982; P. H. Mirvis & E. E. Lawler, 1984; V. V. Baba & M. Jamal, 1991; K. A. Loscocco & A. N. Roschelle, 1991; M. J. Sirgy, D. Efraty, P. Siegel & D. Lee, 2001; N. Ellis & A. Pompli, 2002; S. Bearfield, 2003; L. Worrall & C. L. Cooper, 2006; D. Van Laar, J. Edwards, S. Easton, 2007; J. Edwards, D. Van Laar & S. Easton, 2009; T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy, D. R. Swamy, 2013; S. Easton & D. Van Laar, 2013); subjective / psychological well-being in the professional sphere (V. A. Pohorska, 2011; S. R. Zenyna, 2012; Y. Duka, 2013; E. Y. Rohov, Y. H. Antypova, S. V. Zholudeva, M. V. Naumenko, Y. A. Pankratova, E. E. Rohova, N. E. Skrbinnyk, A. M. Shev- eleva, 2014; S. A. Druzhylov, 2016); subjective well-being in organizations (A. B. Bakker, D. Derks, 2010); professional well-being, occupational well-being, well-being at work (J. E. Van Horn; T. W. Taris; W. B. Schaufeli; B. Wilmar; P. J. G. Schreurs; J. G. Paul, 2003; E. Y. Sereda, K. S. Riabova, 2003; M. Yu. Boiarkin, 2007; R. M. Shaminonov, 2008; M. L. Schultz, 2008; K. Yildirim, 2014; A. Baldschun, 2014; Shangping Zhao, Ling Liu, Hong Chen, 2015; A. Makikangas, J. Rantanen, A. B. Bakker, M.L. Kinnunen, L. Pulkinen & K. Kokko, 2015; R. A. Berezovska, 2016; S.A. Druzhylov, 2016; K. Rut, 2016); job sutisfaction (R. S. Uhrbrock, 1935; D. Super, 1939; E. Locke, 1976; A. L. Kalleberg, 1977; V. Scarpello, J. P. Campbell, 1983; B. M. Staw, N. E. Bell & J. A. Clausen, 1986; F. N. Iliasov, 1988; T. A. Judge & C. L. Hulin, 1993; T. A. Judge & S. Watanabe, 1993; R. H. Moorman, 1993; M. B. Rauktis & R. D. Koeske, 1994; L. Winfield & W. E. Barlow, 1995; T. A. Judge, 1994; J. P. E. Spector, 1997; T.A. Wright, 2000; L. Moynihan, 2000; T. A. Judge, C. J. Thorensen, J. E. Bono & G. K. Patton, 2001; C. L. Hulin, T. A. Judge, 2003; G. P. Latham, M. H. Budworth, 2007; Collins 2008; Rossrucker, 2008; T. A. Judge, K. Ryan, 2008; M. L. Schultz, 2008; R. M. Shaminonov, 2008; A. B. Bakker, D. Derks, 2010; U. N. Chernousova, 2010; A. Beiker, 2010; A. V. Vecherin, 2011; S. R. Zenyna 2011; T. Yu. Ivanova, 2012; A. I. Duka, 2013; S. Mey- erding, 2015; K. Korbut, 2015; N. Poloski Vokic & T. Hernaus, 2015; S. A. Druzhylov, 2016); work satisfaction (N. Bradburn, 1969; O. Anisimova, 2004; I. A. Rudaleva, I. A. Kabasheva, 2014); employee well-being (Jan De Jonge & W. B. Schaufeli, 1998; W. B. Schaufeli, A. B. Bakker, 2003; P. Cotton, P. M. Hart, 2003; A. Beiker, 2010; S. Meyerding, 2015).

But the concepts of «îccupational health», «professional well-being» or «occupational well-being», «job satisfaction», «quality of working life» and «subjective well-being at work» are the most prevalent.

In addition, in the scientific literature one can observe constructs describing different states of positive human functioning in the organizational and professional environment: flow, intrinsic motivation, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, extra-role behavior, job involvement, passionate commitment, etc.

These concepts have much in common as they all reflect the positive state of functioning of the individual, associated with the profession. This reflects, on the one hand, the growing interest in this issue, and on the other hand - the variety of principles and methods of research, as well as the instability of the conceptual apparatus which is used in this area [2].

As for the definitions of «professional well-being», today there are various views on this phenomenon, for example, it is considered as a criterion of professional identity and as a characteristic that may indicate a degree of acceptability from the point of view of motives and attitudes of the individual (R. M. Shamionov, 2008); as a process and a state integrally reflecting the life activity of the individual, its conditions and results, as well as the attitude of the individual to the results of activity (M. Yu. Boiarkin ta in., 2007); as an integral formation including awareness of the value and meaning of professional activity, the experience of positive emotions and feelings associated with the profession, and the relative absence of negative emotions (E. V. Borodkina, 2012); the result of an employee focus on the positive functioning in the conditions of professional activity, achieved through the self-development of personal qualities, and the result of which is the feelings of satisfaction with the results (S. A. Miniurova, 2012; I. V. Zausenko, 2013) [2].

