Differences in the Role of Psychological Well-Being and Subjective Well-Being in Predicting Work Engagement

Abstract

Employees with high Work Engagement (WE) are believed to be more reliable in achieving organizational goals. This research aims to determine the differences in the role of well-being with the concepts of hedonic and eudemonic in predicting WE. The subjects of this research consisted of 327 people, who were analyzed in 3 stages, namely 110 people who were analyzed in stage-1, 217 people who were analyzed in stage-2, and all research subjects were analyzed in stage-3. All data for this research were collected using the WE scale, PWB scale, SWFL scale, and PANAS, which have a Chronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .773 respectively; .831; .627; 747; 744. In stage-1 research analysis, SWB and PWB show more of just one component, whereas in stage-2 and stage-3 research analysis, they are more likely to be seen as two different factors in predicting WE. The results of the stepwise model multiple regression statistical technique analysis concluded that the regression coefficient on the influence of SWB and PWB on WE from the three analyses stated that PWB was stronger than SWB in predicting WE. Thus, it can be interpreted that to predict WE the Well-Being concept with the eudemonic concept is greater than using well-being with the hedonic concept.

INTRODUCTION

The world of work beckons individuals to invest themselves, to be fully involved, to demonstrate high commitment, to be proactive, and to be tied to their work (Bakker & Bal, 2010). In their research, Adi and Indrawati (2019) stated that work engagement between generations in the workplace has different levels. The lowest level of their research was in the baby boomers generation, only in generations X and Y (Adi & Indrawati, 2019). The research results of Mazzetti et al. (2023) stated that there are still many problems regarding employee work engagement, which is still not high. Work engagement is a positive thing that is related to behavior at work, which includes thoughts about the relationship between workers or employees and their work, which is characterized by enthusiasm (vigor) and dedication as well as appreciation (absorption) in work (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Workers with a high level of work engagement will display their best performance because they enjoy their work (Bakker & Bal, 2010), and workers feel a stronger sense of loyalty to their organization (Agyemang & Ofei, 2013). Workers with high work engagement will work enthusiastically and diligently to advance their organization (Bakker et al., 2011) because

*Corresponding author:

the workforce shows less absenteeism (Berg et al., 2013). In this case, work engagement benefits individuals and work organizations (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Having workers with high work engagement is the key to success in winning the competition (Macey & Schneider, 2008) because workers with high work engagement will increase the productivity and effectiveness of their organization (Ardıç & Polatcı, 2009).

However, previous research results stated that employee work engagement tends to be low. This can be seen from the relatively low percentage of work engagement levels, which can be seen from vigor, dedication, and absorption. Only 28.8% of employees feel enthusiastic or passionate about work, 46.2% always view their work as essential and valuable, 40.4% feel very interested and involved in their work, and 23.1% feel enthusiastic about going to work when waking up in the morning, 21.2% were energized at work, and only 3.8% felt absorbed or engrossed at work (Hafiz & Kurniawan, 2018).

The negative impact of low levels of work engagement is the tendency for high turnover rates or employees to leave work (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Apart from that, low employee engagement will also impact the low quality of employee work. So, research on factors that can influence the emergence of work engagement needs to be carried out.

In the past, engagement was a general construct first popularized by Law et al. (1998). However, this concept was developed in the work context (Kahn, 1990). This is known as work engagement, which scholars have popularized since the beginning of the 21st century. Work engagement is defined as a condition that includes vigor, absorption, and dedication (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Vigor is a mental condition and energy that is positive and strong when working, having the strength to complete the work and being persistent when facing problems at work. Dedication is feeling strongly involved in a job and having a sense of meaningfulness, enthusiasm, pride, inspiration, and challenge. Absorption means an optimal level of experience characterized by attention, lack of self-awareness, time distortion, and intrinsic enjoyment of what one does (Bakker, 2011).

