PRACTICAL 1

AIM: The aim of the present study is to investigate the relationships between
psychological capital, job satisfaction and subjective well-being among employees
working in the IT sector.

Introduction

According to APA, Psychological capital is a collection of four healthy psychological

states that enhance well-being and performance—hope, efficacy, resilience, and
optimism. Together, the four states contribute more than the sum of their parts. In
the workplace, individual employees can build psychological capital to enhance their
personal performance and employers can build psychological capital to enhance
organizational performance across teams and entire workforces.

Luthans and Youssef (2004) define Psychological Capital as an investment in people

for competitive advantage, focusing on human, social, and positive psychological
capital management.

Keleş (2011) emphasizes that Psychological Capital includes measurable,

developable, and controllable applications related to the potential and psychological
capacity of human resources, leading to performance increases in organization.

The four components of Psychological Capital are

1. Self-efficacy/Confidence: Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their ability

to successfully perform tasks and overcome challenges. It goes beyond actual
abilities and influences motivation. People with high self-efficacy are more likely to
set challenging goals, persist in the face of obstacles, and enhance their
performance. Research shows a positive relationship between self-efficacy and job
satisfaction

2.Hope: Hope involves having a sense of agency and positive expectations for the
future. It provides individuals with determination and willpower to pursue their goals.
Achieving desired outcomes requires a combination of agency (belief in one's ability
to act) and pathways (identifying ways to reach goals). Hope is crucial for
maintaining motivation and resilience in the face of setbacks

3. Optimism: Optimism is a positive outlook on life and the belief that good things
will happen in the future. It is not solely based on current abilities but on a positive
expectation of outcomes. Optimistic individuals are more likely to persevere in
challenging situations, maintain a hopeful attitude, and exhibit resilience in the face
of adversity

4. Resilience: Resilience refers to the ability to bounce back from setbacks, adapt to
change, and thrive in adverse conditions. It involves facing challenges, overcoming
obstacles, and maintaining a positive attitude despite difficulties. Resilient
individuals can withstand stress, maintain their performance levels, and continue to
pursue their goals even in challenging circumstances

These four components of Psychological Capital work together to enhance

individuals' psychological well-being, performance, and overall effectiveness in
various aspects of life and work.

Psychological Capital has a significant impact on both individual and organizational

performance. Here are some key ways in which Psychological Capital influences
performance:

1.Individual Performance:

- Enhanced Motivation: Psychological Capital components such as self-efficacy,

hope, optimism, and resilience contribute to increased motivation and engagement
in tasks. Individuals with high Psychological Capital are more likely to set challenging
goals, persist in the face of obstacles, and maintain a positive attitude towards their
work

-Improved Job Satisfaction: Research indicates a positive relationship between

Psychological Capital and job satisfaction. Individuals with higher levels of
Psychological Capital tend to experience greater job satisfaction, leading to
increased commitment, performance, and overall well-being

- Better Adaptation to Change: Resilience, a key component of Psychological

Capital, enables individuals to adapt to change, overcome setbacks, and thrive in
dynamic environments. This adaptability is crucial for navigating challenges and
maintaining performance levels in the face of uncertainty

- Higher Performance Levels: Individuals with strong Psychological Capital are

 more likely to achieve high performance levels, realize their full potential, and act
effectively in various situations. The positive mindset and attributes associated with
Psychological Capital contribute to improved individual performance

2. Organizational Performance:

- Increased Productivity: Organizations that foster Psychological Capital in their

employees experience higher levels of productivity and performance. Employees
who are motivated, resilient, and optimistic are more likely to contribute positively to
the organization's goals and objectives

- Enhanced Employee Engagement: Psychological Capital plays a crucial role in

enhancing employee engagement and commitment to the organization. When
employees feel empowered, hopeful, and confident in their abilities, they are more
likely to be engaged in their work and dedicated to achieving organizational success

- Positive Organizational Culture: Organizations that prioritize Psychological Capital

create a positive work environment where employees feel supported, valued, and
motivated. This positive culture fosters collaboration, innovation, and overall
organizational effectiveness

- Better Decision-Making: Individuals with high Psychological Capital are better

equipped to make informed decisions, handle challenges effectively, and contribute
to problem-solving within the organization. This leads to improved decision-making
processes and outcomes at the organizational level

In summary, Psychological Capital plays a crucial role in shaping individual attitudes,

behaviours, and performance, which in turn impact organizational performance by
fostering a positive work environment, enhancing employee engagement, and driving
productivity and innovation.

