Abstract
Orientation: Employee retention represents a critical challenge for organisations, with flourishing increasingly recognised as a psychological resource that supports employees’ willingness to stay.
Research purpose: This study examines the relationship between flourishing and employee retention intention, testing the mediating roles of workplace well-being and work engagement.
Motivation for the study: While flourishing has been associated with positive outcomes, limited evidence exists on the mechanisms through which it fosters employees’ intention to remain. Addressing this gap advances theory and informs HR practice.
Research approach/design and method: A cross-sectional survey of 401 employees was conducted using validated instruments. Hypotheses were tested with Hayes’s PROCESS macro (Model 6), supported by confirmatory factor analysis and bootstrapping.
Main findings: All hypotheses were supported. Flourishing predicted employee retention intention directly and indirectly. Workplace well-being and work engagement acted as mediators, with workplace well-being emerging as the strongest pathway. The sequential effect was also significant, though weaker than the simple mediations.
Practical/managerial implications: HR practitioners should design policies that promote flourishing and create supportive environments that enhance workplace well-being and work engagement. Tailored interventions are needed across generations, roles and tenure groups to address workforce diversity.
Contribution/value-add: The study integrates flourishing, workplace well-being and work engagement into a single framework, clarifying their contributions to employee retention intention. It advances understanding of positive organisational psychology while offering actionable strategies for sustainable HRM in competitive labour markets.
Keywords: flourishing; workplace well-being; work engagement; employee retention; serial mediation.
Introduction
Employee retention remains one of the most pressing challenges for organisations worldwide, as employee turnover incurs substantial costs in recruitment, training and knowledge loss, while undermining long-term organisational stability and performance (Klein et al., 2020; Luna-Arocas & Camps, 2008). In competitive labour markets, identifying factors that foster employees’ intention to stay has become a central concern in organisational behaviour and human resource management (HRM) research (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2017).
Positive psychology offers a promising framework for addressing this challenge. Seligman (2011) conceptualised flourishing as a multidimensional state of optimal functioning that integrates meaning, purpose and positive emotions (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), while Bakracheva (2020) emphasised its role in enhancing both the hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of human experience. In this study, flourishing is understood in accordance with the PERMA model as a multidimensional psychological state, whereas workplace well-being refers specifically to employees’ holistic experience in the workplace and is conceptually distinct from, but related to, work engagement.
Flourishing employees report higher satisfaction, resilience and health, which can strengthen their organisational attachment and reduce turnover intentions (Diener et al., 2010; Imran et al., 2020; Redelinghuys & Rothmann, 2020; Ryan et al., 2019; VanderWeele, 2020).
Despite the documented benefits of flourishing, empirical studies have only partially clarified the processes through which it influences retention-related behaviours. Evidence suggests that flourishing enhances employees’ psychological resources, satisfaction, and resilience, factors that contribute to lower turnover intentions (Redelinghuys & Rothmann, 2020; VanderWeele, 2020). However, the specific pathways linking flourishing to employees’ intention to remain – particularly those operating through workplace well-being and work engagement – remain insufficiently understood.
Two constructs are particularly relevant in this process: workplace well-being and work engagement. Flourishing has been associated with positive affective states and healthy functioning at work, supporting employees’ capacity to maintain balance and fulfilment in demanding contexts (Verma, 2025). Workplace well-being, in turn, has been linked to work engagement, a motivational state defined by vigour, dedication and absorption in work tasks (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018; Shir & Ryff, 2022).
Recent empirical work has reinforced these associations, showing that higher levels of workplace well-being strengthen work engagement and promote employees’ intention to remain in their organisations (Chen et al., 2023; Gelencsér et al., 2023). Although both constructs have been shown to predict retention-related outcomes (Iqbal et al., 2022; Kim & Hyun, 2017), most studies have examined these mechanisms separately or through simple mediation models, leaving little understanding of their combined and sequential operation (Salanova et al., 2011; Schaufeli et al., 2019).
To address this gap, this study develops and empirically tests an analytical framework in which flourishing acts as an antecedent of employee retention intention through the mediating roles of workplace well-being and work engagement. The outcome variable captures employees’ intention to remain in their organisation, a widely used behavioural indicator of employee retention in organisational research. Drawing on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Dai et al., 2022) and the Job Demands–Resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), the study argues that higher levels of flourishing enhance workplace well-being, which in turn strengthens work engagement and reinforces employees’ intention to remain in the organisation. By integrating these constructs, this study examines the direct and mediated effects, as well as the sequential pathway through which these mechanisms influence employees’ intention to remain.
The contribution of this research is three-fold. Firstly, it advances theory by positioning flourishing as a central psychological resource in employee retention research and by integrating affective and motivational mechanisms into a single explanatory framework (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Rothmann et al., 2019). Although the literature often distinguishes between general employee retention and talent retention, this study focuses specifically on employees’ intention to remain in their organisation as a proximal indicator of retention behaviour. This approach allows the study to examine the psychological mechanisms underlying employees’ decisions to stay while maintaining alignment between the theoretical framing and the measurement instrument.
Secondly, it provides empirical evidence on how flourishing translates into retention outcomes, addressing calls for studies that examine the positive rather than the negative pole of employee withdrawal behaviours. Thirdly, it offers practical insights for HRM, highlighting how policies that cultivate flourishing, promote workplace well-being and stimulate work engagement can support sustainable retention strategies.
Although conducted in Portugal, the study’s findings have broader implications for organisations operating in diverse cultural and economic contexts. They are particularly relevant in emerging economies, where talent scarcity and workforce mobility intensify the need for effective human resource (HR) practices to retain skilled employees.