Job resources and personal resources are two factors that influence work engagement (Bakker

& Demerouti, 2008). Job resources are physical, social, and organizational aspects external to the worker. Meanwhile, personal sources are positive self-evaluations related to resilience and refer to an individual's ability to control and positively impact the environment (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Further research is needed to investigate these factors and their impact on work engagement.

This research focuses on the factors influencing work engagement from personal sources on workers. This aligns with several research results stating that subjective and psychological well-being influence work engagement. Research on the relationship between psychological well- being and work engagement was conducted by Aiello and Tesi (2017). In addition, Hutagalung's (2018) research stated that subjective well-being plays a role in attachment to teacher subjects. Other research also stated a significant positive relationship between psychological well-being and work engagement (Simanullang & Ratnaningsih, 2018). The role of psychological well-being in work engagement was also found by Çankir and Şahin (2018). Other research stated that PWB influences work engagement. The research results of Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) stated that work engagement is significantly related to attitudes, behavior, intentions, psychological health, well- being, and individual personality traits. Apart from psychological well-being, subjective well-being also plays a role in increasing work engagement. This is in line with research results from Bakker and Oerlemans (2011), Russell (2008), and Sahai and Mahapatra (2020), which stated that subjective well-being influences employee work engagement in the workplace.

Several studies stated that subjective well-being is a determinant of work engagement.

However, other research stated the opposite: work engagement is a determinant of subjective well-being. Thus, this research wants to examine whether subjective well-being determines work engagement.

The concept of well-being can be viewed from a hedonic and eudaimonic perspective. The concepts of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being can theoretically be differentiated based on their philosophical traditions (Fave et al., 2011). However, little evidence can show that these two concepts have a differential relationship with each other—external criteria (Huta, 2016; Joshanloo, 2019). Thus, this research aims to fill this gap by understanding the differences in the role of the hedonic and eudaimonic approaches in predicting work engagement.

Based on the results of several studies, it can be stated that two conceptions of well-being can predict high or low levels of work engagement, namely psychological well-being (PWB) and subjective well-being (SWB). As far as the author understands, no research has jointly analyzed the role of PWB and SWB on work engagement. Thus, this research aims to fill this gap by examining the role of PWB and SWB together in work engagement. So, it is hoped that this research can add to the richness of the body of studies on work engagement.

To determine the consistency of the role of PWB and SWB in work engagement, three stages of analysis were carried out: stage-1, stage-2, and stage-3. The analysis of this research consists of three stages. Stage-1 analysis is carried out on subjects who have characteristics of the field of work and come from the same culture. Stage-2 analysis is carried out on subjects who are more heterogeneous in the characteristics of the field of work and their cultural origins. In contrast, analysis stage-3 is the unification of the research subjects analyzed in Stage-1 and Stage-2. The design of this research is quantitative research using a survey. The analysis stage of this research was carried out with the consideration that according to Diener et al. (1999, 2013) and Oishi and Gilbert (2016), variations in the cultural background of research subjects can influence research results, so that the difference in the results of stage-2 and stage-1 analysis lies in the diverse cultural background of the subjects in addition to the more significant number of subjects, while stage-3 analysis is an analysis of the total number of existing research subjects.

The concept of well-being is a cognitive representation of the nature and experience of experiencing well-being itself. The concept of subjective well-being is referred to as a conception with a hedonic well-being approach, which emphasizes how a person conceptualizes and thinks about the nature of well-being (King & Napa, 1998; McMahan & Estes, 2011; Ng & Jeffery, 2003). This approach focuses on how individuals define well-being in hedonic contexts (e.g., pleasure experiences). Kahneman et al. (1999) labeled this well-being as pleasure or happiness, the opposite of pain. As for psychological well-being, it is called the eudaimonic well-being approach, which sees well-being not only as happiness but more as how a person can actualize his or her potential. This view is called eudaimonism by Waterman (1993), defined as the belief that one can realize prosperity or one's daimon or true nature.