-Job-satisfaction

Job satisfaction represents one of the most complex areas facing today’s managers
when it comes to managing their employees. Job satisfaction is simply how people feel
about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs. It is the extent to which people like
(satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs. As it is generally assessed, job
satisfaction is an attitude. That means it reflects people’s evaluations of the job along a
continuum from favourable to unfavourable.
Hoppock defined job satisfaction as any combination of psychological, physiological
and environmental circumstances that cause a person truthfully to say I am satisfied
with my job (Hoppock, 1935). According to this approach although job satisfaction is
under the influence of many external factors, it remains something internal that has to
do with the way how the employee feels. That is job satisfaction presents a set of
factors that cause a feeling of satisfaction. Vroom in his definition on job satisfaction
focuses on the role of the employee in the workplace. Thus, he defines job satisfaction
as affective orientations on the part of individuals toward work roles which they are
presently occupying (Vroom, 1964).
Spector (1997) lists three important features of job satisfaction. First, organizations
should be guided by human values. Second, the behaviour of workers depending on their
level of job satisfaction will affect the functioning and activities of the organization's
business. Third, job satisfaction may serve as indicators of organizational activities.
Herzberg (1959) theory emphasizing the motivator-hygiene factors sought to
explain satisfaction and motivation in the organization. The theory focuses on
outcomes of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The theory further found that certain
aspects of a job cause satisfaction and therefore motivation, but certain aspects
caused job dissatisfaction. Herzberg explained that the factors that lead to satisfaction
or to dissatisfaction are different. Accordingly, he states that ‘the opposite of job
satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction but, rather, no satisfaction; and the opposite of job
dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction but no satisfaction’ (Herzberg, 2003.91). This
theory states that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction is a product of different factors –
motivation and hygiene respectively. Motivation is seen as an inner force that drives
individuals to attain personal and organizational goals. Motivational factors are those
aspects of the job that make people want to perform and provide people with
satisfaction. Hygiene factors include aspects of the working environment like working
conditions, interpersonal matters, organizational policies and so on (Hackman &
Oldham, 1976). Factors that relate to job satisfaction are therefore called satisfiers or
motivators. According to Weir (1976) and Syptak, Marsland & Ulmer (1999), the
following factors stood out as ‘strong determinants of job satisfaction’.- achievement,
recognition , work , responsibility and opportunity.
Equity theory, as reviewed by Walster, Berscheid & Walster (1973) shows how
a person perceives fairness in regard to social relationships. The theory presupposes
that during a social exchange, a person identifies the amount of input gained from a
relationship compared to the output, as well as how much effort another person’s puts
forth. Based on Adam (1965) theory, Huseman, Hatfield & Miles (1987) further suggest
that if an employee thinks there is an inequity between two social groups or individuals,
the employee is likely to be distressed or dissatisfied because the input and the output
are not equal. Inputs encompass the quality and quantity of the employee’s
contributions to his or her work.
Job satisfaction is affected by environmental, individual and psychological factors.
Factors that relate to the environment are: communication, employee recognition and so
on Krayer & Westbrook (1986) & Weiss & Cropanzano (1996), while those that relate to
the individual are emotions, genetics and personality Cote & Morgan (2002). Those that
are psychological in nature include one’s life, family, and community Wright &
Cropanzano, (2000)

