Validation of happiness at workplace scale

in India – an empirical study on

EdTech employees
Preeti Goel and Animesh Singh

Abstract Preeti Goel is based at the

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to analyze the properties of Happiness at Workplace (HAW) scale Department of
and investigate the validity of the scale in the Indian context using a sample of EdTech employees Management and
(knowledge-intensive population). This is consistent with encouraging the happiness literature as well as Commerce, Manav Rachna
facilitating positive approaches at the working place in developing economies. University, Haryana, India
Design/methodology/approach – Responses were collected via Questionnaire from the employees of and Department of Law,
EdTech Companies, and a total of 500 responses were investigated. The factor structures, reliability and Maharaja Agrasen Institute
validity of the HAW scale were tested with the help of SPSS and Smart PLS Software Version 4.0.8.7. of Management Studies,
Findings – The findings of this study showed that all the criteria of reliability and validity for validation of HAW Rohini, New Delhi, India.
scale were met when used in Indian culture, and the higher-order construct of HAW scale was retained.
Animesh Singh is based at
Originality/value – Because of the differences in work cultures and societal structures among nations,
the Department of
the validation of HAW scale in the Indian context is needed, as the majority of the studies in the field of
Management and
happiness were conducted in Western countries. So this study contributes significantly by validating the
HAW scale in India by using a sample of EdTech employees. Commerce, Manav Rachna
University, Haryana, India.
Keywords Happiness at workplace, Engagement, Job satisfaction, Affective organizational commitment,
EdTech
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Being happy is the top priority in everyone’s life (Diener, 2000). Given the various
advantages of happiness, academicians have been concentrating on it for a long time
(Veenhoven, 1991; Atkinson and Hall, 2011). The individuals devote the majority of their time
to work, whether it be to support themselves, gain notoriety or pleasure or for other reasons
(Gavin and Mason, 2004; Meyers, 2007). It has become a topic of interest for businesses
that take steps to spend on their workers’ happiness, fostering attitudes that produce
favorable results (Smith, 2012).
From the perspective of the organization, it has been demonstrated that having an upbeat
attitude at the workplace promotes work efficiency in several ways. The rationale happy
coworkers appear to increase their earnings and perform better, which results in total
professional growth, is because of happiness (Walsh et al., 2018). According to research in
Germany, life outcomes like permanent employment have a clear substantial relationship
with happiness (Krause, 2013). In research from The Netherlands, it was found that
increased employee pleasure at work greatly increases the employer’s appeal (de Waal,
2018). Given that it has several advantages for both individuals and companies, there Received 9 February 2023
Revised 20 April 2023
appears to be a sharp increase in both study and common enthusiasm for the concept of 20 June 2023
workplace happiness (Fisher, 2010; Pryce-Jones, 2010). Accepted 27 June 2023

DOI 10.1108/ICT-02-2023-0009 VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023, pp. 441-456, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 441
 Although many researchers in the past have developed scales to measure Happiness at
Workplace (HAW), these are mostly developed and validated in Western countries. As
numerous studies have proven the significance of happiness from an Indian context, the
HAW instrument is indeed necessary for Indian practitioners and scholars (Singh and
Aggarwal, 2018). Moreso, keeping in mind the rise in competent knowledge employees and
the growing importance of knowledge economies (Daniel et al., 2018; Shujahat et al., 2019),
the HAW scale should be validated from the perspective of a knowledge-intensive
workforce. However, only limited research has been done on the instrument of measuring
HAW scale in India (Rastogi, 2020; Singh and Aggarwal, 2018). As such, the current study
is aimed at validation of HAW scale in the Indian context from the perspective of EdTech
employees, that is, a knowledge-intensive workforce.

2. Literature review
Happiness was considered to be a positive psychological condition since the start of the
2000s when Positive Psychology first emerged. Its definition is optimal mental perception as
well as performance (Deci and Ryan, 2008). As per Aristotle, two notions of happiness
include Hedonics, which holds that happiness is determined by how much enjoyment or
suffering someone experiences, along with Eudaimonia, which is commonly understood to
be leading full and moral life while making the most of one’s capabilities (Deci and Ryan,
2008; Tomer, 2011). In other words, avoidance of pain and attainment of pleasure is one
aspect of happiness (hedonics approach) and achievement of self-realization and self-
actualization is another aspect of happiness (eudaimonic approach).
Various studies have been conducted to determine what factors affect work-related
happiness. Though there has been formal recognition of personal variation since the start of
the study, the majority of discussions is centered around contextual theories. These theories
place more weight on environmental stimuli than on internal characteristics. The Hierarchy
of Needs (Maslow, 1943), the Motivation-Hygiene theory (Herzberg et al., 1959), the Dual-
Factor Theory (Seligman, 2002) and Positive Psychology (Seligman, 2002) are examples of
psychological theories that have been applied to workplace. These theories focus on
“individual factors, job characteristics, and organizational conditions” in the attainment of
Happiness at Work.
There are far too many ideas in the literature about what makes people happy at workplace
(Warr, 2007), many of which cross over (Warr and Inceoglu, 2012). Warr (2007) drew
attention to the overabundance of positive attitude-related measurements that lack details
about work that is valuable. Harrison et al. (2006) suggested a higher-order construct
consisting of job satisfaction and commitment that can also include work participation.
Fisher (2010) noted that the measurement of HAW needed more investigation and
developed the concept of HAW consisting of three dimensions, namely, “engagement, job
satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment.”
HAW is a comprehensive metric that faithfully captures optimistic attitudes on the job
(Fisher, 2010). It is a crucial idea that is becoming more significant in academic research
(Fisher, 2010; Higgs and Dulewicz, 2014). The idea of “happiness at work” has developed
into a construct within itself further lately (Lutterbie and Pryce-Jones, 2013; Singh and
Aggarwal, 2018; Salas-Vallina et al., 2017a), related to the idea of subjective well-being. As
a result, the phrases “happiness” and “well-being” are frequently used synonymously or
interchangeably (Demo and Paschoal, 2016; Lyubomirsky, 2007; Seligman, 2002; Wright
and Huang, 2012).
Happiness, according to Xanthopoulou et al. (2012), is a two-dimensional phenomenon that
encompasses simultaneously satisfaction as well as engagement. They noticed how intense
degrees of vitality, participation and eagerness, as well as complete focus, are indicative of
engagement (absorption). This suggests that being engaged at work is an active state. A