Psychological well-being and subjective well-being are two interesting concepts related to well-being. Huta (2016) and Joshanloo (2019) stated that psychological well-being is included in Eudaimonic well-being, while subjective well-being is included in Hedonic well-being. Hedonic well-being is related to high life satisfaction, high positive affect, and low negative affect. Hedonic well-being focuses more on feeling “good” and satisfied about one's life; pleasure-oriented focuses on the underlying reasons for activities and behavior and seeks satisfaction and pleasure. Hedonic well-being aims to seek satisfaction and pleasure and to pursue goals. Eudaimonic well-being focuses more on positive relationships, personal growth, life goals, mastery, autonomy, and self- acceptance. Eudaimonic well-being focuses more on feelings of meaning, purpose, and authenticity

in one's life, authenticity, and growth orientation, which are the reasons for underlying activities and behavior. Thus, Eudaimonic well-being aims to seek the meaning and purpose of life itself, not the results sought or the reasons for pursuing goals.

The existence of two approaches to understanding mental well-being variables enriches our understanding and reflects the complexity of the mental well-being construct. However, understanding the role of each concept is crucial for explaining and predicting the existence of one variable (Fave et al., 2011). This underscores the importance of our research. Jaccard and Jacoby (2010) suggested that we can better understand the nature of mental well-being by observing the relationships between existing variables and the underlying patterns. Therefore, our research aims to shed light on the influence of subjective well-being and psychological well-being on work engagement.

Work Engagement

Work engagement consists of three components. Vigor is characterized by high energy and resilience or mental endurance during work, sincerity in putting effort into a job, and perseverance even when faced with various difficulties. Dedication is characterized by high worker involvement when carrying out tasks and experiencing feelings of meaning, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. The absorption characteristic is characterized by the seriousness and total concentration of the worker on a job. Workers feel that when working time goes by very quickly, they have difficulty separating themselves from their work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

There are several previous studies regarding the role of psychological well-being on work engagement and the role of subjective well-being on work engagement. Previous research states that both psychological and subjective well-being partially influence work engagement. This is proven by research which stated that psychological well-being plays a significant role in work engagement (Aiello & Tesi, 2017; Arnold et al. et al., 2008; Çankir & Şahin, 2018; Hutagalung, 2018; Tri et al., 2018). Apart from psychological well-being, subjective well-being also plays a role in increasing work engagement. This is in line with research results from Bakker and Oerlemans (2011), Russell (2008), and Sahai and Mahapatra (2020), which stated that subjective well-being influences employee work engagement in the workplace.

Based on the previous research that has been presented, there has been no research that combines the roles of psychological well-being and subjective well-being in work engagement. Hence, this research aims to see the differences in eudaimonic and hedonic well-being's role in work engagement.

Apart from that, there is still debate regarding the results of previous research regarding whether work engagement is a determinant or consequence of well-being. Previous research stating that work engagement is a result of well-being was carried out by (Aiello & Tesi, 2017; Bakker et al., 2008; Çankir & Şahin, 2018; Hutagalung, 2018; Simanullang & Ratnaningsih, 2018). Other research stated that work engagement is a determinant of well-being, such as research conducted by Shuck & Reio (2014), which stated that employees with high engagement show high psychological well-being.

Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being

Positive psychology (Fave et al., 2011; Seligman, 2002; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Vazquez et al., 2006) which has extensively researched well-being, happiness, and mental health differentiates between hedonic well-being (Kahneman et al., 1999) and eudaimonic well- being (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff & Singer, 2008; Waterman et al., 2010). The hedonic approach

focuses on happiness and defines well-being as attaining pleasure and avoiding pain (Kahneman et al., 1999). Kahneman et al. (1999) said that subjective well-being consists of a cognitive evaluation component of life satisfaction and an affective component, characterized by the prevalence of positive emotions rather than negative ones. On the other hand, the eudaimonic approach links well-being more with meaning and self-realization, where well-being is seen as a person's functioning in their environment (Ryan & Deci, 2001). In particular, this approach is referred to by Ryff & Singer (2008) as Psychological Well-Being (PWB). This approach focuses on the meaning of life, authenticity, and the goals a person wants to achieve (Waterman et al., 2010). A summary of the differences between hedonic and eudaimonic concepts can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of the Differences between Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being