SUBJECTIVE WELLBEING
Subjective well-being (SWB) refers to how people experience and evaluate their lives and
specific domains and activities in their lives.
Subjective well-being refers to the level of well-being individuals experience based on
their subjective evaluations of their lives. It encompasses a range of evaluations,
including judgments and feelings about life satisfaction, interest and engagement,
affective reactions to life events, and satisfaction with various domains such as work,
relationships, health, and recreation.
Subjective well-being has been associated with a wide range of benefits for individuals
and society. Some of the key benefits of subjective well-being include:
1. Health and Longevity: Research has shown that individuals with higher levels of
subjective well-being tend to have better physical health, stronger immune systems, and
lower risks of cardiovascular diseases. They also engage in healthier behaviours and
have fewer lifestyle-related diseases
2. Societal Benefits: High levels of subjective well-being not only benefit individuals but
also contribute to societal well-being. Individuals with high subjective well-being are
more likely to engage in pro-social activities, such as volunteering for community and
charity groups, which can have positive effects on the community
3. Work and Income: Subjective well-being has been linked to success in the workplace,
with high levels of well-being associated with higher job satisfaction, better
performance, and increased organizational citizenship behaviours such as helping co-
workers
4. Quality of Life: Subjective well-being is a key component of quality of life and plays a
crucial role in improving people's lives beyond just alleviating misery. Understanding and
measuring subjective well-being can help in enhancing overall well-being and life
satisfaction
5. Effective Functioning: High levels of subjective well-being have been found to be
beneficial for effective functioning in various areas of life, including health, work, social
relations, and societal benefits. Research suggests that subjective well-being
significantly improves life satisfaction and functioning in these areas
These benefits highlight the importance of subjective well-being in promoting individual
well-being and societal welfare, emphasizing the need to consider well-being alongside
economic and social indicators for public policy and interventions
Background:
The concept of Subjective Well-Being (SWB) has emerged as a focal point in
psychological research, particularly within the domain of positive psychology. SWB,
often synonymous with happiness, extends beyond mere emotional states to
encompass individuals' cognitive evaluations of their lives. This holistic perspective
acknowledges that happiness is not solely dependent on external circumstances but is
also influenced by internal processes and interpretations.
the significance of SWB in understanding human well-being draws attention to the
work of renowned psychologist Ed Diener and his research group. Diener's contributions
have been pivotal in advancing the understanding of SWB as an ongoing process
shaped by individuals' attitudes, perceptions, and life experiences. This perspective
emphasizes that SWB is not a static state but a dynamic interplay of internal and
external factors.
Furthermore, the multidimensional nature of SWB emphasizes its impact on various
aspects of life, including health, longevity, relationships, and work outcomes. Research
indicates that individuals with higher levels of SWB tend to experience greater job
satisfaction, productivity, and overall well-being. This suggests that SWB not only
influences individual happiness but also has broader implications for societal well-being.

SWB in Work:
The concept of Subjective Well-Being (SWB) has been increasingly recognized for its
relevance in the workplace. Research indicates a direct correlation between SWB and
job satisfaction, with individuals reporting higher levels of SWB also experiencing
greater satisfaction with their work. This relationship suggests that fostering SWB
among employees can lead to a more positive and productive work environment.
Moreover, SWB has been linked to other positive work-related outcomes, such as
increased job performance, better interpersonal relationships, and higher levels of
creativity. Employees with higher levels of SWB are more likely to engage in innovative
thinking and problem-solving, contributing to organizational success.
Organizations are beginning to acknowledge the importance of SWB in the workplace
and are implementing strategies to enhance employee well-being. Initiatives such as
wellness programs, flexible work arrangements, and recognition for achievements are
being used to promote SWB among employees.
Thus, understanding and promoting SWB in the workplace can have significant benefits
for both individuals and organizations. By creating a work environment that supports
employee well-being, organizations can improve job satisfaction, increase productivity,
and foster a positive organizational culture.