Theoretical background
The theoretical framework of this study encompasses several constructs that, although related, have distinct conceptual natures. Retention refers to an organisation’s ability to maintain its workforce and prevent voluntary turnover. Talent retention, in contrast, refers specifically to the retention of employees who possess critical skills, high performance or strategic value for the organisation. Employee retention intention, the outcome variable in this study, refers to employees’ self-reported intention to remain with their organisation. Well-being is a broad construct that includes emotional, psychological and social dimensions (Ryan et al., 2019), while workplace well-being reflects these dimensions in professional settings. Work engagement is a motivational state characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption. Flourishing denotes an optimal level of psychological functioning associated with personal growth, purpose and positive relationships. These constructs are interconnected within the proposed theoretical model, as effective socialisation experiences can foster positive psychological states that, in turn, influence attitudes and behaviours related to their intention to remain in the organisation.
For the purpose of this study, employee retention is operationalised as employees’ intention to remain with their organisation, a widely used behavioural indicator in organisational research. While the literature distinguishes between general employee retention and talent retention, the present study focuses on employees’ intention to remain, thereby ensuring conceptual alignment between the theoretical framing and the measurement instrument.
Flourishing and employee retention intention
Flourishing represents an integrated state of optimal functioning, encompassing both hedonic elements such as positive emotions and life satisfaction, and eudaimonic components such as meaning, personal growth and social connectedness (Diener et al., 2010; Huta, 2020; VanderWeele, 2020). This construct goes beyond the absence of ill-being, capturing the presence of thriving across multiple life domains instead (Seligman, 2011). In organisational contexts, flourishing has been identified as a key personal resource, enabling employees to cope more effectively with challenges and capitalise on opportunities for development (Huppert & So, 2013).
Scholars argue that flourishing generates a range of positive outcomes relevant to organisational sustainability, including greater resilience, creativity and performance (Dai et al., 2022; Rothmann & Redelinghuys, 2020). Importantly, flourishing also contributes to attitudinal outcomes such as organisational commitment, satisfaction and loyalty (Imran et al., 2020). These attributes are closely associated with employees’ willingness to remain in their organisations, a central concern in contemporary HRM (Antony et al., 2024; Mujajati et al., 2024).
Employees who experience flourishing are less likely to disengage, perceive their work environment as more supportive and develop stronger bonds with their organisation (Verma, 2025). By enhancing both affective and cognitive attachment, flourishing is expected to reduce turnover intentions and promote employees’ willingness to remain.
Although retention has often been studied in relation to organisational factors such as leadership, compensation and career opportunities (Luna-Arocas & Camps, 2008), the role of flourishing as an individual-level determinant of retention remains underexplored. Examining this association is important because it highlights the interplay between personal psychological resources and organisational outcomes (Naim & Ozyilmaz, 2022; Redelinghuys & Rothmann, 2020). In this regard, flourishing can be conceptualised as a foundation for sustainable employee retention strategies, reinforcing the idea that workplace well-being is not only an ethical imperative but also a driver of organisational stability (Amarakoon & Colley, 2022). From this perspective, flourishing may contribute to stronger employee retention by reinforcing employees’ psychological attachment to their organisation and increasing their intention to remain. Building on the evidence discussed above, we posit that higher levels of flourishing are associated with a stronger propensity among employees to remain in the organisation:
H1: Flourishing is positively associated with employee retention intention.
Flourishing as a predictor of workplace well-being and work engagement
Flourishing is widely recognised as a higher-order personal resource that integrates positive affect, meaning and social connectedness (Diener et al., 2010). In occupational settings, flourishing has been linked to greater satisfaction, resilience and balance, which are core components of workplace well-being (VanderWeele, 2020). Employees who report flourishing tend to evaluate their work environment more positively, experience lower stress and perceive their organisations as more supportive (Hall et al., 2024). From a resource-based perspective, flourishing equips individuals with psychological capacities that buffer job demands and sustain workplace well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Sinisterra et al., 2024).
Beyond its association with workplace well-being, flourishing has also been identified as a precursor of work engagement. Work engagement is conceptualised as a motivational state characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). It reflects employees’ willingness to invest energy and commitment in their tasks and has been consistently associated with higher performance and lower turnover intentions (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Empirical research indicates that flourishing individuals exhibit greater optimism and a stronger sense of purpose, which translates into increased energy and resilience, thereby facilitating stronger work engagement (Salazar-Altamirano et al. 2025; Schaufeli et al., 2019; Klug et al., 2024).
Although flourishing, workplace well-being and work engagement are conceptually related and often empirically correlated, they capture distinct dimensions of positive functioning (Huta, 2020). Workplace well-being reflects employees’ subjective evaluations of balance and fulfilment, whereas work engagement represents an active behavioural manifestation of involvement at work (Schaufeli et al., 2019). Recognising these differences is crucial to ensure discriminant validity and to justify their inclusion as separate constructs in predictive models of employee retention intention. Considering this theoretical and empirical evidence, flourishing is expected to operate as a significant predictor of both workplace well-being and work engagement. Accordingly, the theoretical rationale presented above supports the formulation of the following hypothesis:
H2: Flourishing constitutes an antecedent of workplace well-being (H2a) and work engagement (H2b).
The role of workplace well-being and work engagement in employee retention intention
Workplace well-being has gained growing recognition as a central factor in promoting sustainable employment relationships. It reflects a global evaluation of employees’ satisfaction, health and fulfilment at work (Diener et al., 2017). Employees with high levels of workplace well-being perceive their organisations as fair, supportive and motivating, thereby fostering stronger affective bonds and reducing the likelihood of leaving. Empirical studies show that workplace well-being is positively related to job satisfaction, organisational commitment and loyalty, all of which are antecedents of employees’ intention to remain in their organisations (Gelencsér et al., 2023). In this context, workplace well-being strengthens organisational performance and increases employees’ inclination to remain with the organisation, thereby serving as a direct antecedent to their retention intentions. Beyond workplace well-being, work engagement is another key factor in understanding why employees choose to stay, as it substantially shapes their decision to remain within the organisation.