Subjective well-being (SWB) is a broad category of phenomena that includes a person's emotional response, satisfaction with their domain, and global assessment of their life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1999). There are two components of subjective well-being, namely the cognitive component and the affective component (Diener, 2000). The cognitive component is overall life satisfaction (Life Satisfaction - LS), while the affective component consists of two effects, namely positive affect (Positive Affect - PA) and negative affect (Negative Affect - NA). Compton (2005) explained that to know whether someone is happy, they will be asked to explain their emotional state and feelings about the world and themselves. Thus, it appears that an affective aspect is involved when someone evaluates their happiness, whereas assessing life satisfaction involves more cognitive aspects because there is a conscious assessment. Individuals are said to have high subjective well- being if they experience life satisfaction, often feel joy, and rarely feel unpleasant emotions such as sadness or anger (Diener et al., 2000). On the other hand, individuals are said to have low subjective well-being if they are dissatisfied with their lives, experience little joy and affection, and more often feel negative emotions such as anger or anxiety.

Psychological well-being is a condition where individuals have a positive attitude towards themselves and others, can make their own decisions and regulate their behavior, create and manage an environment compatible with their needs, and try to explore and develop themselves (Ryff, 1989). According to Ramos (2007), psychological well-being is kindness, harmony, and establishing good relationships with individuals and groups. Berger (2010) explained that psychological well- being in the workplace is a condition in which a person has motivation, is involved in his work, has

positive energy, enjoys all work activities, and will stay in his job for a long time. Raz (2004) added that carrying out activities wholeheartedly and successfully establishing relationships with other people means psychological well-being. In other words, the source of psychological well-being is if a person has found meaning in his life. The measurement of eudaimonic well-being is based on six aspects of positive functioning proposed by (Ryff, 1989), which are measured through a person's self-report on the Scales of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). The six aspects of Psychological Well-Being are autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, positive relations with others, and self-acceptance (Ryff, 1989).

Some Philosophers argue that life satisfaction can also be considered a component of eudaimonia (Papalia et al., 2008). Empirical findings consistently show that life satisfaction is a hedonistic component (Joshanloo, 2019). Not much is known about these different concepts of nomological networks. However, the weight of the available evidence, although admittedly limited, suggests that the two concepts have a differential relationship with external criteria.

Previous research regarding the differences between eudaimonic and hedonic well-being was conducted by Huta (2016) and Joshanloo (2019). The main aim of this study was to evaluate the empirical differences between hedonic and eudaimonic health using a large sample from South Korea. The authors examined associations between three commonly used indicators of hedonic well-being (life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect), two frequently used indicators of eudaimonic well-being (psychological well-being, and social well-being), and five criterion variables (self-control, long-term planning, sensation seeking, grit, and intellectualism), which are explained below.

However, as far as the author understands, no research has examined the differences between

eudaimonic and hedonic well-being and their role in work engagement. This research aims to see the differences in the role of eudaimonic and hedonic well-being in work engagement.

The role of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in predicting Work Engagement

Theoretically, hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being are two different concepts. However, empirical evidence is still needed to make the difference clear. This aligns with the opinion that hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives have been proven to be conceptually and empirically different types of well-being (Olson et al., 2014; Rush & Misajon, 2018). However, the two terms are still interchangeable (Sahai & Mahapatra, 2020). This is possible because the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives are highly correlated (r = 0.70), although some experts did not show this (Ramzan & Rana, 2014). Moreover, using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Keyes et al. (2002) concluded that eudaimonic and hedonic well-being still overlap. Thus, the question arises whether the two types of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are different in predicting work engagement. This is an essential question in this research to fill the research gap. Diener et al. (1998) and Ryff and Singer (1998) noted that individuals can have one type of well-being but lack another. For example, someone with low positive affect (low hedonic) can have high meaning and purpose in their life (high eudaimonic). The converse may also be true, in that individuals can experience high levels of positive affect and life satisfaction (high hedonic) while tending to lack a sense of meaning in their lives and achievement of their goals (low eudaimonic), so both types of well-being may be assessed separately. Indeed, although eudaimonic and hedonic well-being can be combined into one overall well-being factor (Keyes et al., 2002) neither eudaimonic nor hedonic well-being alone can provide a complete picture of the broader understanding of what it means to experience or “have” health.