PAGE 442 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023

higher level of pleasure plus increased amounts of stimulation define occupational
happiness (Bakker and Oerlemans, 2011). We contend that large amounts of interest and
higher amounts of stimulation are components of affective organizational commitment. As a
result, HAW can capture a mix of intense pleasure and strong activation.
A review of the literature indicates that different researchers have related some different and
overlapping aspects to their definition of workplace happiness. But on further study, it is
observed that most of the studies in the recent past related to workplace happiness are
based on Fisher’s (2010) conceptual framework of happiness (Edmans, 2012; Gabini, 2018;
Salas-Vallina and Alegre, 2018; Salas-Vallina et al., 2017a; Sender and Fleck, 2017; Singh
and Aggarwal, 2018; Sousa and Porto, 2015), thus making it the most widely accepted
definition of happiness. For this reason, the current study considers Fisher’s (2010)
conceptual framework of HAW.
Various scales were developed in the past for the measurement of happiness-related
constructs – Positive and Negative Affect Scale (Watson et al., 1988), Job-Related Affective
Well-Being Scale (Van Katwyk et al., 2000), iPPQ-based HAW Scale (Lutterbie and Pryce-
Jones, 2013), etc. Gallup Workplace Audit Scale (Harter et al., 2002) focuses on questions
related only to antecedents of workplace happiness. The Happiness scale developed by
Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) emphasizes solely on subjective well-being, ignoring the
objective aspects and cognitive aspects, thus providing limited insight into the factors that
influence HAW.
The HAW scale developed/validated in Indian context, either emphasizes solely subjective
well-being as seen in the HAW scale developed by Singh and Aggarwal (2018) or provides
the shortened version of HAW scale as seen in the study of Rastogi (2020). The former
ignores the objective and cognitive aspects of workplace happiness, and the latter lacks
the better internal consistency and the advantages of multiple-item scales such as ease of
construction and assessment (Thomas and Petersen, 1982). The HAW scale used in the
present study (developed by Salas-Vallina and Alegre) is a multiple-item scale and
incorporates subjective as well as objective aspects and hedonic as well as eudaimonic
approaches which consist of engagement (individual factors), job satisfaction (job
characteristics) and organizational commitment (organizational characteristics), comprising
antecedents as well as consequences of workplace happiness. Hence, this comprehensive
well-established scale based on widely accepted definition of HAW given by Fisher (2010)
is chosen for the current study.

3. Conceptual framework
According to Fisher (2010), happiness is measured by positive emotions toward the work
(Engagement), happy feelings toward job characteristics (Job Satisfaction) and happy
feelings toward the organization (Affective Organizational Commitment). “Engagement, Job
satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment” are the three categories most
commonly used by workplace happiness researchers around the world (Salas-Vallina et al.,
2017b; Salas-Vallina and Fernandez, 2017). The three dimensions of HAW are illustrated in
the conceptual model of the study (Figure 1) and are described below:

3.1 Engagement
Kahn (1990) defined the concept of job engagement as the alignment of an individual’s
self-interests with their job functions. This concept can be better understood if we compare
it with disengagement. During job performances, if individuals express themselves
physically, mentally and emotionally, then they are said to be engaged, and if they defend
and withdraw themselves, then they are said to be disengaged. Engaged people tend to
stay more immersed in their occupations and build an energetic and successful relationship
with their work (Kahn, 1990). Employees who are engaged are more driven, invested in their

VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 443

 Figure 1 Conceptual model

professions and organizations, productive and willing to go above and beyond what is
asked of them to help their companies survive and prosper (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).

3.2 Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is one of the most important and commonly explored variables in the field of
industrial and organizational psychology, according to the literature (Locke, 1976). Job
satisfaction, according to Locke, is a happy or positive emotional state arising from a
positive evaluation of one’s job (Locke, 1969). The relevance of job satisfaction has already
been demonstrated in various studies concerning the outcomes for an organization in terms
of increased productivity and job performance, increased efficiency, better employee
relations and decreased absenteeism and turnover (Maghrabi, 1999).

3.3 Affective organizational commitment

Employee commitment refers to a person’s level of attachment to a company (Meyer and
Allen, 1997). The commitment can be classified as “affective commitment, continuance
commitment, and normative commitment.” Affective commitment, according to Meyer and
Allen, is characterized as an emotional attachment to, association with and involvement in a
particular organization. The continuance commitment is linked to estimated prices or
expenses if the employee decides to quit the existing company (Meyer and Allen, 1984).
The term “normative commitment” means an individual’s perception of a mandatory or
obligatory responsibility to stay with the current organization. Only affective commitment
encompasses emotional ties, identification and participation in the organization, as well as
attitudes toward the company as a whole (Meyer et al., 2002).