In addition to workplace well-being, work engagement plays a crucial role in explaining employees’ decisions to remain with their organisations (Sinisterra et al., 2024). Work engagement is defined as a positive and fulfilling state characterised by vigour, dedication and immersion in work activities (Schaufeli et al., 2002). It reflects employees’ active investment of energy and commitment, which has been consistently associated with reduced turnover intentions and stronger organisational attachment (Kim & Hyun, 2017). Engaged employees are more likely to go beyond formal job requirements, identify with organisational values and develop stronger psychological contracts with their employers (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). As such, work engagement is not only a motivational state but also a behavioural mechanism that reinforces employees’ intention to stay (Jeswani & Sarkar, 2008; Kim & Hyun, 2017).
Although workplace well-being and work engagement are closely related, they represent distinct pathways through which flourishing can influence employees’ intention to remain. Workplace well-being provides the emotional and psychological foundation for satisfaction and loyalty, whereas work engagement reflects the active expression of energy and dedication in daily work tasks (Schaufeli et al., 2019). Integrating both perspectives offers a fuller account of the factors underlying employees’ intention to remain in the organisation, by clarifying how these mechanisms jointly contribute to explaining this organisational outcome. The literature review offered insights that allowed us to formulate the third research hypothesis:
H3: Workplace well-being (H3a) and work engagement (H3b) positively predict employee retention intention.
The sequential mediation of workplace well-being and work engagement
Although flourishing has been independently linked to both workplace well-being and work engagement, the combined and sequential operation of these constructs has received limited empirical attention. Prior studies have mainly tested simple mediation models, showing, for example, that flourishing enhances workplace well-being, which in turn predicts outcomes such as satisfaction or performance (Redelinghuys & Rothmann, 2020), or that flourishing is directly associated with work engagement (Salanova et al., 2011; Schaufeli et al., 2019). However, examining these variables jointly within a sequential mediation framework enables a deeper understanding of how psychological resources shape the mechanisms that ultimately lead to employees’ intention to remain.
From a theoretical perspective, workplace well-being may act as a proximal outcome of flourishing, reflecting the individual’s psychological balance and fulfilment at work (VanderWeele, 2020). In turn, workplace well-being can create the emotional conditions that foster higher levels of work engagement, enabling employees to invest greater energy and dedication in their tasks (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018). Work engagement serves as the behavioural pathway through which workplace well-being strengthens employees’ attachment to their organisations, ultimately reducing turnover intentions (Kim & Hyun, 2017). This sequential perspective is consistent with the Job Demands–Resources model, which highlights the dynamic interaction between personal resources, affective states and motivational outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).
Testing this sequential mediation model is important because it clarifies whether flourishing influences employees’ intention to remain in their organisations primarily through one mediator (workplace well-being or work engagement) or whether the combined pathway provides added explanatory value. While prior research has suggested the relevance of each mediator separately, few studies have evaluated their integrated and sequential contribution to employee retention intention. By doing so, the present study refines the theoretical understanding of how flourishing translates into retention outcomes, offering a more comprehensive perspective on the psychological processes that sustain employees’ decisions to stay. Drawing on the theoretical arguments outlined above, a fourth research hypothesis was developed:
H4: Workplace well-being and work engagement act as sequential mediators in the relationship between flourishing and employee retention intention.
Figure 1 illustrates the connections among the variables under study and the hypotheses that structure the research model.
 |
FIGURE 1: Proposed conceptual model – The relationship between flourishing and employee retention intention, with workplace well-being and work engagement as sequential mediators. |
|
Research design
Design and procedure
The study employed a cross-sectional design and a quantitative methodological approach. Data were gathered through an online questionnaire distributed via professional networks and email, following a snowball sampling strategy. Participants were fully informed about the purpose of the study, the confidentiality procedures and the anonymous handling of their responses, and they provided informed consent prior to taking part. Although this approach allowed us to access a diverse group of employees, the reliance on convenience and snowball sampling limits the representativeness of the findings and restricts their generalisability across industries and cultural contexts (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
Sample
A total of 401 employees participated in the study, 57.9% of whom were women. Participants’ ages ranged from 21 years to 65 years (M = 38.18; standard deviation [SD] = 11.32). The sample comprised individuals occupying different organisational roles, generational cohorts and tenure levels (Table 1). Despite this diversity, the sample was geographically concentrated and did not account for contextual factors such as organisational culture, remuneration or leadership style, all of which may influence retention-related outcomes. In this study, retention outcomes refer to employees’ general intention to remain, not specifically to talent retention outcomes. These constraints should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings.
| TABLE 1: Sociodemographic and professional profile of the sample (N = 401). |
Measures
Flourishing scale
Flourishing was measured using the Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010), adapted to the Portuguese context by Junça-Silva and Caetano (2013). Eight items (e.g. I am optimistic about my future) were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha in this study was 0.83.
Short Smith Wellbeing Questionnaire (Short-SWELL)
Workplace well-being was measured using the Short-SWELL (Smith & Smith, 2017), which was validated for the Portuguese context by Barroqueiro (2022). The scale consists of 10 items (e.g. My job provides me with a high level of well-being) rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93.
Work engagement Utrecht Work engagement Scale
Measured using the UWES-3, the short version of the Utrecht Work engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2019). The three items (e.g. At my work, I feel bursting with energy) capture vigour, dedication and absorption. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86.
Employee retention intention
Measured with three items from the Employee Retention Questionnaire developed by Salman et al. (2014) (e.g. I intend to remain in this job until retirement). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.72. In this study, employee retention intention refers to employees’ intention to remain with their organisation and is widely recognised as a proximal indicator of turnover-related behaviour. Although broader retention measures may include career development, recognition or organisational commitment, intention to remain is widely recognised as a valid proxy for employee retention, particularly in competitive labour markets where high-performing employees may exhibit greater mobility.
Control variables
Age and gender were included as covariates, following prior research indicating their influence on retention practices (Chillakuri, 2020; Kumari & Kaur, 2021). Other contextual variables (e.g. salary, organisational culture) were not measured, which constitutes a limitation.