The relationship between psychological well-being and work engagement, especially in

the absorption aspect, has been proven by Aiello and Tesi (2017). Hutagalung (2018) found that subjective well-being positively influenced teacher-subject attachment. On the subject of nurses, Simanullang and Ratnaningsih (2018) stated that there is a significant positive relationship between psychological well-being and work engagement. The role of psychological well-being in work engagement was discovered by Çankir and Şahin (2018).

From the explanation above, it can be seen that both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being play a role in predicting work disengagement. However, which one is more stable is still unclear. This research shows which welfare is more stable when predicting work engagement. Understanding which factors better predict work engagement will make it easier to increase employee work engagement. Two research stages were used to answer this: Research Stage-1 and Research Stage-2. Research Stage-2 replicated Research Stage-1 with the addition of research subjects and variations in subject backgrounds, which might influence the strength of well-being predictions on work engagement.

Data analysis in stage-3 involves data from stage-1 and stage-2 research subjects. In other words, stage-3 analysis unifies subjects in stage-1 and stage-2 research so that there are more subjects when carrying out data analysis than in stage-1 and stage-2 research analysis. The number of research subjects in stage-3 was 327 (110 in stage-1 and 217 in stage-2).

METHOD

The analysis of this research consists of three stages; stage-1 analysis is carried out on subjects who have characteristics of the field of work and come from the same culture, stage-2 analysis is carried out on subjects who are more heterogeneous in the characteristics of the field of work and their cultural origins. In contrast, stage-3 is the unification and analysis of the research subjects analyzed in Stage-1 and Stage-2. The design of this research is quantitative research using surveys. This difference in analysis is to see whether there are differences in results if the respondents are culturally diverse because previous research results have not looked at much from a cultural perspective.

Stage-1 Research Analysis

The number of subjects analyzed in stage-1 was 110 people. Subjects in stage-1 are designed to have homogeneous characteristics in their field of work, employment status, length of time the subject has been in their culture, and culture of the community where they work and live. The characteristics of the subject are: (1) registered as a paramedic who works in hospitals and community health centers; (2) Javanese who grew up and lived in Yogyakarta for more than ten years; (3) Working within the DIY Health Service; (4) Minimum education equivalent to SLA, (5) Age between 20 years to 60 years, and (6) have had a minimum work period of 1 year.

Research data collection methods. The quantitative research design involves Subjective Well-Being, Psychological Well-Being, and Work Engagement variables.

A person's hedonic well-being is measured using Subjective Well-Being, which has two components: cognitive and affective. The cognitive component of Subjective Well-Being is called life satisfaction (Life satisfaction), and the affective component includes positive and negative affect. The cognitive component of Subjective Well-Being, measured by the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) developed by Diener et al. (1985), consists of 5 items using six choices (1 = "never at all"; 6 = "always"). The Affective SWB component was measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Trait (PANAS) developed by (Watson et al., 1988). The questionnaire contains 20 items

in two subscales that assess the influence of a person's positive and negative traits using a 6-point scale (1= “very little or never at all”; 6=” very much”). Eudamonic well-being was measured using the Psychological Well-Being Scales (PWBS) developed by Ryff (1989) and is based on six aspects: autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relationships, purpose in life, and self- acceptance. This scale consists of 18 items using a 6-point scale (1= “never at all”; 6=” always”).

