Hizmet ve Üretim Sektörü Çalışanlarında Kişisel İyi Oluşun Yordayıcıları Olarak Kişilik ve Sosyo-demografik Faktör Farklılıkları

Yıl 2022, , 40 - 50, 31.12.2022

Arkun Tatar , Nevin Kılıç , Berra Bekiroğlu

https://doi.org/10.25203/idd.1146381

Öz

Amaç: Farklı sektör çalışanlarının iyi oluşu düzeyini ölçmek iş gücünün olumlu veya olumsuz ruh sağlığı hakkında yararlı bir gösterge verebilir. Bu ölçümler, işyerinde olumlu ruh sağlığını desteklemek ve olumsuz sonuçları azaltmak için bir temel sağlar. Ayrıca, hizmet ve üretim sektörü çalışanları arasında kişisel iyi oluş için kişilik özelliklerinin ve sosyo-demografik profillerin önemi hakkında çok az şey bilinmektedir. Bu doğrultuda bu çalışmanın amacı, hizmet sektörü çalışanları üretim sektörü çalışanları ile karşılaştırıldığında, bazı kişilik özellikleri ve temel sosyo-demografik değişkenlerin kişisel iyi oluş ile farklı ilişkilere sahip olup olmadığını araştırmaktır.

Tasarım/Yöntem: Kesitsel desen kullanılarak kolay örnekleme yoluyla çeşitli meslek ve kurumlardan seçilen 412 çalışandan (236 hizmet ve 176 üretim sektörü çalışanı) veri toplanmıştır. Araştırmanın amacı doğrultusunda, hizmet ve üretim sektörlerinde çalışanların kişisel iyi oluş düzeyleri, çoklu lojistik regresyon analizi kullanılarak kişilik özellikleri ve sosyo-demografik değişkenler ile yordanmıştır.

Sonuçlar: Sonuçlar, ilişkilere ilişkin önceki bulguları doğrulamış ve yeni bulgularla katkıda bulunmuş, her iki sektör çalışanlarında da kişilik özelliklerinin kişisel iyi oluş için önemli olduğunu göstermiştir.

Uygulama Çıkarımları: Sonuçlar, farklı sektör çalışanları arasında kişisel iyi oluştaki varyansın kişilik özellikleri ve sosyo-demografik profiller ile açıklanmasında farklılık olduğunu göstermektedir.

Özgün Değer: Bu çalışma sonuçları, hizmet ve üretim sektörü çalışanları arasında farklı kişilik özelliklerinin ve sosyo-demografik değişkenlerin kişisel iyi oluştaki varyansın farklı miktarlarını açıkladığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

kişisel iyi oluş, hizmet sektörü, üretim sektörü, çalışan, kişilik özellikleri

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

-

Personality and Socio-demographic Factor Differences as Predictors of Subjective Well-Being at Service and Manufacturing Sector Employees

Öz

Objectives: Measuring the levels of employees’ well-being in different sector can give a useful indication of the positive or negative mental health in workforce. These measurements provide a basis for promoting positive mental health and reducing negative outcomes within at workplace. Furthermore, little is known about the importance of personality traits and socio-demographic characteristics for subjective well-being among service and manufacturing sector employees. In this direction, the aim of this research is to investigate whether some personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, intellect / imagination) and basic socio-demographic variables (age, gender, marital status, education attainment, ect.) have different relationships with subjective well-being when service sector employees compared with manufacturing sector employees.

Design/methodology/approach: Using a cross-sectional design, data were collected from 412 employees (236 service sector employee and 176 manufacturing sector employee; 213 women and 199 men) selected from diverse occupations and organizations through convenience sampling. Employees completed an anonymous form that including Big-Five Personality Questionnaire, Personal Well-Being Index and socio-demographic survey. In accordance with the purpose, levels of subjective well-being of the service and manufacturing sectors employees have been predicted with personality traits and socio-demographic variables by multiple logistic regression analysis.

Results: Results has confirmed previous findings on relationships and contributed with new findings, indicating that personality traits are of importance for subjective well-being for the different sector employees. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that among the agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability had statistically significant, relationships with subjective well-being at the service sector employees. Also for manufacturing sector employees, agreeableness as personality trait and socioeconomic status had a significant positive relationships with subjective well-being. Further, effects have larger among subjective well-being and agreeableness than other variables at the both sector employees. Regression analyses also showed that 35.0 % of the variance of subjective well-being was accounted for by three personality factor at the service sector employees, whereas two variables explained 29.6 % of the variance at the manufacturing sector employees.