ROL

The research paper “Association Between Psychological Capital and Subjective

Wellbeing” by Pavan Kumar Tiwari and Shreni Kaushik (2023) examined the relationship
between psychological capital and subjective wellbeing. The authors reviewed empirical
studies that collected data from various electronic databases such as Scopus, Google
Scholar, and Web of Science, adhering to PRISMA guidelines1. The studies included in
the review spanned from 2009 to 2021 and involved diverse professional groups and
demographics. The methodology employed a random-effect model to compute
statistics like effect size and moderating effects23. The results revealed a significant
positive correlation between psychological capital and subjective wellbeing, with an
effect size of r=0.53. The review also explored the potential moderating effects of
demographics on this relationship, although they were found to have no definite impact.
The study’s findings underscore the importance of psychological capital in enhancing
employees’ subjective wellbeing.
The research conducted by Parray, Shah, and Islam (2023) investigates the mediating
role of work-life balance in the relationship between psychological capital and employee
job attitudes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover
intentions. The study focuses on healthcare personnel in North Indian states and utilizes
data from 613 individuals in public and private healthcare organizations. The authors
employ Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to analyze the data and find that work-life
balance completely mediates the association between psychological capital and
employee job attitudes. This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by
integrating psychological capital and work-life balance into the self-determination theory
(SDT) model, shedding light on their impact on job outcomes. The study underscores
the importance of recognizing and enhancing psychological capital and work-life
balance in organizational settings, particularly in healthcare, to improve employee job
attitudes.

A study by Caponnetto et al. (2022) researched upon the impact of Psychological

Capital (PsyCap) on job satisfaction among healthcare workers during the COVID-19
era. The study involved 527 healthcare workers from various regions of Italy, who were
surveyed between May 2020 and November 2021. The authors employed a convenience
sampling technique and utilized several standardized and validated scales to measure
stress vulnerability, anxiety symptoms, loneliness, irritability, and PsyCap. Their
methodology included descriptive and correlational analysis, as well as structural
equation modeling to test their hypotheses. The results indicated that psychological
stress factors significantly affect job satisfaction, with loneliness having a more
pronounced effect compared to other assessed factors. Additionally, the study found
that PsyCap could mitigate the effects of psychological stressors on job satisfaction,
highlighting its protective role in work-related circumstances. Overall, the paper
emphasizes the importance of PsyCap in managing clinical psychological stressors and
enhancing job satisfaction among healthcare workers.

Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis
 - There is no significant correlation between psychological capital and job
satisfaction among employees.

- There is no significant correlation between job satisfaction and subjective

well-being among employees.

- There is no significant correlation between psychological capital and

subjective well-being among employees.

- There will be no significant difference in psychological capital among the

three age groups (25-35 years, 35-45 years, 45-55 years).

Alternate Hypothesis

- Employees with higher level of psychological capital will have higher levels of
job satisfaction.

- Employees with higher level of job satisfaction will have higher levels of
subjective well-being.

- Employees with higher level of psychological capital will have higher levels of
subjective well-being.

- There will be a significant difference in psychological capital among the three

age groups namely 25-35 years, 35-45 years, 45-55 years.

Methodology

The aim of present practicum is to investigate the relationships between

psychological capital, job satisfaction and subjective well-being among employees
working in the IT sector. Convenience sampling was utilized to select participants
from various IT companies. A Google Forms questionnaire was used and 110
samples were collected through convenience sampling. The questionnaire included
the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) to measure psychological capital, the
Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) to measure job satisfaction, and the Satisfaction with
Life Scale (SWLS) for measuring subjective well-being. The data analysis in this
study was conducted using correlation analysis to examine the relationships
between psychological capital, job satisfaction, and subjective well-being, and
ANOVA to investigate differences in psychological capital among different age
 groups.

Design

The Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) is developed by Fred Luthans, Bruce J.