Work Engagement (WE) was measured with the UWES (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2019). WE is measured by three indicators, namely (1) Vigor, a High level of energy and mental resilience when working, willingness to invest effort in one's work, and persistence in facing difficulties; (2) Dedication, Characterized by a sense of enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenges with one's work and (3) Absorption, or having total concentration and wholly engrossed in one's work, and it is characterized by a rapid passing of time and difficulty in disengaging from work. The WE scale consists of 17 statements with scale measurements based on the subject's response to a score option of 1 to 6 with an explanation of the answer choice that best describes how often the subject feels it.

There is 309 respondents who reported the psychometric attributes of the four measuring instruments above. Table 2 reports the range of item-total correlation correction coefficients and Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients for each instrument.

Data Analysis Method

The first analysis uses factor analysis with the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method. This PCA method is used to look for factor formation on aspects of SWB and PWB, namely LS – Life Satisfaction, PA – Positive Affect, NA – Negative Affect, and aspects of PWB, namely AA – Aspect of Autonomy, EM – Environment Mastery, PG – Personal Growth, PR – Positive Relations, PL – Purpose in Life, and SA – Self Acceptance. This was carried out to see whether these aspects of well-being are a single factor or two separate factors. The second analysis uses multiple regression analysis with a stepwise method to show which role is more substantial between SWB and PWB in forming Work Engagement.

Table 2.

Psychometric Attributes of Research Measurement Scales

Stage-2 Research Analysis

This stage-2 research analysis, mirroring stage-1 in terms of research data collection methods and research data analysis, is distinguished by its meticulous approach to variations in background and number of research subjects. Stage-2 research subjects were 217 people. The age range of stage-2 research subjects was 18 to 45 years. Subjects came from diverse ethnic groups consisting

of Javanese (39%), Sundanese (14%), East Javanese (12%), Bugis (11%), Batak (9%), Ambonese (9%), and others (6%). The work status of stage-2 research subjects consisted of private employees (21%), civil servants (15%), entrepreneurs (15%), and others (5%).

The number of subjects analyzed in stage-2 was 217 employees. The research subjects in stage-2 were designed to have diverse subject characteristics in terms of their field of work, employment status, length of time the subject has been in the culture where they live, the culture of the society where they work and live, and the culture of the society where they work. Demographic data from stage-2 research subjects can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3.

Demographic Characteristics of Research Subjects

Based on the table above, it can be stated that the research subjects for stage-1 were 110 (men 22% and women 78%), and the research subjects for stage-2 were 217 subjects (men 33% and women 67%). The ages of the subjects in stage-1 of the research ranged from 23 to 57 years, and they were of Javanese ethnicity and worked in the health sector. Meanwhile, the age range for stage-2 research subjects is 18 to 45 years. Subjects came from more diverse ethnic groups consisting of Javanese (39%), Sundanese (14%), East Javanese (12%), Bugis (11%), Batak (9%), Ambonese (9%), and others (6%). The work status of stage-2 research subjects consisted of private employees (21%), civil servants (15%), entrepreneurs (15%), and others (5%).

Stage-3 Research Analysis

The data analyzed in stage-3 is from research subjects in stage-1 and stage-2. In other words, stage-3 analysis is the unification of subjects in stage-1 and stage-2 research so that when carrying out data analysis, there are more subjects than in stage-1 and stage-2 research analysis. The number of research subjects in Phase 3 was 327 (110 in Phase 1 and 217 in Phase 2). The research design used is quantitative, using a survey.