Practical implications: The results showed that there is a difference in the explanation of the variance in subjective well-being among employees’ different sectors by personality traits and socio-demographic variables. In addition, it is understudied that these variables are a useful devices for understanding individual differences in subjective well-being for different sectors employees. This study provides this way, an insight for potential factors, which is considered detrimental for subjective well-being and mental health about work performance and productivity at employees.

Originality/value: The results of this study reveal that there are different personality traits and socio-demographic variables explaining different amounts of variance in subjective well-being among service and manufacturing sector employees. In addition, results contributes with the related literature through empirically indicating how affected at different sector employees by relationships of personality traits and subjective well-being.

Anahtar Kelimeler

subjective well-being, service sector, manufacturing sector, employee, personality traits

Proje Numarası

-

Kaynakça

• Alam, S., & Rizvi, K. (2012). Psychological well-being among bank employees. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 38(2), 242-247.
• Anglim, J., Horwood, S., Smillie, L. D., Marrero, R. J., & Wood, J. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279-323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226
• Atanes, A., Andreoni, S., Hirayama, M. S., Montero-Marin, J., Barros, V. V., Ronzani, T. M., ... & Demarzo, M. M. (2015). Mindfulness, perceived stress, and subjective well-being: a correlational study in primary care health professionals. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 15(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-015-0823-0
• Baselmans, B. M., & Bartels, M. (2018). A genetic perspective on the relationship between eudaimonic-and hedonic well-being. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32638-1
• Berglund, V., Johansson Sevä, I., & Strandh, M. (2015). Subjective well-being and job satisfaction among self-employed and regular employees: does personality matter differently? Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 28(1), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2015.1115699
• Brunetto, Y., Dick, T., Xerri, M., & Cully, A. (2020). Building capacity in the healthcare sector: a strengths-based approach for increasing employees' well-being and organisational resilience. Journal of Management and Organization, 26(Special Issue 3), 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.53
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668-678. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.668
• Cummins, R. A., Gullone, E. & Lau, A. L. D. (2002). A model of subjective well being homeostasis: the role of personality. In E. Gullone & R. A. Cummins (Eds.), The universality of subjective wellbeing indicators: social indicators research series (pp. 7-46). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Cummins, R. A., Lau, A. L., & Davern, M. T. (2012). Subjective wellbeing homeostasis. In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 79-98). Springer.
• DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197-229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197
• Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
• Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276-302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
• Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Smith, H., & Shao, L. (1995). National differences in reported subjective well-being: why do they occur? Social Indicators Research, 34, 6-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01078966
• Furnham, A., & Christoforou, I. (2007). Personality traits, emotional intelligence, and multiple happiness. North American Journal of Psychology, 9(3), 439-462.
• Garcia, D. (2011). Two models of personality and well-being among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1208-1212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.009
• International Wellbeing Group (2006). Personal wellbeing index-adult. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.
• Johari, J., Shamsudin, F. M., Yean, T. F., Yahya, K. K., & Adnan, Z. (2019). Job characteristics, employee well-being, and job performance of public sector employees in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(1), 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-09-2017-0257
• Kapteyn, A., Lee, J., Tassot, C., Vonkova, H., & Zamarro, G. (2015). Dimensions of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 625-660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0753-0
• Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007-1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007
• Khumalo, I. P., Temane, Q. M., & Wissing, M. P. (2011). Socio-demographic variables, general psychological well-being and the mental health continuum in an African context. Social Indicators Research, 105(3), 419-442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9777-2
• Kinman, G., & Johnson, S. (2019). Special section on well-being in academic employees. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(2), 159-161. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000131
• Kjell, O. N., Nima, A. A., Sikström, S., Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2013). Iranian and Swedish adolescents: differences in personality traits and well-being. PeerJ, 1, e197. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.197
• Kokko, K., Tolvanen, A., & Pulkkinen, L. (2013). Associations between personality traits and psychological well-being across time in middle adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 748-756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.07.002
• Lahat, L., & Ofek, D. (2022). Emotional well-being among public employees: a comparative perspective. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(1), 31-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x20939642
• Lambert, L., Passmore, H. A., & Holder, M. D. (2015). Foundational frameworks of positive psychology: mapping well-being orientations. Canadian Psychology, 56(3), 311-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cap0000033
• Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1989). Extraversion, neuroticism and susceptibility to positive and negative mood induction procedures. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(12), 1221-1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(89)90233-X
• Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.132
• Lindert, J., Bain, P. A., Kubzansky, L. D., & Stein, C. (2015). Well-being measurement and the WHO health policy Health 2010: systematic review of measurement scales. The European Journal of Public Health, 25(4), 731-740. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku193
• Lucas, R. E., & Baird, B. M. (2004). Extraversion and emotional reactivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 473-485. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.473
• Lucas, R. E., & Fujita, F. (2000). Factors in fluencing the relation between extraversion and pleasant affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 1039-1056. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.1039
• Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J. C., & Cooper, C. L. (2009). Authentic leadership as a pathway to positive health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 453-458. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.561
• Mäkikangas, A., Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Schaufeli, W. (2016). The longitudinal development of employee well-being: a systematic review. Work and Stress, 30(1), 46-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1126870
• Mäkikangas, A., Rantanen, J., Bakker, A. B., Kinnunen, M. L., Pulkkinen, L., & Kokko, K. (2015). The circumplex model of occupational well-being: its relation with personality. Journal for Person-Oriented Research, 1(3), 115-129. https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2015.13
• Malone, C., & Wachholtz, A. (2018). The relationship of anxiety and depression to subjective well-being in a mainland Chinese sample. Journal of Religion and Health, 57(1), 266-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-017-0447-4
• Martinkovičová, M., Knapkova, M., & Kaščáková, A. (2020). Affective well-being of private sector employees in Slovakia. Sociológia, 52(3), 273-299. https://doi.org/10.31577/sociologia.2020.52.3.12
• Maula-Bakhsh, R., & Raziq, A. (2018). Relationship between servant leadership and subjective well-being: evidence from manufacturing and services based SMEs in Pakistan. Journal of Management Sciences, 5(1), 62-85. https://doi.org/10.20547/jms.2014.1805104
• Mayungbo, O. A. (2016). Agreeableness, conscientiousness and subjective wellbeing. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 66-87. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2016.23.6887
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: the full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2), 227-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616729101700217
• Meral, B. F. (2014). Kişisel iyi oluş indeksi-yetişkin Türkçe formunun psikometrik özellikleri. The Journal of Happiness and Well-Being, 2(2), 119-131.
• Momeni, M., Kalali, N. S., Anvari, M. R. A., Raoofi, Z., & Zarrineh, A. (2011). What kind of people are the happiest? An empirical study. International Review of Business Research Papers, 7(3), 42-54.
• Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2009). The optimum level of well-being: can people be too happy? In E. Diener (Ed.), The science of well-being: the collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 175-200). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2350-6_8
• Pradhan, R. K., & Hati, L. (2022). The measurement of employee well-being: development and validation of a scale. Global Business Review, 23(2), 385-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919859101
• Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2009). Personality and subjective well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), The science of well-being: the collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 75-102). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2350-6_4
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141-166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
• Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
• Ryff, C. D., Boylan, J. M., & Kirsch, J. A. (2021). Eudaimonic and hedonic well-being: an integrative perspective with linkages to sociodemographic factors and health. In M. T. Lee, L. D. Kubzansky, & T. J. VanderWeele (Eds.), Measuring well-being (pp. 92-135). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197512531.003.0005
• Saltukoğlu, G., & Tatar, A. (2017). Comparison of the classification ratios of depression scales used in Turkey. Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 27(1), 76-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750573.2017.1293250
• Schmutte, P. S., & Ryff, C. D. (1997). Personality and well-being: reexamining methods and meanings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 549-559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.549
• Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5
• Soto, C. J. (2015). Is happiness good for your personality? Concurrent and prospective relations of the big five with subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 83(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12081
• Spangler, W. D., & Palrecha, R. (2004). The relative contributions of extraversion, neuroticism, and personal strivings to happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(6), 1193-1203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.12.002
• Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138-161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138
• Tatar, A. (2017). Büyük Beş-50 Kişilik Testinin Türkçeye çevirisi ve Beş Faktör Kişilik Envanteri kısa formu ile karşılaştırılması. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 18(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.220580
• Temane, Q. M., & Wissing, M. P. (2008). The role of personality factors in the dynamics of context and psychological well-being. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 18(1), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2008.10820177
• Theobald, T., & Cooper, C. (2012). The relationship between happiness and wellbeing. In Doing the right thing (pp. 13-18). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230359017_3
• Williams, G., & Smith, A. P. (2016). Using single-item measures to examine the relationships between work, personality, and well-being in the workplace. Psychology, 7, 753-767. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.76078
• Zhang, R. P., & Tsingan, L. (2014). Extraversion and neuroticism mediate associations between openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness and affective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1377-1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9482-3