4. Rationale of the study

Considering the perplexing range of HAW components given by researchers in the past
and the significance of workplace happiness (as explained in the literature review section),
the need was felt to conduct a study to conceptualize the components of workplace
happiness in the Indian context. The significance of assessing workplace happiness in

PAGE 444 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023

various cultures has been emphasized by numerous scholars, including (Joo and Lee,
2017) South Korea, (Gavin and Mason, 2004) the USA and (Zyl, 2013) Africa. Work values
differ between cultures (Rastogi et al., 2018). What one individual finds appealing may not
be shared by other individuals with different cultural backgrounds (Nicholson and Sahay,
2001).
In Western countries, happiness is viewed as an individual factor of advancement and
wellness and is primarily linked with great arousal feelings of enthusiasm, full of energy,
etc., while in non-Western cultures like India, happiness is related to virtues reflecting
harmonious relations, personal interactions and collaborative welfare along with moderate
arousal of feelings of peace and tranquility (Ye et al., 2015). In the collectivist culture in
India, individuals tend to be connected to their family and friends as well as coworkers
(Sahay and Walsham, 1997; Sinha and Sinha, 1990). Collectivistic cultures place a higher
importance on a sense of belonging, balance and collaboration than individualistic cultures
of Western countries (Triandis, 1995). As India illustrates a close-knit family tradition of
collectivism in non-Western nations, India is a perfect fit for verifying HAW scale. The
difference in the perceptions of workplace Happiness in Western and India (a non-Western
nation) necessitates the need for validation of the HAW scale in India, as only limited
research has been done on the validation of the HAW scale in India (Rastogi, 2020; Singh
and Aggarwal, 2018).
Based on the conceptual framework of happiness given by Fisher, Salas-Vallina et al.
(2017b) created the HAW scale. These factors include sentiments of zeal and excitement,
unbiased assessments of job requirements and a sensation of identification with the
company. Given that many researchers used these three factors to measure occupational
happiness, it is easy to understand the prevalence of Fisher’s conceptualization-based
dimensions (Williams et al., 2015; Salas-Vallina et al., 2017b; Salas-Vallina and Fernandez,
2017). However, this scale was developed and validated in Western countries. So the
current study is needed for validation of HAW scale (based on Fisher’s conceptualization) in
the Indian context.
India is acknowledged as a rising economic superpower because of the vital significance of
its skilled professionals as a global actor (Nigam, 2017). India has been ranked by the IMF
as a rapidly developing economy in 2018 with the largest rising gross domestic product
(Jha, 2018). Because of their superior mathematical and analytical ability, acceptable
English-speaking skills and low salary prices, Indian talent has carved out a special place
for itself in the marketplace (Rastogi et al., 2016). India is one of the world’s top outsourcing
destinations because of these elements and government initiatives. Additionally, knowledge
workers and skilled professionals are other sources of energy needed by advanced
economies for their sustainable unceasing growth (All India Management Association,
2019).
Individuals whose job requires “think for a livelihood,” including engineers, scientists,
technicians and academicians, fall under the category of knowledge workers (Davenport,
2005). According to studies, the problem of inspiring and maintaining knowledge workers
has arisen as a significant obstacle for employers (Horwitz et al., 2003). Managing
knowledge-intensive employees to achieve corporate goals is a challenging managerial
task (Salas-Vallina et al., 2017a). Past studies have also revealed that workers’ motivational
levels along with retention levels are strongly correlated with overall levels of happiness and
welfare (Ryan et al., 2008; Nix et al., 1999). In this sense, knowledge workers’ motivational
as well as retention patterns can be assessed by monitoring their workplace happiness
levels (Wright, 2017). Hence, the researcher conducted the study on the EdTech Sector,
where technology is being used to empower the process of learning via a workforce
possessing characteristics of academicians as well as technicians, thus widely
representing the knowledge workers. So the findings of this study can be generalized for

VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 445

 the knowledge-intensive workers of India which include academicians, technicians,
engineers and scientists.
In light of this, it is strategically crucial to validate the HAW scale for the Indian knowledge-
intensive workforce.

5. Research method
5.1 Target population and sample
The objective of the current study is to validate the HAW scale in the Indian context from the
perspective of knowledge workers. The knowledge-intensive employees are self-directed
effective learners who value difficult assignments, chances to pursue, issues to overcome
and suggestions about their performance (Massaro, 2012). Knowledge workers’ distinctive
and specialized expertise is their greatest attribute.
For the study, the data was collected from the employees of EdTech companies in India.
The Questionnaire was mailed (via G-Form) to the HR Departments of the five top EdTech
Companies in September 2022, and a total of 747 responses were received by January 15,
2023. The incomplete and inappropriate responses (totaling 124) were discarded. Of the
remaining 623, a total of 500 responses (a quota of 100 from each of the five companies)
were considered for data analysis.
Among the 500 participants in the research, 196 (39.20%) were men and 304 (60.80%)
were women. The majority of the respondents was between the age group of 35–45 years
(42.80%) followed by 26% in the age group above 45 years and 21.40% within the age
bracket of 25–35 years. In terms of academic qualifications, 28.60% of the participants had
a bachelor’s degree, 43.60% had a master’s degree, 9.4% had a doctorate degree and
18.40% fell in other categories.