Conceptual differences between the different approaches found their reflection in various models of «professional well-being», the most notable among which are: The Demand-Control-Support Model (R. A. Karasek, 1979; J. Johnson and E. Hall, 1988; R. A. Karasek and T. Theorell, 1990); Job Characteristics Model (J. R. Hackman, G. R. Oldham, 1974; 1980); Effort-Reward Imbalance, ERI Model (ERI) of J. Siegrist (J. Siegrist, 1996; J. Siegrist, K. Siegrist, I. Weber, 1986); The Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R) (A. B. Bakker & E. Demerouti, 2007; E. Demerouti, A. B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner & W. B. Schaufeli, 2001; A. B. Bakker, E. Demerouti, T. Tar- is, W. B. Schaufeli, & P. Schreurs, 2003b; A. B. Bakker, E. Demerouti, J. De Boer, & W. B. Schaufeli, 2003a; A. B. Bakker & E. Demerouti, 2007); The Circumplex Model of Affect ofJ. Russell (1980, 2003); Warr's vitamin model (P. Warr, 1987, 2007; S. Meyerding, 2015); Occupational well-being model of P. Warr (1987, 1994); The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (R. M. Ryan, E. L. Deci, 2000; J. G. La Guardia, R. M. Ryan, C. E. Couch- man & E. L. Deci, 2000); Occupational well-being model ofJ. E. Van Horn (J. E. Van Horn; T. W. Taris; W. B. Schaufeli; B. Wilmar; P. J. G. Schreurs; J. G. Paul, 2003); Occupational well-being model (M. L. Schultz, 2008) and etc..

At the initial stages of research of the psychological job-related and non-job-related well-being, the factors were distributed according to different classification criteria, for example: physical (J. Ware, R. M. Ryan, M. Frederick, M. Argyle, S. D. Derebo, H. M. Zarakovskyi, L. V Kulykov, P. P. Fesenko); spiritual (D. Brothers, C. Dalbert, M. J. Lerner, Dzh. Ben- net, D. O. Leontiev); personal (M. O. Baturin, S. O. Bashkatov, N. V Ha- farova); cultural (E. Diener, M. Diener); sociodemographic (N. Bradburn, J. R. Hackman, G. R. Oldham, P. Warr, D. Raphael, E. Singer, A. Adler, O. Druzhylov, T. V Danylchenko); material (J. Flanagan, Ò. Campbell, Groenland and others); economic (E. Diener, I. Praag, B. Strumpel, A. V. Baranova, V. O. Khashchenko, O. A. Uhlanova); existential ones (N. V Hrishyna, M. Zanadvorov, V. Frankl), etc.

In contemporary studies of «professional well-being» factors are most often divided into organizational (contextual), individual (personal) and professional ones, for example:

- Organizational (contextual) factors: the organizational climate, the balance of job autonomy, a leadership style, social support from peers and the organization, supervision, supportive work environment, validation of performance, work resources, task discretion, influence over the wider organization, skill use, new learning, number of job demands, difficulty of job demands, task coherence, conflict between job demands, conflict between work and home, emotional dissonance, range of different tasks, future predictability, clear role requirements, availability of feedback, amount of social contact, quality of social contact, a pay level, pleasant environment, safe work practices, job security, adequate equipment, value to society, significance to self, attentive supervision, supervision is supportive, good future prospects, fair treatment of employees, the organization's morality in society (P. Cotton, P. M. Hart, 2003; T. Yu. Ivanova, 2012; À. Baldschun, 2014; Ê. Yildirim, 2014; S. Meyerding, 2015; K. Korbut, 2015) [3; 13; 14; 28];

- Individual (personal) ones: gender, age, character traits (P. Cotton, P. M. Hart, 2003; Ê. Yildirim, 2014) [14]; values, attitudes, life experience, awareness, orientation toward the achievement of goals, the ability to adapt and mental balance, stability, mood, quality of interpersonal relationships, the level of social exclusion, deprivation, tension in significant interpersonal relationships (L. V. Kulykov, 2004) system of relations and assessments of self and environment (R. M. Shamionov, 2014); strategies for the behavior of the individual in significant situations (E. E. Bocharova, 2008); a temporary perspective and the presence of goals in the future, the implementation of plans in the present (A. Maslou, 2011); type of causal orientation (O. E. Derhachova, 2002; M. Linch, 2004); the difference between the actual and the ideal psychological well-being (P. P. Fesenko, 2005); self-relationship (I. V. Zausenko, 2011); the person's orientation to positive functioning (S. A. Miniurova, 2012; I. V. Zausenko, 2012); optimism (E. A. Perova, 2009); self-worth, openness, self-confidence, flexibility of behavior, self-esteem, self-acceptance, sensory, creativity, constructive thinking (V. A. Pohorska, 2011) [7];