Gender and age were used as control variables, as several studies (e.g. Chillakuri, 2020; Gupta, 2019; Riekhoff & Järnefelt, 2022) suggest that men tend to report higher satisfaction with employee retention intention practices (e.g., supervisor support, career opportunities, work–life balance) than women (Kumari & Kaur, 2021). Furthermore, older employees tend to exhibit greater commitment and are less likely to leave the organisation than younger ones (Snyman & Ferreira, 2023). Ganguli and Padhy (2023) add that members of Generation Z are highly ambitious and tend to leave jobs that fail to meet their expectations.
Data analysis
Data analysis was conducted using SPSS and AMOS. Prior to testing the hypotheses, multivariate normality was assessed according to Mardia’s (1980) criterion, and acceptable levels of skewness and kurtosis were observed. To evaluate the potential presence of common method bias, Harman’s single-factor test was performed, indicating that a single factor accounted for 49% of the variance, which is below the 50% threshold (Fuller et al., 2016). Nevertheless, given the well-documented limitations of this procedure (Podsakoff et al., 2003), common method bias cannot be fully ruled out. Future research should adopt more rigorous techniques, such as confirmatory factor analysis-based common latent factor models.
Reliability and validity were examined using Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing AVE with the maximum shared variance (MSV). While correlations between flourishing, workplace well-being and work engagement were high, AVE values exceeded MSV, supporting their empirical distinctiveness. Nevertheless, their conceptual overlap should be recognised as a limitation.
An exploratory analysis was also conducted to examine whether employee retention intention differed across sociodemographic and professional groups using independent-samples t-tests and one-way ANOVAs.
Hypotheses were tested using Hayes’s PROCESS macro (Model 6; Hayes, 2018) with 5.000 bootstrap samples to estimate indirect effects and their 95% confidence intervals. This method is considered a best practice for mediation testing, providing more robust evidence than reliance on Sobel tests alone. Given the cross-sectional design, however, causal inferences should be drawn with caution, and longitudinal studies are recommended to confirm the temporal sequence of variables. Consistent with Cohen’s (2013) guidelines, the magnitude of explained variance was interpreted using the conventional thresholds for R2 (0.02 small, 0.13 medium, 0.26 large).
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Instituto Superior de Gestão Ethics Committee (Ref. No. CIG_0010.14/2025).
Results
Preliminary analyses
Prior to testing the hypotheses, the data were examined to assess normality and potential common method bias (Ventura-León et al., 2023). Mardia’s coefficient indicated acceptable levels of skewness and kurtosis (Mardia, 1980; Mardia et al., 2024). To assess common method bias, Harman’s single-factor test was performed, indicating that a single factor explained 49% of the variance, below the 50% threshold. This result suggests that common method bias is unlikely to pose a serious concern; however, the limitations of this diagnostic method mean that bias cannot be entirely ruled out.
Reliability and validity analyses confirmed adequate psychometric properties. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.72 to 0.93. Composite reliability and AVE exceeded the recommended cut-off values (CR > 0.70; AVE > 0.50). Maximum shared variance was lower than AVE, supporting discriminant validity, even in the presence of high correlations among constructs. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics, reliability indices and bivariate correlations among the study variables. The hypothesis-testing results presented below are based on regression-based analyses conducted with PROCESS, rather than on these correlations. This distinction clarifies that the correlational matrix serves only descriptive purposes, while the inferential findings stem from the regression and mediation models.
| TABLE 2: Descriptive statistics, reliability indices and correlations among study variables (N = 401). |
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine whether the observed variables adequately represented the underlying latent constructs (Widaman & Helm, 2023). The fit indices indicated that the model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the sample data, based on standard cut-off criteria (comparitive fit index [CFI] and Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] ≥ 0.90; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] ≤ 0.08). The RMSEA confidence interval (LO90–HI90) reflects the lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval for the RMSEA estimate, indicating the precision of the fit. Fit indices were as follows: χ2 (212) = 2.37, p < 0.001, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0.91, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05 (LO90 = 0.05, HI90 = 0.06). The hypotheses derived from the literature review were subsequently tested.
Hypothesis testing
Regression analyses (Table 3) showed that flourishing positively predicted employee retention intention (β = 0.600, p < 0.001), supporting H1. Flourishing also significantly predicted workplace well-being (β = 0.822, p < 0.001) and work engagement (β = 0.789, p < 0.001), supporting H2a and H2b. Both workplace well-being (β = 0.592, p < 0.001) and work engagement (β = 0.641, p < 0.001) positively predicted retention, supporting H3a and H3b.
| TABLE 3: Multiple regression results for H1, H2a, H2b, H3a and H3b. |
Sequential mediation analysis using Hayes’s PROCESS macro (Model 6; Hayes, 2018) with 5000 bootstrap samples and 95% confidence intervals revealed significant indirect effects through workplace well-being (B = 0.242, 95% CI [0.109, 0.375]) and work engagement (B = 0.280, 95% CI [0.171, 0.390]). The sequential indirect pathway from flourishing to employee retention intention via workplace well-being and work engagement was also significant (B = 0.085, 95% CI [0.038, 0.145]), supporting H4.
Comparison of indirect effects
When comparing the indirect pathways, the effect of flourishing on employee retention intention through workplace well-being alone (B = 0.254) emerged as stronger than the sequential mediation effect (B = 0.085). The indirect effect through work engagement alone (B = 0.222) was also stronger than the sequential pathway (Table 4). These findings indicate that while the sequential model is statistically valid, simple mediation mechanisms account for a larger proportion of the indirect effect. This nuance refines our understanding of how flourishing translates into employees’ intention to remain and suggests that workplace well-being, in particular, plays a dominant mediating role.
| TABLE 4: Comparison of indirect effects: the mediating role of workplace well-being and work engagement. |
The model accounted for 36% of the explained variance in employee retention intention. While this represents a meaningful proportion of the explained variance, it also indicates that a substantial part of retention behaviour is driven by other factors not included in the model, such as leadership, compensation or organisational culture. This should be considered when interpreting the results. According to Cohen’s (2013) effect size guidelines (R2 = 0.02 small, R2 = 0.13 medium, R2 = 0.26 large), the explained variance observed in this study (R2 = 0.36) falls within the range typically interpreted as a large effect.