5.2 Measurement scales

Based on Fisher’s conceptualization of HAW, three dimensions, namely, Engagement, Job
Satisfaction and Affective Organizational Commitment were considered. As such, HAW
scale used in the study consists of a 17-item scale for measuring Engagement – Scale of
Utrecht Work Engagement (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). The study also includes the
Schriesheim and Tsui (1980) Scale for measuring job satisfaction levels, having six items.
For the measurement of affective organizational commitment, an eight-item Affective
Commitment Scale (Meyer and Allen, 2004) was used. Thus, a 31-item HAW scale based
on three dimensions was used for the study (Appendix).

6. Data analysis
6.1 Initial descriptive analysis
A basic descriptive analysis was carried out to check the normalcy of the data. Skewness,
as well as kurtosis of all three dimensions of HAW construct, was examined to ensure
the accuracy of the data set. If the skewness of the data set lies within the range of 2 to þ2
and kurtosis lies within 7 to þ7, then the data is regarded as normal (Hair et al., 2010).
Table 1 lists the descriptive statistics of the entire data set in terms of mean, standard
deviation, skewness and kurtosis. Skewness within the range of 0.091 to 0.324 and
kurtosis being in the range of 0.206 to 0.815 of all three dimensions confirm the data being
normally distributed.

6.2 Exploratory factor analysis

Before the conduction of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin and
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were performed. These two tests are pre-requirements and

PAGE 446 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023

 Table 1 Descriptive statistics
N Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
HAW dimensions Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Standard error Statistic Standard error

ENG 500 4.286353 1.3928287 0.324 0.109 0.619 0.218

JS 500 4.498333 0.9543391 0.178 0.109 0.815 0.218
AOC 500 4.44200 1.294938 0.091 0.109 0.206 0.218
Valid N (listwise) 500
Source: Researcher’s calculation with the use of SmartPLS

show whether the data is suitable for factor analysis. Table 2 represents the
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure for the HAW scale to be 0.903 (above the recommended
value of 0.6), explaining about 90.3% of the variance in the sample. Hence, the sample is
adequate for the conduction of further statistical analysis. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was
also found to be significant at p-value ¼ 0.000. As such, the data was fit for EFA.
EFA was then performed with the help of SPSS to validate the HAW scale in the Indian
context, regarding EdTech employees. EFA was done with the help of SPSS using principal
component analysis along with varimax with Kaiser normalization. EFA included all 31 items
of the HAW scale to examine the factor structure. With eigen values above 1, three factors
overall were obtained (Table 3). Table 3 represents no case of cross-loading in any of the
factors, thus indicating clear loading of every item on its respective scale/factor. No item
was loaded incorrectly, and as a result, no item was deleted. All 31 items in the HAW scale
were retained for the study.

6.3 Confirmatory factor analysis

6.3.1 Construct validity. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine whether
the items represented their corresponding constructs. The items having factor loadings >
0.7 are said to be reliable for their construct (Hair et al., 2019). Factor loadings were
calculated with the use of SmartPLS Version 4.0.8.7, and the findings are summarized in
Table 4. Items showing factor loadings less than 0.7 were dropped from the study. As such,
13 of 17 items were retained for ENG, 6 of 6 items were retained for JS and 7 of 8 items
were retained for AOC. A total of 26 items of 31 were retained for further analysis (Figure 2).
After checking the factor loadings on all three lower-order constructs, ENG, JS and AOC
and retaining the significant items, factor loadings were examined for the higher-order HAW
scale. It was found that all three constructs loaded significantly on HAW scale, with a factor
loading of ENG ¼ 0.812, JS ¼ 0.699 and AOC ¼ 0.630. Though the factor loading of AOC is
a bit on the lower side (recommended being > 0.7), it can be retained given the higher CR
and AVE value within acceptable limits (Rastogi, 2020) and its contribution to the increase in
CR and AVE values (Hamid et al., 2017) (Table 5). This confirmed the construct validity of
the higher-order HAW scale in the Indian setting.

Table 2 Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin and Bartlett’s test

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.903
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Approximate chi-square 34,080.895
df 465
Significance 0.000

Source: Researcher’s calculation with the use of SmartPLS

VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 447

 Table 3 Rotated component matrix
Factors
Dimensions ENG AOC JS

ENG1 0.984
ENG2 0.981
ENG3 0.885
ENG4 0.944
ENG5 0.952
ENG6 0.890
ENG7 0.987
ENG8 0.980
ENG9 0.980
ENG10 0.772
ENG11 0.983
ENG12 0.978
ENG13 0.810
ENG14 0.984
ENG15 0.890
ENG16 0.979
ENG17 0.978
JS1 0.887
JS2 0.899
JS3 0.767
JS4 0.735
JS5 0.883
JS6 0.748
AOC1 0.963
AOC2 0.943
AOC3 0.918
AOC4 0.918
AOC5 0.937
AOC6 0.919
AOC7 0.925
AOC8 0.858
Notes: Extraction method = principal component analysis; and rotation method = varimax with Kaiser
normalization
Source: Researcher’s calculation with the use of SmartPLS; Abbreviations used: ENG ¼
engagement, JS ¼ job satisfaction and AOC ¼ affective organizational commitment

Table 4 Item analysis and factor loadings

Constructs ENG JS AOC Total (HAW)

Total items 17 6 8 31
Items dropped 4 0 1 5
Items retained 13 6 7 26
Factor loading of retained items 0.953–0.992 0.878–0.948 0.894–0.958 0.878–0.992
Note:  Significant at 95% confidence level (p < 0.005)
Source: Researcher’s calculation with the use of SmartPLS