- Professional ones: professional knowledge, skills, ability to make decisions that will contribute to the development of professionalism, the achievement of professional goals and objectives, positive communication with colleagues (Yu. P. Povarenkov, 2002; M. Yu. Boiarkyn, 2007); an employment status, an educational level; positive and negative employment experiences (P. Cotton, P. M. Hart, 2003; K. Yildirim, 2014) [14]; appropriate social areas, cognitive skills, competence, job-related calmness, selfcare, self-efficacy, vigor (V. M. Oharenko, 2001; A. Baldschun, 2014) [13]; professional self-determination, self-image as a professional, hierarchy of professional values, semantic certainty in the work (R. M. Shamionov, 2006, 2008), professional identity (Yu. P. Povarenkov, 1997, 2002), professional representation, beliefs, professional development activity (E. Y. Sereda ta K. S. Riabova, 2013; E. Y. Rohov, Y. H. Antipova, S. V. Zholude- va, M. V. Naumenko, Y. A. Pankratova, E. E, Rohova, N. E. Skrynnik, A. M. Sheveleva, 2014; K. Yildirim, 2014) [8]; actual and potential opportunities, opened by the work (T. Yu. Ivanova, 2012); experience of the possibility to realize one's potential, an attitude to the work performed, to colleagues, to management, the subject and subject of one's labor, to the organizational culture and organization values (M. Yu. Boiarkin, 2007; S. R. Zenina, 2012); Qualification and education of the employee, special moral and material motivation of labor (V. M. Oharenko, 2001).

Highlighting the part of the problem, having been unsolved before. In connection with the emergence of new models of «professional well-being», the issue of systematization and generalization of classical and modern approaches to its definition is topical. There is still no consensus on the relationship and definition of professional well-being related constructs, either, such as: occupational health, quality of working life, job satisfaction, professional well-being, well-being at work, etc.

For example, supporters of the «occupational health» focused on occupational safety, physical health and psychological well-being of employees, but the well-being is being studied concerning the reduction of the negative mental states of employees, such as stress, anxiety, depression, burnout, overload, tension, stammability, etc. They believe that reducing the stress and other negative states of employees will have a positive impact on their overall sense of psychological well-being at work (L. E. Tetrick and J. M. LaRocco, 1987; K. K. Smith, D. S. Kaminstein and R. J. Makadok's, 1995; K. Danna and R. W. Griffin, 1999; C. P Parker, B. B. Baltes, S. A. Young, J. W. Huff, R. A. Altmann, H. A. Lacost & J. E. Roberts, 2003; V. L. Pankovets, 2004; C. Fritz and S. Sonnentag, 2006).

The followers of the «job satisfaction» theory mostly focus on the subjective measure of the employee's emotional state (job satisfaction) and the cognitive correlation (job satisfaction) between working conditions and personal professional expectations (C. W. Clegg and T. D. Wall 1981; Diener, E. M. Suh, R. E. Lucas, & H. L. Smith, 1999; T. A. Wright and R. Cropanzano, 1996, 2000), they believe that satisfied employees demonstrate a higher level of performance (A. P Brief, 1998 P E. Spector, 1997). They define the professional well-being as the satisfaction or non satisfaction of a person of his/her own job characteristics, such as: salary, opportunities for promotion, job tasks, team, etc. (P. C. Smith, L. M. Kendall & C. L. Hulin, 1969; E. A. Locke, 1976; T A. Judge & R. Klinger, 2008). Within the framework of this approach, several theories were developed: The two-factor theory (F. Herzberg, 1959; 1967); the Job Characteristics Model (J. R. Hackman, G. R. Oldham, 1974; 1980); The Affect Theory (E. A. Locke, 1976) and the dispositional approach (T A. Judge, E. A. Locke & C. D. Cathy, 1997); Self-discrepancy theory (E. T. Higgins, 1987); The Equity Theory (R. C. Huseman, J. D. Hatfield & E. W. Mile, 1987).

In addition, we note the approach, initially proposed by E. Diener (1984; 1991), namely «subjective well being in the workplace». This study by E. Diener and other researchers (J. A. Russell & J. H. Steiger, 1982; M. Zevon & A. Tellegen, 1982; D. Watson & A. Tellegen, 1985) were the basis for the emergence of the «affective well-being» as an important component of the professional well-being (P Warr, 1987).

There are also multi-dimensional approaches such as «quality of working life» and «occupational well-being». But if the «quality of working life» combines the ideas of the previous approaches of «affective» and «cogni- tive» well-being and focuses on identifying key «job characteristics» (J. R. Hackman, G. R. Oldham, 1974, 1980; J. C. Taylor, 1979; P. H. Mirvis and E. E. Lawler, 1984; V. V. Baba and M. Jamal, 1991; M. J. Sirgy, D. Efraty, P Siegel & D. Lee, 2001; N. Ellis & A. Pompli 2002; W. B. Schaufeli & A. Bakker, 2003), concerning the development of «occupational well-being», researchers are attempting to apply the modernized versions of the Ryff's psychological well-being model in the context of the professional activity (P Warr, 1987, 1994; J. E. Van Horn; T. W. Taris; W. B. Schaufeli; P J. G. Schreurs, 2004; K. Rut, 2016).