Avolio, and James B. Avey. The test contains 24 items that measure an individual’s
PsyCap. The PCQ is composed of four dimensions that result in measurement of the
current state of an individual’s PsyCap. The four dimensions are Hope, Efficacy,
resilience, and Optimism. Individuals completing the PCQ evaluate themselves or an
associate by selecting how much they agree with each item. A six-point scale for rating
agreement is used. Each of the four PCQ scale scores is calculated by taking the mean
(average) of all items in the scale. The overall PsyCap score is calculated by taking the
mean of all the items in the PCQ. It should be carefully noted that some items are
Reverse scored (i.e., for these items a “1” is scored as a “6” and a “6” is scored as a “1”;
a 2 is a 5 and a 5 is a 2; and a 3 is a 4 and a 4 is a 3). Reversed items are marked with
“R”.
Efficacy: items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Hope: items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Resilience: items 13R, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Optimism: items 19, 20R, 21, 22, 23R, 24
PCQ Reliability: Luthans et al. (2007) calculated the reliability estimates for the total
PsyCap and each adapted measure from four sample populations. The optimism scale
in the second sample (.69) and the resilience scale in the third sample (.66) did not
reach generally acceptable levels of internal consistency, but the reliability of the overall
PsyCap measure in all samples was consistently above conventional standards
(Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007). The Cronbach alphas were as follows: hope (.72, .75, .80,
.76); efficacy (.75, .84, .85, .75); resilience (.71, .71, .66, .72); optimism (.74, .69, .76, .79);
And overall PsyCap (.88, .89, .89, .89).
Discriminant/Convergent Validity: Each of the four positive constructs has been shown
to have empirically based discriminant validity in previous studies (Bryant & Cvengros,
2004; Carifio & Rhodes, 2002; Magaletta & Oliver, 1999; Youssef & Luthans, 2007).
Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007) found that PsyCap was not related to age or education
demographics and was also not related to the personality dimensions of Agreeableness
or Openness. PsyCap had a strong positive relationship with core self-evaluations (.60)
and a moderate relationship with Extraversion (.36) and Conscientiousness (.39)
(Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007). For correlations from Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007)

The Job Satisfaction Survey, JSS is a 36 item, nine facet scale to assess employee
attitudes about the job and aspects of the job. Each facet is assessed with four items,
and a total score is computed from all items. A summated rating scale format is used,
with six choices per item ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". Items are
written in both directions, so about half must be reverse scored. The nine facets are Pay,
Promotion, Supervision, Fringe Benefits, Contingent Rewards (performance-based
rewards), Operating Procedures (required rules and procedures), Coworkers, Nature of
Work, and Communication. Although the JSS was originally developed for use in human
service organizations, it is applicable to all organizations.
Internal consistency reliability estimates refer to how well items of an instrument relate
to one another. High internal consistency suggests that the items reflect the same
underlying variable. These coefficient alphas ranged from 0.60 for the co-worker
subscale, to 0.91 for the total instrument. The JSS-2 improves on the JSS in this regard
with coefficient alphas all exceeding 0.90, so it is more suited for practitioner projects.
The JSS-2 improves on the JSS in this regard with coefficient alphas all exceeding 0.90,
so it is more suited for practitioner projects. sample of 43 employees. These reliabilities,
shown in Table 2.3, ranged from 0.37 to 0.74. The relative stability of satisfaction is
remarkable in this sample, since the time span was 18 months during which several
major changes occurred. These included a reorganization, layoffs, and a change of top
administration.
Validity evidence for job satisfaction instruments is provided by comparing them to
other job satisfaction instruments as well as with measures of other variables to which
they would be expected to relate in theory five of the JSS subscales (pay, promotion,
supervision, co-workers, and nature of work) correlate well with corresponding
subscales of the JDI (Smith et al., 1969). These correlations ranged from 0.61 for co-
workers to 0.80 for supervision. The JSS has also been shown to correlate with many
variables which we would expect to relate to job satisfaction. These include job
characteristics as assessed with the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975),
age, organization level, absence, organizational commitment, leadership practices,
intention to quit the job, and turnover (Spector, 1985).
Overall U.S. norms for the JSS are pay, promotion, supervision, benefits, contingent
rewards, operating procedures, co-workers, nature of work and communication. Norms
based on 36,380 individuals from 136 samples. Mean is weighted mean which is the
mean of all people who took the JSS (n = 36,380). Standard deviation is among sample
means (n = 136). Most samples represented a single organization, although several
represent two or more organizations.

Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) was developed by Pavot, W., & Diener, E. in 1985. It
is a short 5-item instrument designed to measure global cognitive judgments of
satisfaction with one's life. The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) has been heavily
used as a measure of the life satisfaction component of subjective well-being. The
SWLS is a 7-point Likert style response scale. The possible range of scores is 5- 35, with
a score of 20 representing a neutral point on the scale. Scores between 5-9 indicate the
respondent is extremely dissatisfied with life, whereas scores between 31- 35 indicate
the respondent is extremely satisfied. Scores on the SWLS have been shown to
correlate with measures of mental health, and be predictive of future behaviours such
as suicide attempts. In the area of health psychology, the SWLS has been used to
measure the subjective quality of life of people experiencing serious health concerns.
Reliability The coefficient alpha for the scale has ranged from .79 to .89, indicating that
the scale has high internal consistency. The scale was also found to have good test-
retest correlations (.84, .80 over a month interval).
Validity Validity evidence comes from groups scoring lowest on the SWLS like
psychiatric patients, prisoners and abused women. Events or conditions that make an
individual's circumstances good or worse will influence their life satisfaction.
Psychiatric patients, newly incarcerated prisoners or abused women who had suffered
recent bad life events are likely to deviate negatively from their standards and thus
report less satisfaction with life.

ANOVA, short for analysis of variance, is a statistical technique that assesses whether
the means of three or more groups are statistically different from each other. It works
by partitioning the total variance observed in the data into components attributed to
different sources, such as variation between groups and within groups. By comparing
the variability between groups to the variability within groups, ANOVA helps determine if
the observed differences in means are likely due to actual group effects or simply
random fluctuations. This method is commonly used in experimental research and data
analysis to evaluate the significance of group differences and relationships between
variables. In this practicum, ANOVA is used to find if there is a significant difference in
psychological capital among the three age groups (25-35 years, 35-45 years, 45-55
years).

Results

Correlation Table

ANOVA table
 Discussion

The aim of the practical was to investigate the relationships between psychological
capital, job satisfaction, and subjective well-being among employees in the IT sector.
To achieve this, correlation analysis was employed to examine the associations
between these variables. The results of the correlation analysis revealed significant
findings. The correlation between psychological capital and job satisfaction among
employees was 0.335, indicating a moderate positive relationship. Additionally, the
correlation between job satisfaction and subjective well-being among employees
was 0.210, suggesting a positive but weak association. Furthermore, the correlation
between psychological capital and subjective well-being among employees was
0.467, indicating a significant positive relationship. Based on these results, the null
hypotheses stating no significant correlations between psychological capital and job
satisfaction, job satisfaction and subjective well-being, and psychological capital and
subjective well-being are rejected. The alternate hypotheses are supported, showing
that employees with higher levels of psychological capital tend to have higher levels
of job satisfaction, subjective well-being, and a positive relationship between
psychological capital and subjective well-being. These findings highlight the
importance of psychological capital in influencing job satisfaction and subjective
well-being among employees in the IT sector.

The analysis of psychological capital among three age groups (25-35 years, 35-45
years, 45-55 years) using ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in
psychological capital scores across the age groups (F(2, 173) = 8.864, p < 0.01).
Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there would be no significant difference in
psychological capital among the age groups is rejected. The sum of squares
between groups was 3704.665, indicating substantial variability in psychological
capital between the age categories, while the sum of squares within groups was
36151.131, representing the variability within each age group. The mean square
between groups (1852.332) was notably higher than the mean square within groups
(208.966), contributing to the significant F ratio. Specifically, the mean psychological
capital scores for the age groups were 100.99 (SD = 15.248) for 25-35 years, 90.13
(SD = 14.496) for 35-45 years, and 95.82 (SD = 15.091) for 45-55 years. The
substantial difference in means, along with the significant F ratio and p-value,
indicates that there are indeed distinct variations in psychological capital levels
among the different age groups. Further post-hoc analyses can be conducted to
determine the specific differences between the age groups in terms of psychological
capital.