6.3.2 Reliability. To examine the reliability of the HAW scale, Cronbach’s alpha score and
composite reliability (CR) of lower-order construct, as well as higher-order construct, were
calculated. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be at 0.997 for Engagement,
0.958 for Job Satisfaction and 0.971 for Affective Organizational Commitment. Also,
Cronbach’s alpha for higher-order HAW was satisfactory at 0.848. All of these Cronbach’s

PAGE 448 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023

 Figure 2 Factor loadings

Table 5 Reliability and convergent validity analysis

Lower-order construct Higher-order construct
Acceptable value Engagement Job satisfaction Affective organizational Happiness at
Parameters (Hair et al., 2019) (ENG) (JS) commitment (AOC) workplace (HAW)

Cronbach’s alpha (CR) > 0.7 0.997 0.958 0.971 0.848

Composite reliability (rho_a) > 0.7 0.997 0.962 0.974 0.709
Composite reliability (rho_c) > 0.7 0.997 0.966 0.976 0.759
Average variance extracted > 0.5 0.962 0.827 0.852 0.515
(AVE)
CR > AVE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source: Researcher’s calculation with the use of SmartPLS

alpha coefficients were above the recommended value of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2019).
Furthermore, all the CR (rho_a) values were above 0.7. This confirms the internal
consistency reliability and composite reliability of the HAW scale. The results are
summarized in Table 5.
6.3.3 Convergent validity. The convergent validity of the HAW scale was then examined with
Composite Reliability (rho_c) and average variance extracted (AVE) values. AVE was
recorded at 0.962 for ENG, 0.827 for JS, 0.852 for AOC and 0.515 for HAW, all being above
the acceptable value of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2019). Further, for all lower-order constructs and
higher-order construct HAW, CR scores were greater than AVE (CR > AVE) (Rastogi, 2020;
Hair et al., 2010; Sadeghi et al., 2019; Lin and Huang, 2009), indicating that the convergent
validity of the HAW scale is achieved in the Indian context. Refer to Table 5 for the results of
CR and AVE.
6.3.4 Discriminant validity. The correlation coefficients among the three constructs of HAW
scale were then calculated, and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio was calculated with the use of

VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 449

 SmartPLS software to examine the discriminant validity of HAW scale. The heterotrait-
monotrait ratio of ENG-JS was 0.264, JS-AOC was 0.552 and AOC-ENG was 0.152, not
exceeding the maximum threshold of 0.85 (Hair et al., 2019). Further, the Fornell–Larcker
Criterion was also satisfactory, with square root values of AVE of the three lower-order
constructs (represented by bold diagonal values in Table 6) being greater than the inter-
construct correlation (off-diagonal in Table 6). This confirmed a satisfactory discriminant
validity among the three lower-order constructs of HAW scale in the Indian context.

7. Discussion and conclusion

Because of globalization, technological advancement and an intensely competitive corporate
environment, the expectations of the workplace are evolving. Additionally, organizations have
understood the key to succeeding in their companies in this fiercely competitive market is to
gain a competitive edge through personnel. The key lies simply in a shift in how businesses
view nurturing their employees, rather than in any novel technological development.
Nowadays, the majority of highly effective companies cares for their staff by increasing their
pleasure at work which is inclined to provide favorable results for the company (Smith, 2012).
Initially, work-related happiness was seen as a crucial component and was more restricted
to developed countries. On the other hand, developing and rising nations were far more
concerned with meeting the basic requirements of their populations (Rastogi, 2020). In
recent times with the increased involvement of Multinational enterprises along with an
increasing market share of India in global business, there has been a significant shift in
India, where employers are increasingly becoming concerned about their employees’
happiness (Singh and Aggarwal, 2018).
Despite the increasing importance of the concept of HAW, there is a lack of research on
HAW scale in India (Singh and Aggarwal, 2018; Rastogi, 2020; Singh and Banerji, 2022),
and it becomes crucial for managers to know what factors constitute Happiness and how it
can be measured? Further, because of the increased contribution of knowledge workers in
organizational outcomes (Daniel et al., 2018; Shujahat et al., 2019) and the complexity
involved in retaining and motivating knowledge workers (Horwitz et al., 2003; Wright, 2017;
Salas-Vallina et al., 2017b), the current study is carried out with the aim of validation of
HAW scale in India from the perspective of the knowledge-intensive workforce. The HAW
scale developed by Salas-Vallina and Alegre (2018) based on Fisher’s conceptualization
(consisting of Engagement, Job Satisfaction and Affective Organizational (Fisher, 2010) in
the Western context is adopted for the study and tested in Indian (non-Western) culture
from the perspective of EdTech employees (knowledge-intensive workforce representing
academicians and technicians), given the background of varied work cultural systems
(Hofstede, 2011). This is aligned with promoting research on happiness and creating
healthy work environments in non-Western countries like India. The findings of the current
study revealed that all the criteria of reliability and validity for validation of HAW scale were
met when tested in Indian culture, and the second-order construct (Harrison et al., 2014) of
HAW scale was retained. Interestingly, despite the differences in work cultures and societal
structures, the findings of the study are in line with the fundamental patterns of human
behavior that indicate that positive thing makes people happy and negative thing makes

Table 6 Discriminant validity analysis (Fornell–Larcker criterion)