In recent years, there have been tendencies to combine different approaches, for example, A. Baldschun's professional well-being model (A. Baldschun, 2014), combining several different models: affective, social, cognitive, professional, personal and psychosomatic well-being, and K. R. Harcom's well-being model (Kelly R. Harkcom, 2014), combining «psychological» (S. Ryff) and «subjective» (E. Dinner) well-being models.

Unfortunately, the conceptualization of professional well-being differs from research to research depending on its specific definition (K. Danna and R. W. Griffin, 1999). There is also a problem of ambiguous understanding of the factors and criteria for assessing the professional well-being, making the emergence of reliable and valid psychodiagnostic tools impossible (C. L. M. Keyes and S. J. Lopez, 2002).

Many researchers consider well-being the global construct free from the job context (K. Danna and R. W. Griffin, 1999). However, others emphasize the importance of assessing well-being in specific working conditions. For example, J. E. Van Horn, T W. Taris, W. B. Schaufeli, P. J. G. Schreurs (2004) noted that the operationalization of the professional well-being in a particular context makes it possible to understand how the structure and contents of the socio-psychological factors related with job, affect it, and vice versa, how through the improvement of working conditions we can influence the professional well-being.

Despite the fact that since the 60s of the twentieth century, studying the issue of professional well-being of the individual has been of major interest in the writings of psychologists, there is still no unified conception of the definition of professional well-being, its structure and factors [2; 12]. There remains a problem of the correlation of different approaches to professional well-being, for example, subjective and objective criteria can act as independent indicators of professional well-being (W. B. Schaufeli, A. B. Bakker, 2003; J. R. Hackman, G. R. Oldham, 1974, 1980; E. L. Deci, R. M. Ryan, M. Gagne, D. R. Leone, J. Usunov & B. P. Kornazheva, 2001; Å. V Borodkyna, 2012), and how its components (occupational well-being, A. Baldschun, 2014), even the concept of the professional well-being in some models can be used as a general concept (general occupation well-being), and as a structural element (professional well-being) at the same time (J. E. Van Horn, 2004).

It should be noted that the problem of researching the professional well-being of an individual in a mixed professional environment requiring special attention. Each organization unites representatives of many professional groups (J. A. Adkins, 1999) [33], implying the consideration of various factors and criteria, characteristic of representatives of all professional groups, comprising the organization.

The possibility of such a research requires a more precise definition of the phenomenon of professional well-being and development of the methodological framework.

The purpose of the article. The purpose of the article is to conduct theoretical and methodological analysis research of the phenomenon of professional well-being, its contemporary and classic models and factors, to summarize and organize the main approaches to determining the content and structure of the professional well-being and to offer a universal construct of the essence of this phenomenon.

The presentation of the main material. The interest of psychologists to the issues of «job satisfaction» and «quality of working life» is historically linked to the Hawthorne experiment, conducted by a group of researchers led by Elton Mayo, in the production of Western Electric (US), between 1924 and 1932. As a result, it was proved that the socio-psychological climate has a greater affect on performance than the technical aspects of the production process [27].

Since that time, interest in the employee's perception of their work conditions, well-being at workplace and other socio-psychological factors, affecting the performance of work, has begun to grow up gradually in all social sciences.

Generally speaking, the hypothesis of E. Mayo (1933), that «happy» employees demonstrate a higher level of performance (A. P. Brief, 1998 P. E. Spector, 1997), was operationalized in most experiments through the correlation between the self-esteem of «job satisfaction» and performance supervision. Thus, for many empirical researchers (F. Herzberg et al., 1957; E. A. Locke, 1970, 1976; D. P. Schwab & L. L. Cummings, 1970; V. Vroom, 1964; M. M. Petty, G. W. McGee & J. W. Cavender, 1984; M. T. Iaffaldano & P. M. Muchinsky, 1985), job satisfaction and happiness (balance of positive and negative affect) became closely related (T. A. Wright & E. M. Doherty, 1998), but not identical.

So the first research of professional well-being began precisely with the subjective measurement - «job satisfaction». Attempts to evaluate the job satisfaction of employees through anonymous surveys became commonplace as early as in the 1930s. As defined by G. P. Latham and M. H. Bud- worth (2007), in 1934 R. S. Uhrbrock was one of the first psychologists to use the new methods of measuring of the satisfaction of the factory workers and to propose a new scientific construct of «job satisfaction». They also note that in 1935 R. Hoppock (1935) conducted a study focused explicitly on job satisfaction related to the nature of the work, relations with colleagues and management.