Complementary analysis
In addition to testing the hypothesised model, we conducted an exploratory analysis to examine whether employee retention intention differed across sociodemographic and professional groups. Prior research has shown that retention outcomes are influenced not only by personal psychological resources but also by demographic and organisational factors such as age, tenure and job role (Ganguli & Padhy, 2023; Riekhoff & Järnefelt, 2022; Snyman & Ferreira, 2023). To address this, mean-comparison tests were performed across generational cohorts, educational qualifications, job roles and organisational tenure. Gender and age were excluded from this analysis, as they had already been examined as control variables in the main model.
All constructs were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Higher values correspond to greater flourishing, workplace well-being, work engagement or intention to retain. The results of the mean-comparison procedures are reported in Table 5.
| TABLE 5: Employee retention intention: mean differences according to sociodemographic variables (N = 401). |
The findings revealed that employee retention intention was significantly higher among Baby Boomer employees (M = 4.20, SD = 0.45) compared with Generation X (M = 3.95, SD = 0.48) and Millennials (M = 3.78, SD = 0.56), F(3, 397) = 12.24, p < 0.001. Employees in managerial positions (M = 4.12, SD = 0.52) also reported higher retention than non-managerial employees (M = 3.89, SD = 0.50), t(399) = 5.03, p < 0.001. Likewise, employees with 10 or more years of organisational tenure (M = 4.18, SD = 0.49) reported stronger retention intentions than those with fewer than 10 years (M = 3.87, SD = 0.54), t(399) = 6.11, p < 0.001. No significant differences were found regarding educational level, F(3, 397) = 1.42, p = 0.236.
While these analyses are exploratory and do not permit causal inference (Hayes, 2018), they highlight the importance of considering both personal and organisational factors when designing retention strategies. Specifically, younger cohorts and early-career employees may require targeted interventions to strengthen their intention to stay.
Given the results, it can be concluded that participants from the Baby Boomer Generation, those in managerial positions and those with 10 or more years of tenure exhibit the strongest willingness to stay within the organisation.
Discussion
This study examined how flourishing shapes employees’ willingness to remain in their organisations, with workplace well-being and work engagement operating as sequential mediators. The results offered robust, consistent empirical support for the proposed hypotheses and provided new insights into the psychological processes underlying employees’ intention to remain. Given the conceptual positioning adopted in this study, the findings should be interpreted in relation to general employee retention rather than talent-specific retention. This clarification is important because the dependent variable captures employees’ intention to remain in their organisation, rather than the retention of high-performing or strategically critical employees.
The analysis confirmed Hypothesis 1, showing that flourishing is positively associated with employees’ intention to remain. This finding aligns with recent studies indicating that employees with higher flourishing experience greater purpose, psychological resilience and organisational attachment, thereby reducing turnover intentions (Hirschi, 2021; Naim & Ozyilmaz, 2022; Redelinghuys & Rothmann, 2020). These patterns are consistent with evidence showing that meaning, purpose and positive emotions foster stronger organisational attachment and reduce turnover intentions (Imran et al., 2020).
Evidence also supported Hypotheses 2a and 2b, indicating that flourishing significantly predicts both workplace well-being and work engagement. These results confirm that flourishing acts as a higher-order resource, enabling employees to maintain healthier work experiences and greater motivation (Huppert & So, 2013; VanderWeele, 2020). In practice, flourishing employees evaluate their work environment more positively, report lower stress levels and display greater energy, dedication and absorption in their tasks (Albrecht et al., 2021; Redelinghuys & Rothmann, 2020).
The results further validated Hypotheses 3a and 3b, showing that both workplace well-being and work engagement positively influence employees’ intention to remain. These findings are consistent with recent research showing that both workplace well-being and work engagement function as motivational states that strengthen retention by increasing employees’ sense of purpose, fulfilment and organisational connection (Chen et al., 2023; Gelencsér et al., 2023). Overall, these findings align with recent work suggesting that affective experiences play a central role in shaping employees’ willingness to remain with their organisation. However, our results also highlight that these mechanisms operate simultaneously, suggesting that both cognitive appraisals of the work environment and emotional-motivational states contribute uniquely to retention. This combination provides a more integrated perspective than studies that examined these processes separately.
Finally, Hypothesis 4 was supported, demonstrating a sequential mediation effect in which flourishing influenced retention through the combined effects of workplace well-being and work engagement. However, comparisons of indirect effects revealed that workplace well-being alone was the strongest pathway, while work engagement also operated as an independent mediator. This nuance clarifies that while both mechanisms are relevant, workplace well-being provides a more proximal foundation for retention, with work engagement offering incremental behavioural reinforcement. Conceptually, this pattern indicates that flourishing strengthens retention through a two-stage process in which employees first experience enhanced workplace well-being, which subsequently energises their work engagement. This interpretation aligns with the Job Demands–Resources model, which suggests that personal resources trigger both health-enhancing and motivational pathways. Our results refine this understanding by showing that the two mediators do not contribute equally, as workplace well-being appears to be the dominant mechanism driving this sequential process.
The complementary analysis enriched these results by showing that retention intentions were stronger among Baby Boomers, employees in managerial roles and those with longer tenure. These results emphasise the need to recognise demographic and professional differences when designing retention strategies. A universal approach may overlook the specific needs of younger employees, early-career professionals or those in operational roles, who often present lower levels of attachment to their organisations.
Practical implications for human resource management
The present study offers several implications for HRM. Firstly, the central role of workplace well-being suggests that organisations should prioritise initiatives that foster a healthy and supportive environment. Examples include policies to promote work–life balance, programmes to reduce stress and burnout and practices to enhance psychological safety (Gallup, 2019; Murthy, 2022; Sirgy & Lee, 2018). Because workplace well-being emerged as the strongest mediating mechanism, these initiatives may represent an especially effective pathway for strengthening employees’ intention to remain in the organisation.