HAW dimensions AOC ENG JS

AOC 0.923 
ENG 0.152 0.981
JS 0.538 0.261 0.909 
Notes:  Square root of AVE is represented by values written in italic.
Source: Researcher’s calculation with the use of SmartPLS

PAGE 450 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023

people unhappy, the study’s findings validates that the Salas-Vallina and Alegre (2018)
original HAW scale is likewise a viable and trustworthy tool in India.
The current research work on the validation of the HAW scale in India not only simply
contributes to academic research by filling the gap in non-Western culture but, additionally,
offers the HR managers of Indian knowledge-intensive workforce, a means to boost worker
happiness, enhancing the attractiveness of their organizations (de Waal, 2018) and improving
the organizational performance. The HAW scale validation in the Indian context is a crucial
move toward conducting empirical research from the happiness perspective in India and will
promote the literature on workplace happiness. This will guide in formulating the strategies with
a focus on the well-being of employees with the intention to promote happiness instead of
simply decreasing complaints in organizations. The HR managers would realize the need to
formulate strategies concerning three dimensions of HAW, “engagement, job satisfaction, and
affective organizational commitment.” Feeling engaged in the job with full vigor and aligning
self-interest with organizational objectives; feeling satisfied with the pay scale, work
environment and growth opportunities; and feeling emotionally attached to the organization
instill a sense of belongingness and citizenship toward their organizations. Employees that are
happy at workplace are more likely to remain loyal to their companies, accommodate work
schedules and assist coworkers (Anis and Syamsul, 2019; Garcı́a-Rodrı́guez et al., 2020).
They feel as though they are “being listened to or taken care of” when workplace happiness is
examined. Hence, the formulation and implementation of strategies for increasing happiness
at work will establish an employee-friendly and performance-oriented atmosphere that is
favorable to both employees as well as employers, and the employees voluntarily will exhibit
extra-role behavior (de Waal, 2018; Salas-Vallina et al., 2017b).
This may serve as an effective instrument for academicians and practitioners to recognize
workplace issues (e.g. performance, absenteeism, turnover and motivation-related issues)
to suggest prudent and appropriate organizational measures to deal with worker issues and
to attract their maximum voluntary contributions toward the organizations. The managers will
be better able to provide improved approaches for increasing organizational efficiency. The
findings and usefulness of this study can well be generalized to other sectors in India falling
into the category of the knowledge-intensive workforce such as academicians, scientists,
engineers and technicians (Davenport, 2005).
With validation, this research work welcomes the introduction of the HAW scale to non-
Western cultures, as India gives a representation of collectivist non-Western culture
(Rastogi, 2020). In addition, this validation would give researchers a uniform platform to
compare workplace happiness in Western and non-Western cultures.

8. Limitations and scope for future research

This study acknowledges significant shortcomings as well, which call for more research. First, the
concept of HAW is very broad and multi-dimensional. While the current study collects the data by
questionnaire method, other methods like interviews, can also be undertaken in further research
studies. The second limitation is that the responses were collected from the employees working in
the top five EdTech companies only. Further, the results of the current study can be generalized to
a knowledge-intensive workforce only, as the workers from different domains of jobs may have
different perceptions of the concept of workplace happiness. As such, further research needs to
be carried out for validating the HAW scale and the conceptual approach in different work
cultures.

References
All India Management Association (2019), “India’s new opportunity – 2020. – 40 million new jobs – $200
billion annual revenue”, All India Management Association, available at: www.ibef.org/download/
IndiaNewOpportunity.pdf (accessed 31 July 2019).

VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 451

 Anis, E. and Syamsul, M. (2019), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment effect in the
transformational leadership towards employee performance”, European Research on Management and
Business Economics, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.05.001.
Atkinson, C. and Hall, L. (2011), “Flexible working and happiness in the NHS”, Employee Relations,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 88-105.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career Development
International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
Bakker, A.B. and Oerlemans, W. (2011), “Subjective well-being in organizations”, in Cameron, K. and
Spreitzer, G. (Eds), Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY, pp. 178-190.
Daniel, E., Di Domenico, M. and Nunan, D. (2018), “Virtual mobility and the lonely cloud: theorizing the
mobility-isolation paradox for self-employed knowledge-workers in the online home-based business
context”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 174-203.
Davenport, T.H. (2005), “Thinking for a living: how to get better performance and results from knowledge
workers”, ISBN 1-59139-423-6, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
de Waal, A. (2018), “Increasing organisational attractiveness: the role of the HPO and happiness at work
frameworks”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 124-41.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2008), “Hedonia, Eudaimonia, and wellbeing: an introduction”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Demo, G. and Paschoal, T. (2016), “Well-being at work scale: exploratory and confirmatory validation in
 (Ribeirão Preto), Vol. 26 No. 63, pp. 35-43.
the USA”, Paideia
Diener, E. (2000), “Subjective well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 34-43.
Edmans, A. (2012), “The link between job satisfaction and firm value, with implications for corporate
social responsibility”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 1-19.
Fisher, C.D. (2010), “Happiness at work”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 384-412.
Gabini, S. (2018), “Happiness at work: brief update from positive psychology”, Revista de Psicologı¨a,
Vol. 14 No. 27, pp. 69-75.
Garcı́a-Rodrı́guez, F.J., Dorta-Afonso, D. and Gonza lez-de-la-Rosa, M. (2020), “Hospitality diversity
management and job satisfaction: the mediating role of organizational commitment across individual
differences”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 91.
Gavin, J.H. and Mason, R.O. (2004), “The virtuous organization: the value of happiness in the workplace”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 379-392.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.