Back in 1939, as it was noted in the works by Donald Super (D. Super, 1939), job satisfaction was the most important result of successful career planning and next to the «job satisfaction» construct there appeared the construct of «satisfaction with life». He believed that both constructs depend on the degree to which the personality finds the opportunity to realize their abilities, interests, goals and values.

In addition, researchers very often consider job satisfaction along with the emotional state measurement (positive and negative affect) as indicators of subjective well-being of an employee. «Positive affect» reflects such emotions and moods as: happiness, pleasure, excitement and energy; «negative affect» - sadness, anxiety, fear and anger. According to R. E. Lucas and E. Diener (2002), organizational researchers should accurately indicate the affect components they want to focus on because different components can be the consequences of various aspects of the organization activities [16].

The most famous model of job satisfaction is the theory of affects by Edwin A. Locke (1976). The basic premise of this theory is that satisfaction is defined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. [26]. Defining the concept of «job satisfaction», E. A. Lock (1976) was the first to formulate it as «a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences». But later he changed his first definition - «job satisfaction is the result of the self-esteem of your work, it allows you to achieve certain values associated with work, provided that these values make it possible to meet the needs of the individual» [5].

The close relationship between job satisfaction and personal needs and values was also determined by V. A. Yadov i A. A. Kissel (1974) [11]. According to them, «job satisfaction» is the result of an employee's adaptation to working conditions and assessment of the degree of satisfaction of personal needs the employee seeks to satisfy in the professional activity.

Some authors (P. E. Spector, 1997) define «job satisfaction» as an emotional attitude of a person to work, «whether he or she likes the job or not».

Despite the findings of E. Mayo and a large number of experiments, claiming the presence of a powerful impact of job satisfaction on performance, this issue is still not closed for qualitative (A. H. Brayfield & W. H. Crockett, 1955; F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, R. D. Peterson & D. F. Capwell, 1957; E. A, Locke, 1970; D. P. Schwab & L. L. Cummings, 1970) or quantitative (M. laffaldano & P. Muchinsky, 1985; M. M. Petty, G. M. McGee & J. W. Cavender, 1984) analysis and deserves a careful study.

In particular, A. H. Brayfield and W. H. Crockett (1955) concluded that there is no strong relationship between job satisfaction and performance, they denoted it as «minimal or no».

Since the review by A. H. Brayfield òà W. H. Crockett (1955), several studies have been published (F. Herzberg et al., 1957; E. A. Locke, 1970, 1976; D. P. Schwab & L. L. Cummings, 1970; V. Vroom, 1964; M. M. Petty, W. McGee & J. W. Cavender, 1984; M. T. Iaffaldano & P. M. Muchinsky, 1985; Ò. À. Wright, 2000), which were very different in their orientation and somewhat optimistic about the relationship between the «job satisfaction» and performance.

From around the 1970s and the 1980s, the issue of «job satisfaction», as a subjective measure associated solely with the professional activity, is generalized to the issue of «life satisfaction» as a manifestation of «subjective well-being» (E. Diener, 1984; Ed Diener, J. S. Larsen, S. Levine, R. A. Emmons, 1985), as a more general construct, defining an individual level of happiness, and is a measure of how people evaluate their life (E. Diener, 1984; E. Diener, E. M. Suh, R. E. Lucas & H. L. Smith, 1999).

In this regard, new approaches and models of general psychological and professional well-being began to emerge. Most of this process was influenced by the works by N. Bradburn (1969), E. Diener (1984) and C. Ryff (1986). They began to explore not only «job satisfaction», but also a sense of happiness and well-being beyond the working context. Later, the reverse process began, the heritage of researchers of the general psychological (C. Ryff) and subjective (E. Diener) well-being became the pillar for the development of complex professional well-being models.

So, for example, along with «job satisfaction», a new approach appeared - «quality of working life», initially considered as a component of the overall «quality of life» (M. B. Frisch, J. Cornell, M. Villanueva, P J. Retzlaff, 1992,

R.W. Lent, 2004), and further became an independent direction, combining various approaches to professional well-being, such as: professional health, job satisfaction, psychological well-being and the theory of basic psychological needs, etc. (J. R. Hackman, G. R. Oldham, 1974; J. C. Taylor, 1979; P Mirvis & E. E. Lawler, 1984; V.V. Baba & M. Jamal, 1991; M. J. Sirgy, Efraty, P Siegel & D. Lee, 2001; N. Ellis & A. Pompli, 2002).

In the 1990s, a number of scientists worked on comparing the concepts of «life satisfaction» and «job satisfaction», studies showed that these constructs are interrelated (N. Schmitt & A. G. Bedeiah, 1982; T. A. Judge & S.Watanabe, 1993) [24]. In fact, in accordance with T. A. Judge and S. Watanabe (1993), «job satisfaction» and «life satisfaction» did not differ significantly at the same time.