Secondly, the role of work engagement as both an independent mediator and part of the sequential pathway highlights the importance of job design and motivational strategies. Human Resource practitioners should create opportunities for employees to experience vigour, dedication and absorption, for example, by granting autonomy, recognising achievements and providing meaningful tasks (Gomes & Marques, 2025; Saks, 2021).
The identified demographic differences indicate that retention policies must be tailored to employee profiles. Younger generations may benefit more from career development programmes and mentoring, while senior employees may value stability and recognition of their experience. Managers themselves, who displayed particularly strong retention intentions, should be supported as key actors in cascading workplace well-being and work engagement throughout their teams.
Overall, these findings emphasise that investing in flourishing, workplace well-being and work engagement is not only an ethical responsibility but also a strategic necessity. This is particularly relevant in competitive and resource-constrained labour markets, including emerging economies, where retaining skilled employees is a pressing organisational challenge.
Theoretical and practical contributions
The present study provides relevant contributions to research on positive psychology and HRM. From a theoretical perspective, it extends previous research by integrating flourishing, workplace well-being and work engagement into a single sequential mediation framework. While flourishing has been studied in relation to each of these constructs individually (Imran et al., 2020; Redelinghuys & Rothmann, 2020), fewer studies have considered their combined and sequential effects on retention. By testing this process model, the study refines current knowledge of how personal psychological resources translate into organisational outcomes.
In addition, the findings highlight the relative strength of alternative mediating mechanisms. The indirect effect through workplace well-being alone was stronger than the sequential pathway, suggesting that workplace well-being is a more proximal predictor of retention, whereas work engagement provides incremental explanatory value by capturing behavioural manifestations of flourishing. This distinction advances theoretical clarity by explaining the respective roles of affective and behavioural processes within employee retention. Moreover, the present research contributes to the ongoing discussion of discriminant validity, showing that flourishing, workplace well-being and work engagement, despite being correlated, remain conceptually and empirically distinct.
From an applied perspective, the findings highlight the need to establish organisational environments that promote employees’ workplace well-being. Given that workplace well-being emerged as the strongest mediator of the flourishing–retention link, organisations should prioritise initiatives such as fostering healthy working conditions, providing psychological support and promoting work–life balance. These practices can strengthen employees’ satisfaction and attachment, reducing turnover intentions (Murthy, 2022; Sirgy & Lee, 2018). Work engagement has also been shown to be an important mechanism, suggesting that managers should invest in practices that enhance vigour, dedication and absorption, for example, through recognition, autonomy and meaningful job design (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Saks, 2021).
Finally, the complementary analysis indicated that retention intentions vary by generation, job role and organisational tenure. This implies that HR strategies should not be uniform but instead be adapted to different employee profiles. For instance, targeted initiatives may include structured mentoring for early-career employees, personalised development opportunities or flexible work arrangements tailored to employees’ life stages.
Overall, the findings provide both theoretical refinement and practical insights, contributing to a deeper understanding of the psychological and demographic determinants shaping employee retention intention.
Limitations and directions for future research
Although the present investigation offers relevant contributions, some constraints must be acknowledged. Data were obtained through self-report questionnaires, which may introduce common method bias. Harman’s single-factor test suggested that this was not a major issue; however, this diagnostic has recognised limitations. More rigorous techniques, including confirmatory factor analysis with a common latent factor or the use of multi-source data, would strengthen future research (Podsakoff et al., 2012)
The sampling strategy also imposes restrictions. The use of a convenience and snowball sample of Portuguese employees’ limits representativeness and narrows the applicability of the findings to other sectors and cultural settings (Redelinghuys & Rothmann, 2020). Broadening data collection to probability samples and incorporating more diverse international contexts would enhance external validity.
Another methodological issue concerns the measurement of retention. The employee retention questionnaire (Salman et al., 2014) had one item removed to improve reliability, thereby increasing internal consistency but reducing content validity. Future research should adopt alternative validated scales to capture the construct more comprehensively.
Furthermore, the constructs of flourishing, workplace well-being and work engagement were strongly correlated. Although AVE and MSV analyses supported their distinctiveness, the overlap between them raises concerns about discriminant validity. Exploring alternative modelling strategies, such as bifactor or second-order models, could provide stronger evidence of empirical differentiation.
Moreover, the study examines general retention outcomes rather than talent-specific retention processes. Future research should differentiate between these constructs, as the drivers of general employee retention may differ from those influencing the retention of high-performing or critical talent.
The cross-sectional nature of the research precludes firm conclusions about causality (Hayes, 2018). Although the mediation patterns align with theoretical assumptions, the temporal sequencing of the variables cannot be definitively determined. Longitudinal and experimental designs would allow a more rigorous test of causality.
Finally, contextual variables such as organisational culture, leadership style and compensation practices were not considered, even though they are likely to influence retention. Including such factors in future models would contribute to a broader and more integrated understanding of the conditions under which flourishing fosters employees’ intention to stay. By overcoming these limitations, future investigations may further extend the current work’s contribution and more precisely clarify the interplay among personal resources, workplace experiences and retention outcomes.
Conclusion
The present investigation aimed to analyse the relationship between flourishing and employee retention intention, testing workplace well-being and work engagement as sequential mediators. The analysis validated all four hypotheses, confirming that flourishing contributes both directly and indirectly to employees’ intention to remain in their organisations. In particular, workplace well-being emerged as the strongest mediator, while work engagement functioned both independently and as part of the sequential pathway.
The findings advance theoretical understanding by integrating flourishing, workplace well-being and work engagement into a single explanatory model. Rather than considering these constructs in isolation, the study demonstrates their interdependence and clarifies the relative weight of affective and motivational mechanisms in shaping retention. This approach refines existing models by showing that flourishing enhances retention primarily through improved workplace well-being, which in turn fosters work engagement and strengthens employees’ connection to the organisation.