Hamid, M.R., Sami, W. and Mohmad Sidek, M.H. (2017), “Discriminant validity assessment: use of Fornell
& Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 890, p. 12163.

Harrison, H.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (2014), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson,
Harlow.

Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A. and Roth, P.L. (2006), “How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic
comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 305-325.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), “Business-unitlevel relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 268-279.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Bloc, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Higgs, M. and Dulewicz, V. (2014), “Antecedents of well-being: a study to examine the extent to which
personality and emotional intelligence contribute to well-being”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 718-735.

PAGE 452 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023

Hofstede, G. (2011), “Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context”, Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 3-26, doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1014.
Horwitz, F.M., Heng, C.T. and Quazi, H.A. (2003), “Finders, keepers? Attracting, motivating and retaining
knowledge workers”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 23-44.
Jha, L.K. (2018), “IMF sees India GDP growth at 7.4% in 2018, China’s at 6.8%”, available at: www.
livemint.com/Politics/9fx4v1xGMkvCk05WLP78GO/IMF-sees-India-GDP-growth-at-74-in-2018-Chinas-
at68.html (accessed 6 December 2018).
Joo, B.K. and Lee, I. (2017), “Workplace happiness: work engagement, career satisfaction, and
subjective well-being”, Evidence-Based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 206-221.

Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Krause, A. (2013), “Don’t worry, be happy? Happiness and reemployment”, Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, Vol. 96, pp. 1-20.
Lin, C. and Huang, C. (2009), “Understanding social loafing in knowledge contribution from the
perspectives of justice and trust”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 6156-6163.
Locke, E.A. (1969), “What is job satisfaction?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 309-336.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-350.
Lutterbie, S. and Pryce-Jones, J. (2013), “Measuring happiness at work”, Assessment and Development
Matters, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 13-16, doi: 10.1002/nag.830.
Lyubomirsky, S. (2007), The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want,
Penguin Press, London.
Lyubomirsky, S. and Lepper, H.S. (1999), “A measure of subjective happiness: preliminary reliability and
construct validation”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 137-155, doi: 10.1023/
A:1006824100041.
Maghrabi, A.S. (1999), “Assessing the effect of job satisfaction on managers”, International Journal of
Value-Based Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Maslow, A H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50 No. 4,
pp. 370-396.
Massaro, S. (2012), “Managing knowledge-intensive workers”, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 30 No. 7,
pp. 721-723.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984), “‘Testing the side-bet theory’ of organizational commitment: some
methodological considerations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 372-378.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application
(Advanced Topics in Organizational Behavior), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (2004), “TCM employee commitment survey academic users guide 2004”.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52.
Meyers, C. (2007), Industrial Psychology, Garnsey Press, New York, NY.
Nicholson, B. and Sahay, S. (2001), “Some political and cultural issues in the globalisation of software
development: case experience from Britain and India”, Information and Organization, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 25-43.
Nigam, N. (2017), “China versus India: emerging giants in the world economy”, The China Business
Model, pp. 215-249.

Nix, G.A., Ryan, R.M., Manly, J.B. and Deci, E.L. (1999), “Revitalization through self-regulation: the effects
of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality”, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 266-284.
Pryce-Jones, J. (2010), Happiness at Work, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 453

 Rastogi, M. (2020), “A psychometric validation of the happiness at workplace scale”, Industrial and
Commercial Training, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 15-34.
Rastogi, M., Rangnekar, S. and Rastogi, R. (2016), “Flexibility as a predictor of work-family enrichment”,
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-14.

Rastogi, M., Rangnekar, S. and Rastogi, R. (2018), “Psychometric evaluation of need-based quality of
work life scale in an Indian sample”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 10-19.

Ryan, R.M., Huta, V. and Deci, E.L. (2008), “Living well: a self-determination theory perspective on
Eudaimonia”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 139-170.
Sadeghi, D., Rasuli, N. and Jandaghi, G. (2019), “Identifying and prioritizing contributing factors in
supply chain competitiveness by using PLS-BWM techniques (case study: Payam shoes company)”,
World Scientific News, Vol. 49, pp. 117-143.
Sahay, S. and Walsham, G. (1997), “Social structure and managerial agency in India”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 415-444.
Salas-Vallina, A. and Alegre, J. (2018), “Happiness at work: developing a shorter measure”, Journal of
Management & Organization, pp. 1-21.

Salas-Vallina, A. and Fernandez, R. (2017), “The HRM-performance relationship revisited: inspirational

motivation, participative decision making and happiness at work (HAW)”, Employee Relations, Vol. 37
No. 5, pp. 626-642.
Salas-Vallina, A., Alegre, J. and Fernandez, R. (2017a), “Happiness at work and organisational
citizenship behaviour: is organisational learning a missing link?”, International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 470-488.

Salas-Vallina, A., Lopez-Cabrales, A., Alegre, J. and Fernandez, R. (2017b), “On the road to happiness at
work (HAW) transformational leadership and organizational learning capability as drivers of HAW in a
healthcare context”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 314-338.
Schaufeli, W. and Bakker, A. (2004), “UWES Utrecht work engagement scale preliminary manual”,
Utrecht University: Occupational Health Psychology Unit.
Schriesheim, C. and Tsui, A.S. (1980), “Development and validation of a short satisfaction instrument for
use in survey feedback intervention”, Paper presented at the Western Academy of Management Meeting,
Detroit.