Some researchers argue that the influence of «life satisfaction» on «job satisfaction» is dispositional (B. M. Staw, Y. Cohen-Charash, 2005; T. A. Judge & C. L. Hulin, 1993; G. H. Bower, 1981) [35]: if people are satisfied with their life, they are more likely to be satisfied with their work, because their positive attitudes to life affect their memories and the interpretation of working conditions (TA Judge & S. Watanabe, 1993).

As it was noted by James Harter in the co-authorship (J. K. Harter, F. L. Schmidt, C. L. M. Keyes, J. Haidt, 2003), in studies of the subjective well-being two lines dominated:

- the first direction is the study of stress and health (J. R. P. French, R. D. Caplan & R. Van Harrison, 1982): the employee performance and quality of life are related to the lack of tension or boredom (J. R. Edwards, R. D. Caplan & R. Van Harrison, 1998);

- the second direction is related to the quality of life of employees and performance (A. M. Isen, 1987; P. Warr, 1999; O. G. Brim, 1992; M. Csiksz- entmihalyi, 1997; A. S. Waterman, 1993).

A study of the professional well-being of recent years has revealed a significant development of some more approaches: occupational health; job satisfaction as subjective well-being (affective well-being) in a professional environment; Subjective well-being at the workplace and affective well-being; Approach: quality of working life and occupational well-being; and some new integrational models

The «occupational health» focuses on supporting and strengthening the working capacity of employees, improving working conditions and promoting a positive social and a psychological climate at the enterprise. As for the psychological well-being, first of all, the professional stress, anxiety and depression and other negative manifestations (bornout, tension, fatigue etc.) are studied. Proponents of the occupational health believe that reducing the stress of employees will have a positive impact on their overall sense of psychological well-being at work (K. Danna and R. W. Griffin, 1999).

The main criticism of the «occupational health» approach is how health and well-being are defined within it.

For example, C. Fritz and S. Sonnentag (2006) conducted a study of well-being with the help of General Health Questionnaire (D. Goldberg, 1978), estimating the number of health complaints of a person, and Oldenburg Burnout Inventory was also applied (E. Demerouti et al., 2001) to determine the professional burnout. Individuals who did not experience burnout syndrome or health complaints were considered as experiencing well-being. Similarly, L. E. Tetrick and J. M. LaRocco (1987) used the measurements of anxiety and depression. Well-being was operationalized as the absence of these conditions. The meta-analysis of antecedents and the effects of the organizational climate, C. P. Parker, B. B. Baltes, S. A. Young, J. W. Huff, R. A. Altmann, H. A. Lacost, J. E. Roberts (2003) also identified psychological well-being as a lack of burnout, anxiety and stress [33].

C. Ryff (1995) points that framework of «occupational health» does not provide suffi a cient definition of well-being: a person is considered to be mentally healthy if he or she does not suffer from anxiety, depression or other forms of psychological symptoms [33]. The same opinion was expressed by other researchers, such as G. M. Spreitzer, K. Sutcliffe, J. E. Dutton, S. Sonenshein and A. M. Grant (2006) arguing that the absence of negative experience does not mean that people have a strong sense of well-being. In addition, reducing stress and burnout does not necessarily lead to professional well-being. A. Kinicki, F. McKee and K. Wade (1996) found that overloading, bad working conditions and job insecurity are the main causes of organizational stress and tension. According to G. M. Spreitzer, K. Sutcliffe, J. E. Dutton, S. Sonenshein and A. M. Grant (2006), the improvement of these conditions is not enough to create the environment that promotes well-being [33].

But despite the criticism of the supporters of the positive psychology, a study of the characteristics of negative work experience, such as: fatigue, tension and stress, caused a large number of scientific research. For example, K. Danna and R. W. Griffin (1999) argue that the main part of the literature, engaged in the study of professional well-being, focuses on the professional stress. D. C. Ganster & J. Schaubroeck (1991) reviewed the literature related to occupational stress and found more than 300 articles, published before the 1980s [33].

Among the most influential works on «occupational health», it is necessary to emphasize the following ones: L. E. Tetrick and J. M. LaRocco, 1987; K. K. Smith, D. S. Kaminstein and R. J. Makadok's, 1995; K. Danna and R. W. Griffin, 1999; C. P. Parker, B. B. Baltes, S. A. Young, J. W. Huff, R. A. Altmann, H. A. Lacost & J. E. Roberts, 2003; C. Fritz and S. Son- nentag, 2006.

Separately, we note that the study «occupational health» has significantly influenced the development of other areas, such as the «quality of working life» [33].

Returning to the modern understanding of «job satisfaction», it should be mentioned that in the scientific literature several theories are defined regarding its determinant. These theories can be freely assigned to one of three categories [23]:

- situational (contextual) theories, suggesting that job satisfaction depends on the nature of the work or other aspects of the environment;

- disposition approaches, suggesting that job satisfaction depends on the individual, his / her character and psychological structure;

- interactive (personal-situational) theories, suggesting that job satisfaction depends on the interaction of situational and personal factors.