Various studies have found similar patterns in their research. In a study conducted
by İsmail Aydın and İbrahim Gümüşboğa at Bartın University, Faculty of Sports
Sciences, the relationship between psychological capital, job satisfaction, and
subjective happiness in recreational businesses was examined. Utilizing structural
equation modeling, they found that psychological capital has a direct positive effect
on job satisfaction and subjective happiness, and that job satisfaction partially
mediates the relationship between psychological capital and subjective happiness,
indicating that higher job satisfaction leads to increased subjective happiness
among employees in recreational sports services. Similarly, the study conducted by
Mateusz Paliga and colleagues at the University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland,
explored the impact of Psychological Capital (PsyCap) and influence regulation on
job satisfaction and job performance. The research found that team members’
PsyCap positively correlates with individual-level job satisfaction and two facets of
job performance: creative and in-role performance. These findings underscore the
importance of PsyCap in enhancing job satisfaction and performance, while
suggesting that influence regulation may not be as influential in these areas. The
study, "Nexus among Psychological Capital, Work-life Balance and Job Satisfaction
of Employees in Apparel Industry," conducted by Anushi, K.S., Priyanath, H.M.S., and
Tennakoon, W.D.N.S.M. revealed that all psychological capital factors significantly
and positively affect job satisfaction, with hope being the most influential.
Furthermore, all factors except optimism were found to impact work-life balance.
This study underscores the importance of psychological capital in shaping job-
related outcomes and offers valuable insights for both theory and management
practices in promoting employee well-being and satisfaction.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this practicum revealed significant relationships between

psychological capital, job satisfaction and subjective well-being among employees.
The findings indicated that employees with higher levels of psychological capital
reported greater job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Additionally, the analysis
showed distinct variations in psychological capital levels across different age groups.
These results underscore the importance of psychological capital in enhancing
employee well-being and job satisfaction in the workplace, emphasizing the need for
organizations to prioritize the development of psychological capital among their
employees for improved job outcomes and overall well-being.

Limitations

the use of convenience sampling can be one limitation, as it may introduce sampling
bias and limit the generalizability of the findings to the broader population of
employees in the IT sector. Additionally, the reliance on self-reported measures for
psychological capital, job satisfaction, and subjective well-being may introduce
response bias and social desirability effects, impacting the accuracy of the data
collected.
 References (in APA format)

Anushi, K. S., Priyanath, H. M. S., & Tennakoon, W. D. N. S. M. (2022). Nexus among Psychological
Capital, Work-life Balance and Job Satisfaction of Employees in Apparel Industry. Sri Lanka Journal of
Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(1), 85-95.

Aydin, I., & Gümüşboğa, I. (2023). The Relationship between Psychological Capital,
Job Satisfaction and Subjective Happiness in Recreational Businesses. Spor Bilimleri
Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 354-370.

Çavuş, M. F., & Gökçen, A. (2015). Psychological Capital: Definition, Components and
Effects. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 5(3), 244-255.

Cuevas, A., Febrero, M., & Fraiman, R. (2004). An ANOVA test for functional data.
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 47, 111-122.

Diener, E. (n.d.). Satisfaction with Life Scale. Retrieved from

http://labs.psychology.illinois.edu/~ediener/SWLS.html

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing
the human competitive edge. Oxford University Press.

Paliga, M., Kożusznik, B., Pollak, A., & Sanecka, E. (2022). The relationships of psychological capital
and influence regulation with job satisfaction and job performance. PloS one, 17(8), e0272412.

Panel on Measuring Subjective Well-Being in a Policy-Relevant Framework;

Committee on National Statistics; Division on Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education; National Research Council; Stone AA, Mackie C, editors. (2013).
Subjective Well-Being: Measuring Happiness, Suffering, and Other Dimensions of
Experience. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179225/

Parray, Z. A., Shah, T. A., & Islam, S. U. (2023, August). Psychological capital and
employee job attitudes: the critical significance of work-life balance. In Evidence-
based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship (Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 483-500).
Emerald Publishing Limited.

Pasquale, Caponnetto., Silvia, Platania., Marilena, Maglia., Martina, Morando.,

Stefania, Gruttadauria., Roberta, Auditore., Caterina, Ledda., Venerando, Rapisarda.,
Giuseppe, Santisi. (2022). Health Occupation and Job Satisfaction: The Impact of
Psychological Capital in the Management of Clinical Psychological Stressors of
Healthcare Workers in the COVID-19 Era. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, doi: 10.3390/ijerph19106134

Tiwari, P. K., & Kaushik, S. Association Between Psychological Capital and Subjective
Wellbeing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Investigation.