Seligman, M. (2002), Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential
for Lasting Fulfillment, Free Press, New York, NY.
Sender, G. and Fleck, D. (2017), “Mensurando a felicidade no trabalho: um estudo comparativo
[measuring happiness at work: a comparative study]”, VIII Congresso Brasileiro de Administrac,ão e
Contabilidade—AdCont 2017, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 1-16.
Shujahat, M., Sousa, M.J., Hussain, S., Nawaz, F., Wang, M. and Umer, M. (2019), “Translating the
impact of knowledge management processes into knowledge-based innovation: the neglected and
mediating role of knowledge-worker productivity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 94, pp. 442-450.
Singh, S. and Aggarwal, Y. (2018), “Happiness at work scale: construction and psychometric validation
of a measure using mixed method approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 1439-1463.
Singh, A. and Banerji, R. (2022), “Happiness at work, organization citizenship behaviour and workplace
diversity: a study on Indian private sector bank employees”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 54
No. 3, pp. 460-475.
Sinha, J.B. and Sinha, D. (1990), “Role of social values in Indian organizations”, International Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 25 Nos 3/6, pp. 705-714.
Smith, J. (2012), “The companies with the biggest jumps in employee happiness”, Forbes, available at:
www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/17/the-companies-with-the-biggest-jumps-in-employee
happiness/#44fb9e9d7b52 (accessed 5 June 2017).
Sousa, J.M. and Porto, J.B. (2015), “Happiness at work: organizational values and person-organization fit
 (Ribeirão Preto), Vol. 25 No. 61, pp. 211-220.
impact”, Paideia
Thomas, C.W. and Petersen, D.M. (1982), “Methodological issues in attitude scale construction”, The
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 116 No. 2, pp. 245-253.

PAGE 454 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023

Tomer, J.F. (2011), “Enduring happiness: integrating the hedonic and Eudaimonic approaches”, The
Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 530-537.

Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview, Boulder, CO.

Van Katwyk, P.T., Fox, S., Spector, P.E. and Kelloway, E.K. (2000), “Using the job-related affective well-
being scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 219-230.
Veenhoven, R. (1991), “Is happiness relative?”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-34.
Walsh, L.C., Boehm, J.K. and Lyubomirsky, S. (2018), “Does happiness promote career success?
Revisiting the evidence”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 199-219.

Warr, P. (2007), Work, Happiness, and Unhappiness, Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ, NJ.
Warr, P. and Inceoglu, I. (2012), “Job engagement, job satisfaction, and contrasting associations with
person–job fit”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 129-138.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988), “Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54
No. 6, pp. 1063-1070.
Williams, P., Kern, M.L. and Waters, L. (2015), “A longitudinal examination of the association between
psychological capital, perception of organizational virtues and work happiness in school staff”,
Psychology of Well-Being, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 5.

Wright, T.A. and Huang, C.-C. (2012), “The many benefits of employee well-being in organizational
research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1188-1192.
Wright, M., Tartari, V., Huang, K.G., Di Lorenzo, F. and Bercovitz, J. (2017), “Knowledge worker mobility
in context: pushing the boundaries of theory and methods”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 55
No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B. and Ilies, R. (2012), “Everyday working life: explaining within-person
fluctuations in employee well-being”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 9, pp. 1051-1069.
Ye, D., Ng, Y.-K. and Lian, Y. (2015), “Culture and happiness”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 123 No. 2,
pp. 519-547.
Zyl, E.V. (2013), “Self-leadership and happiness within the African working context”, Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 59-66.

Further reading
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2018), “When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1.

IBEF (2021), “India to become the EdTech capital of the world”.

Wright, T.A. (2010), “Much more than meets the eye”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 13-23.

Appendix. Happiness at work scale

Engagement (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004):

䊏 ENG1 At my work, I feel bursting with energy.

䊏 ENG2 I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose.
䊏 ENG3 Time flies when I am working.
䊏 ENG4 At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
䊏 ENG5 I am enthusiastic about my job.
䊏 ENG6 When I am working, I forget everything else around me.
䊏 ENG7 My job inspires me.
䊏 ENG8 When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
䊏 ENG9 I feel happy when I am working intensely.

VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 455

 䊏 ENG10 I am proud on the work that I do.
䊏 ENG11 I am immersed in my work.
䊏 ENG12 I can continue working for very long periods at a time.
䊏 ENG13 To me, my job is challenging.
䊏 ENG14 I get carried away when I am working.
䊏 ENG15 At my job, I am very resilient, mentally.
䊏 ENG16 It is difficult to detach myself from my job.
䊏 ENG17 At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well.
Job satisfaction (Schriesheim and Tsui, 1980)
䊏 JS1 I am satisfied with the work I do.
䊏 JS2 I am satisfied with my supervisor.
䊏 JS3 I am satisfied with the relations I have with my co-workers.
䊏 JS4 I am satisfied with the pay I receive for my job.
䊏 JS5 I am satisfied with the growth opportunities (promotions) provided in my bank.
䊏 JS6 All things considered, I am satisfied with my current job situation.
Affective organizational commitment (Meyer and Allen, 2004)
䊏 AOC1 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
䊏 AOC2 I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.
䊏 AOC3 I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.
䊏 AOC4 I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to
this one.
䊏 AOC5 I feel like part of the family at my organization.
䊏 AOC6 I feel emotionally attached to this organization.
䊏 AOC7 This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
䊏 AOC8 I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.

Corresponding author
Preeti Goel can be contacted at: preetigoel010203@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

PAGE 456 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 55 NO. 4 2023