An example of the situational (contextual) approach is the two-factor theory by Frederick Herzberg (1959), also known as motivational hygiene theory, which attempts to explain the pleasure and motivation in the workplace [19]. This theory asserts that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are due to various factors - motivational and hygienic, respectively. The motivation of the employee to work is constant and is related to the «job satisfaction».

Motivation can be regarded as an internal force causing people to achieve personal and organizational goals. Factors of the motivation are inherent in the very work [18], its content, for example: labor achievements of an employee, recognition of the employee for the efficiently completed tasks on the basis of the principle of the justice, providing employees with autonomy in the implementation of production tasks, ensuring career growth, professional development, enriching labor with elements of creativity (A. Aristovnik, 2013).

Hygienic factors or dissatisfaction factors prevent the emergence of frustration at work and include aspects of the working environment such as: a management style, organizational management policies, wages/salaries, working conditions, interpersonal relationships, an employee social status, guarantees of preservation of the workplace, the impact of the work process on the personal Life of a member of the organization [18].

Although the model by F. Herzberg initiated a lot of research, scientists have failed to reliably prove it. J. R. Hackman and G. R. Oldham suggest that the original formulation of the Herzberg model can be a methodological artifact [18]. In addition, the theory does not take into account individual differences and, on the contrary, predicts that all employees will react in a similar way if motivational or hygienic factors will change. [18]. Finally, the model has been criticized as it does not specify how these factors should be measured [18].

Another example of the situational approach is the Job Characteristics Model (JCM) (J. R. Hackman, G. R. Oldham, 1974, 1976, 1980), stating that working conditions motivating an employee lead to a higher level of job satisfaction. Within this model, five main characteristics of work are distinguished: Skill Variety; Task Identity; Task Significance; Autonomy; Feedback.

According to this theory, the work, providing these key job characteristics give more pleasure and motivation than the work, failing to provide these characteristics. More specifically, it is suggested that the key job characteristics cause three critical psychological states - meaningfulness, responsibility and knowledge of the results, which in turn lead to consequences, for example, job satisfaction [23].

It is worth noting that the Job Characteristics Model was originally designed as a purely situational model, but it could not explain why under different working conditions different employees have different motivation and level of job satisfaction. Therefore the model by J. R. Hackman; G. R. Oldham was supplemented with the concept of growth (the need for a personal development) as an intermediary between the internal job characteristics and job satisfaction [23].

Indeed, the work environment affects the quality of work, but the motivation and performance increase depending on the correspondence between the job characteristics and the values of the person. Contextual factors and the interaction between the context and the individual should be considered in studies of job satisfaction [25].

The dispositional approach suggests that people differ in their propensity to be satisfied with their work; in other words, the job satisfaction is, to some extent, an individual trait. The dispositional approach was supported by some indirect research, using National Longitudinal Surveys (NLS) data and determining that the measurement of job satisfaction was stable for over 5 years (2 years - 0.42, 3 years - 0.32, 5 years - 0.29). It was shown that job satisfaction is stable even if an employee has changed two employers in 5 years. And also, that the job satisfaction in the first job is a more important factor in the current job satisfaction than changes in pay or status [35].

A study of the influence on job satisfaction has found that: a negative affect has a stronger influence on the «job satisfaction» than a positive affect does (C. J. Thoresen, S. A. Kaplan, A. P. Barsky, C. R. Warren, K. de- Chennont, 2003).

The model that narrowed the scope of the dispositional approach was Core Self-evaluations Model, proposed by Timothy A. Judge, Edwin A. Locke, and Cathy C. Durham in 1997 [24]. This model determines its own disposition of the employee in relation to job satisfaction: self-esteem; Generalized self-efficacy; Locus of control; Neuroticism or emotional stability. According to this model, a higher self-esteem and overall self-efficacy will lead to increased job satisfaction. The internal locus of control, as well as a lower level of neuroticism, leads to increased job satisfaction [24].

L. Moynihan (2000) investigated the relationship between the «job satisfaction» and other aspects of organizational engagement (emotional, cognitive and behavioral ones) and various factors: an intention to leave work, an activity to find work, performance and effectiveness of leadership. L. Moynihan suggests that the organization's ability to achieve its objectives partly depends on intrapersonal factors (talent and executive staff efforts) (H. Mintzberg, 1973). Working relationships are a set of feelings, beliefs and thoughts about how to behave, what people think about their work and organization (J. M. George & G. R. Jones, 1999). As relationships include behavioral and affective and cognitive components (M. Fishbein & I. Ajzen, 1972), they are important determinants of the employee participation and the role of behavior in the work environment. The relationship between job satisfaction with performance and leadership was proven [29].

The hypothesis about the influence of an interpersonal factors on job satisfaction is also supported by the results, obtained by A. Bandura (2001). When people consider themselves ineffective, they probably do not make efforts that provide opportunities for growth. Conversely, when people think that the working environment is organized in accordance with their understanding of the necessary job characteristics, this increases the probability of their success and satisfaction. [25].

