Search results

No systematic review has previously been dedicated to comprehensively investigate predictors of well-being and ill-being in working contexts. Empirical studies have vastly associated well-being as the result of autonomous motivation and basic psychological needs satisfaction, while frustration results in ill-being. The purpose of this study is to integrate the variables identified in empirical studies associated with the occurrence of the phenomena, individual/organizational features and consequences associated with workers' well-being/ill-being.

This systematic review includes 44 empirical studies published up to February 2021. Findings are summarized based on quantitative analysis of the evidence.

Results reinforce the role of self-determined motivation and needs satisfaction in promoting well-being, while amotivation and needs frustration led to ill-being. Besides, they indicate that ill-being can both lead to negative consequences and diminish positive work outcomes. Findings also revealed that: integrated motivation does not seem to be empirically distinct from intrinsic and identified motivation in promoting well-being; introjected motivated behaviors may be less harmful to psychological health than externally oriented ones; the relationship between external motivation and well-being/ill-being requires prospective investigations; and amotivation seems to have a detrimental effect in workers' psychological health.

Results provide practical information for HRM practitioners to design work environments and practices that promote employees' psychological health.

An unprecedented framework that aggregates empirical findings regarding the antecedents, predictors and consequences of ill-being/well-being in working contexts is presented.

A sense of collective free-thinking with tangible goals makes co-creation an enlightening experience. Yet despite the freedom and organic flow of the methodology, there remain barriers to deploying co-creation in the real-world context. The aim was to understand the barriers and solutions to co-creation, reflect on applying co-creation in practice and co-create an applicable framework for co-creation.

These reflections and conceptual developments were completed using a Participatory Action Research Approach through the co-creation of the Erasmus+ funded Co-creating Welfare course.

Results presented are centric to the experiences in the United Kingdom but led to application at an international level. Problem formulation led to solutions devised about who should co-create, what co-creation aims to achieve, how to receive management buy-in, co-creating beyond the local face to face context and evaluation.

The Three Co’s Framework is proposed using the outline of: Co-Define, Co-Design and Co-Refine. Those who take part in co-creation processes are recommended to be called co-creators, with less focus on “empowerment” and more about facilitating people to harness the power they already have. Utilising online and hybrid delivery methods can be more inclusive, especially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of co-creation needs to be evaluated more moving forwards, as well as the output co-created.