Beyond theoretical contributions, the study also provides actionable insights for HR practice. Retention strategies should move beyond traditional financial incentives and incorporate policies that promote flourishing, support workplace well-being and cultivate work engagement. Tailoring interventions to different employee groups – such as younger versus older generations, managers versus operational staff or employees with varying tenure – can further enhance effectiveness and reduce turnover risk.
Although the empirical work took place in Portugal, the results have broader relevance across diverse organisational and cultural contexts, including emerging economies where talent scarcity is a critical concern. This international relevance reinforces the importance of adopting HR practices that balance psychological resources with organisational sustainability.
A number of constraints should be recognised, including the use of a cross-sectional design, the reliance on self-reported data and the cultural specificity of the sample. Future studies should adopt longitudinal and cross-cultural designs, employ more comprehensive measures of retention and integrate contextual dimensions such as leadership practices and organisational culture. Addressing these limitations would contribute to a deeper, more transferable understanding of the mechanisms through which flourishing fosters employees’ long-term attachment to their organisations.
In conclusion, this research demonstrates that flourishing, workplace well-being and work engagement represent more than favourable outcomes. Rather, they function as key psychological mechanisms that strengthen employees’ intention to remain in their organisations. By investing in these dimensions, organisations can foster work environments that promote individual fulfilment while simultaneously strengthening organisational resilience, stability and sustainable performance.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank CIGEST – Management Research Center, Lisbon, Portugal.
This article is based on research originally conducted as part of João Taveira’s master’s dissertation, entitled ‘Unraveling the link between flourishing and talent retention: workplace well-being and engagement as serial mediation mechanisms’, submitted to the Instituto Superior de Gestão – Business & Economics School, Lisbon, Portugal. The dissertation was supervised by Rosa Isabel Rodrigues and has been substantially revised and adapted for publication. The dissertation is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/58175.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
João Taveira: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Visualisation, Writing– original draft, Writing– review & editing. Rosa Rodrigues: Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or the publisher. The authors are responsible for the article’s results, findings and content.
References
Albrecht, S., Green, C., & Marty, A. (2021). Meaningful work, job resources, and employee work engagement. Sustainability, 13(7), 4045. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074045
Amarakoon, U., & Colley, L. (2022). Attraction and retention of employees in an Australian regional SME: The importance of place and scale in human resource management. Personnel Review, 52(3), 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2021-0172
Antony, D., Arulandu, S., & Parayitam, S. (2024). Disentangling the relationships between talent management, organizational commitment and turnover intention: Evidence from higher educational institutions in India. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 43(2), 176–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22231
Bakker, A., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development International, 23, 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2017-0207
Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Bakracheva, M. (2020). The meanings ascribed to happiness, life satisfaction and flourishing. Psychology, 11, 87–104. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2020.111007
Barroqueiro, A. (2022). The impact of socially responsible Human Resource Management practices on turnover intention: The mediating effect of workplace well-being and performance appraisal accuracy. Master’s dissertation. Instituto Superior de Gestão. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/41444
Blau, P. (1964) Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34, 193–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x
Chen, X., Mamun, A., & Mamun, A. (2023). Work design, employee workplace well-being, and retention intention: A case study of China’s young workforce. Heliyon, 9(5), e15742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15742
Chillakuri, B. (2020). Understanding Generation Z expectations for effective onboarding. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(7), 1277–1296. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-02-2020-0058
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Dai, Y., Tang, Y., Chen, W., & Hou, J. (2022). How organizational trust impacts organizational citizenship behavior: Organizational identification and employee loyalty as mediators. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 996962. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.996962
Diener, E., Pressman, S., Hunter, J., & Delgadillo-Chase, D. (2017). If, why, and when subjective well-being influences health, and future needed research. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 9(2), 133–167. http://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12090.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New workplace well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Fuller, C., Simmering, M., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
Gallup. (2019). Employee workplace well-being is key for workplace productivity. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/215924/workplacewell-being.aspx
Ganguli, R., & Padhy, S. (2023). Moderating effect of demographic factors on the relationship between work motivation and employee retention of Gen Z. NMIMS Management Review, 31(2) 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/09711023231197819
Gelencsér, M., Szabó-Szentgróti, G., Kőmüves, Z., & Hollósy-Vadász, G. (2023). The holistic model of labour retention: The impact of workplace wellbeing factors on employee retention. Administrative Sciences, 13(5), 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13050121
Gomes, J., & Marques, T. (2025). The influence of organisational justice on work engagement, organisational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comprehensive study. Journal of General Management, 50(2), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063070221140726
Gupta, V. (2019). Talent management dimensions and their relationship with retention of Generation-Y employees in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(10), 4150–4169. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2018-0859
Hall, S., Riga, E., Sprange, K., Hagan, P., Carr, L., Taylor, J., & Mitchell, E. (2024). Flourishing and job satisfaction in employees working in UK clinical trial units: A national cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Services Research, 24, 1522. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11986-x
Hayes, A. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
Hirschi, A. (2021). Whole-life career self-management, career success, and thriving at work: A conceptual model and review. Journal of Career Development, 48(3), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845320957729
Huppert, F., & So, T. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 837–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9966-7
Huta, V. (2020). How distinct are eudaimonia and hedonia? It depends on how they are measured. Journal of Workplace well-being Assessment, 4(3), 511–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41543-021-00046-4
Imran, M., Elahi, N., Abid, G., Ashfaq, F., & Ilyas, S. (2020). Impact of perceived organizational support on work engagement: Mediating mechanism of thriving and flourishing. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(3), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030082
Iqbal, J., Asghar, A., & Asghar, M. (2022). Effect of despotic leadership on employee turnover intention: Mediating toxic workplace environment and cognitive distraction in academic institutions. Behavioral Sciences, 12(5), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12050125
Jeswani, S., & Sarkar, S. (2008). Integrating talent work engagement as a strategy to high performance and retention. Asia Pacific Business Review, 4(4), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/097324700800400402
Junça-Silva, A., & Caetano, A. (2013). Validation of the flourishing scale and scale of positive and negative experience in Portugal. Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9938-y
Karatepe, O., & Olugbade, O. (2017). The effects of work social support and career adaptability on career satisfaction and turnover intentions. Journal of Management & Organization, 23(3), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.12
Kim, W., & Hyun, Y. (2017). The impact of personal resources on turnover intention: The mediating effects of work engagement. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(8), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-05-2017-0048
Klein, H., Polin, B., & Leigh, C. (2020). Effective onboarding: Integrating new employees into organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 3–23.