The main assumption underlying the personality-situational approach is that the relationship between variables (for example, needs or values), as well as individual and organizational results, depends on various job characteristics or the organization as a whole (A. L. Kristof, 1996) [25].

A special case of the personal-situational approach is the Cornell Model (C. L. Hulin, M. Roznowski and D. Hachiya, 1985; C. L. Hulin, 1991). The model defines job satisfaction as a balance between input (training, experience, time, effort) and output (pay, status, working conditions, internal factors) roles. If the organization pays more attention to output roles, the employee feels satisfied. In addition, during periods of unemployment, people perceive their contribution as less valuable because of high competition, and vice versa, if there is a lot of work opportunities, its significance decreases [23].

Within the context of the personality-situational approach, the self-discrepancy theory (E. T. Higgins, 1987) should be highlighted. The concept of the self-discrepancy theory explains the source of anxiety and depression [20]. An employee, failing to fulfill his / her obligations, feels the anxiety and guilt, as well as depression because he / she is not able to achieve professional aspirations. If an employee performs his/her duties, the reward should be an emotional, such as praise or love. When a person does not receive an emotional reward, a person begins to feel disappointment, frustrated, or even depressed [20].

One of the varieties of the Self-discrepancy theory was the Value-Percept Theory (Å. À. Locke, 1976), according to which, personal values determine what will satisfy at work [23]. Based on this concept, C. L. Hulin and T. A. Judge (2003) noted that modern and closest to the notion of the «well-being» definition of the concept of «job satisfaction» includes multidimensional psychological questions about the work of the individual, and that these personal reactions have cognitive (value), affective (emotional) and behavioral components. This is the approach that has become most common in studies of job satisfaction [23].

«Job satisfaction» is included into many professional well-being models as a separate component. K. Danna and R. W. Griffin (1999) consider «job satisfaction» with the central theme of the professional well-being. They argue that the overall psychological well-being consists of well-being in the context of work (professional well-being) and beyond (psychological well-being).

Researchers in the areas of occupational health adhere to the opinion that using job satisfaction assessment is not enough to determine occupational health. Other researchers consider the «job satisfaction» to be not sufficient even to determine the emotional aspect of professional well-being. For example, until now there is no clear delineation of constructs: job satisfaction and job engagement (W. B. Schaufeli, A. B. Bakker, 2004).

T. Yu. Ivanova (2012) suggests considering «job engagement» as a subset and emotional consequence of «job satisfaction», and the latter one is considered by analogy with «life satisfaction» (E. Diener, K. Ryan, 2009) [3]. T. A. Wright, R. Cropanzano, P. J. Denney and G. L. Moline (2002) believe that «job satisfaction» is primarily a cognitive evaluation. R. M. Shaminonov (2003) defines «job satisfaction» as an emotional-appraisal attitude of an individual or a group to work and the conditions of its flow and treats it as a «subjective well-being in the professional sphere» [10].

The approach by E. Diener's Subjective well-being to the workplace is very important for understanding the professional well-being. Despite the fact that E. Diener combined the emotional and cognitive components his approach of the individual subjective attitude to various aspects of his/her work began to be developed by many researchers as affective well being in the professional sphere.

E. Diener (1991) defines Subjective well-being in the workplace as follows: an employee has a high level of subjective well-being in the workplace, if an employee feels satisfied and experiences frequent positive emotions and rare negative emotions (engagement, happiness or satisfaction). Employees, experiencing mostly negative emotions at work may suffer from burnout or workaholism.

It was E. Diener's research that became the basis for the separation of emotional (affective) well-being, as one of the important components of the professional well-being (P. Warr, 1987).

It should be noted that affective well-being has been studied by many scientists in the context of studies of job satisfaction, depression and burnout (T. Taris, P. Schreurs & W. B. Schaufeli, 2000). This component is considered the most common among scientists. For example, P. Warr (1987, 1994) includes affective well-being into his occupational well-being model.

A more detailed approach to affective well-being reveals studies, related to the structure of emotions and moods (J. A. Russell & J. H. Steiger, 1982; M. A. Zevon & A. Tellegen, 1982; D. Watson & A. Tellegen, 1985; K. Daniels, 2000).

For example W. B. Schaufeli & A. B. Bakker (2003) proposed Work Engagement Scale as the opposites of the «burnout» construct [32]. The authors found that burnout and engagement are opposed constructs, related to well-being in the professional sphere. Since C. Maslach and M. P. Leiter (1997) define «burnout» in terms of exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy, engagement is characterized by: Vigor, Involvement or Dedication and Absorption. They also simplified the measurement and determined that the opposite scoring template for the three aspects of «burnout» by Inventory Maslach Burnout (MBI, S. Maslach, S. E. Jackson & M. P. Leiter, 1996) provides for engagement in work.