Klug, K., Selenko, E., Van Hootegem, A., Sverke, M., & De Witte, H. (2024). A lead article to go deeper and broader in job insecurity research: Understanding an individual perception in its social and political context. Applied Psychology, 73(2), 1960–1993. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12535
Kumari, R., & Kaur, S. (2021). Work-life balance, supervisory support, job satisfaction, career advancement, and turnover intention: Unwinding the complex nexus for women executives. International Journal of Management, 12(9), 279–289.
Luna-Arocas, R., & Camps, J. (2008). A model of high performance work practices and turnover intentions. Personnel Review, 37(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480810839950.
Mardia, K. (1980). Tests of univariate and multivariate normality. In P. Krishnaiah (Ed.), Handbook of statistics (Vol. 1, pp. 279–320). Elsevier.
Mardia, K., Kent, J., & Taylor, C. (2024). Multivariate analysis (Vol. 88). John Wiley & Sons.
Melkamu, K. (2023). Exploring the impact of social exchange factors on organizational commitment: A study of development bank of Ethiopian Amhara region branches. Journal of Management and Strategy, 14(2), 12–39. https://doi.org/10.5430/jms.v14n2p12
Mujajati, E., Mtshelwane, D., & Van der Vaart, L. (2024). Fostering organisational commitment: A resilience framework for employee retention. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1303866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1303866
Murthy, V. (2022). Confronting health worker burnout and workplace well-being. New England Journal of Medicine, 387(7), 577–579. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2207252
Naim, M., & Ozyilmaz, A. (2022). Flourishing-at-work and turnover intentions: Does trust in management moderate the relationship? Personnel Review, 52(4), 721–738. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2020-0715
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Redelinghuys, K., & Rothmann, S. (2020). Exploring the prevalence of workplace flourishing amongst teachers over time. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 46, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v46i0.1764
Riekhoff, A., & Järnefelt, N. (2022). Gender differences in work–life balance, career opportunities and health: Evidence from a national survey in Finland. Sustainability, 14(1), 357. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010357
Rothmann, S., & Redelinghuys, K. (2020). Exploring the prevalence of workplace flourishing amongst teachers over time. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 46(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v46i0.1764
Rothmann, S., Redelinghuys, K., & Botha, E. (2019). Workplace flourishing: Measurement, antecedents and outcomes. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v45i0.1549
Ryan, R., Ryan, W., Di Domenico, S., & Deci, E. (2019). The nature and the conditions of human autonomy and flourishing: Self-determination theory and basic psychological needs. In R. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed., pp. 88–110). Oxford University Press.
Saks, A. (2021). Job work engagement: A review and extension. Human Resource Development Review, 20(3), 218–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843211024035
Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M., & Martínez, I. (2011). Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: The mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(10), 2256–2266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05652.x
Salazar-Altamirano, M., Galván-Vela, E., Ravina-Ripoll, R., & Sánchez-Limón, M. (2025). Happiness management and workplace well-being: Evolution, key insights, and future directions. A systematic review. Methaodos: Revista de ciencias sociales, 13(1), m251301a01. https://doi.org/10.17502/mrcs.v13i1.848
Salman, A., Ahmad, N., & Matin, F. (2014). Factors affecting on employee’s retention in banking sector: An investigation from Karachi. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(37), 2222–1905.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2003). Test manual for the Utrecht Work engagement Scale. Utrecht University.
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
Schaufeli, W., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & De Witte, H. (2019). An ultra-short measure for work engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000430
Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and workplace well-being. Free Press.
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5
Shir, N., & Ryff, C. (2022). Entrepreneurship, self-organization, and eudaimonic workplace well-being: A dynamic approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(6), 1658–1684. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211013798
Sinisterra, L., Peñalver, J., & Salanova, M. (2024). Connecting the organizational incomes and outcomes: A systematic review of the relationship between talent management, employee work engagement, and turnover intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1439127. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1439127
Sirgy, M., & Lee, D. (2018). Work-life balance: An integrative review. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 13(1), 229–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9509-8
Smith, A., & Smith, H. (2017). A short questionnaire to measure wellbeing at work (Short-SWELL) and to examine the interaction between the employee and organization. In R. Charles & J. Wilkinson (Eds.), Contemporary ergonomics and human factors (pp. 1–6). Chartered Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors.
Snyman, A., & Ferreira, N. (2023). The psychological contract and staff retention among South African higher education employees: The influence of sociodemographics. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v21i0.2354
Towers Watson. (2020). Actions to restore stability – 2020 COVID-19 employer survey: Work, rewards, employee experience, Europe results. Willis Towers Watson.
VanderWeele, T. (2020). Activities for flourishing: An evidence-based guide. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 4(1), 79–91.
Ventura-León, J., Peña-Calero, B., & Burga-León, A. (2023). The effect of normality and outliers on bivariate correlation coefficients in psychology: A Monte Carlo simulation. Journal of General Psychology, 150(4), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2022.2094310
Verma, R. (2025). Unlocking flourishing at workplace: An integrative review and framework. Applied Psychology, 74(1), e12591. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12591
Widaman, K., & Helm, J. (2023). Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In H. Cooper, M. Coutanche, L. McMullen, A. Panter, D. Rindskopf & K. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Data analysis and research publication (2nd ed., pp. 379–410). American Psychological Association.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