The first analysis uses factor analysis with the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method. This PCA method is used to look for factor formation on aspects of SWB and PWB, namely LS – Life Satisfaction, PA – Positive Affect, NA – Negative Affect, and aspects of PWB, namely AA – Aspect of Autonomy, EM – Environment Mastery, PG – Personal Growth, PR – Positive Relations, PL – Purpose in Life, and SA – Self Acceptance. The purpose is to see whether these aspects of well- being are a single factor or two factors that are separate from each other. The second analysis uses multiple regression analysis with a stepwise method to show which role is more substantial between SWB and PWB in forming Work Engagement.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

It is shown in Table 2 that all measuring instruments for hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being used in the research have adequate Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficients. Next, factor analysis is carried out using Principal Component Analysis, where several factors will be formed. These latent variables have not been previously determined, even though the aspects analyzed are formed from SWB and PWB aspects. The aspects of SWB are LS – Life Satisfaction, PA – Positive Affect, NA – Negative Affect, and aspects of PWB, namely AA – Aspect of Autonomy, EM – Environment Mastery, PG – Personal Growth, PR – Positive Relations, PL – Purpose in Life, and SA – Self Acceptance.

Before carrying out factor analysis, it is necessary to test the prerequisites first by looking at the KMO and Bartlett values. This is done to determine whether the variables used have correlation and sufficient samples to be used (Ghozali, 2016). Table 4 shows that the KMO analysis and Barlett's test show that the Kaiser-Mayer Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) values are above 0.50. Thus, factor analysis can be carried out (Ghozali, 2016; Usman & Sobari, 2013). Likewise, suppose you look at the significance of Barlett's Test of Sphericity value, which is 0.000. In that case, it can be interpreted that this data meets the requirements for further analysis because the significant value obtained is <0.05.

Table 4.

KMO and Bartlett's Test

After the KMO and Bartlett values are obtained, the subsequent analysis stage is factor extraction. Factor extraction is to determine the smallest number that can be used to represent the relationship between variables. As stated by Widarjono (2010), factor extraction is a method used to reduce data from several indicators to obtain a smaller number of factors so that they can explain the relationship between the observed indicators. The method used for factor extraction in this research is principal axis factoring. In the total variance explained table, a value is obtained that can show the contribution of the variation of a factor, which can explain the variation of the total factor as a whole (Usman & Sobari, 2013). In Table 5, it can be seen that Initial Eigenvalues that are greater than one are shown in Factor 1 and Factor 2, while the next are factors that show Initial Eigenvalues that are less than 1. In stage-1, stage-2, and stage-3, these two factors can explain

61.065%, 54.107%, and 55.459% variation of the total factor. At stage-1, stage-2 and stage-3 re- spectively the first factor was able to explain 48.870%, 38.548% and 41.084% of the total variance, the second factor was able to explain 12.195%, 15.559% and 14.375%. If the obtained eigenvalues are described, they can be seen in Figure 1.

Table 5.

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Figure 1.

Screen Plot of Principal Component Analysis

After extraction, factor rotation is carried out. The rotation technique used is varimax rotation. This technique produces a group of variables with a strong relationship in one factor and no relationship with other variables (Usman & Sobari, 2013). Costello and Osborne (2005) explained that a factor structure is fit when it has a factor loading greater than 0.3, so there is no cross-loading, and one factor has a minimum of three items.

From Table 6, it can be concluded that after rotation using the Varimax method, at stage-1, only one Principal Component had a close correlation between all existing aspects. The NA - negative affect aspect is considered to have still a loading of less than 0.30 on its compo-

nents, so it cannot be stated in one group of existing components. In stages-2 and 3, it was con- cluded that there were two Principal Components, namely component 1, which consisted of LS – Life satisfaction, PA – Positive Affect; and NA – Negative Affect, and component 2 consists of AA – Aspect of Autonomy, EM – Environmental Mastery, PG – Personal Growth, PR – Positive Relations, PL – Purpose in Life, SA – Self Acceptance. The visualization of these results can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Path Diagram of Principal Component Analysis

The relationship between hedonic well-being, eudaimonic well-being, and work engage- ment at each stage can be shown in Table 7. The relationship between hedonic well-being and eu- daimonic well-being in the analysis shows that there is no relationship between the two, in contrast to the relationship between hedonic well-being and work engagement and eudaimonic well-being with work engagement, which shows that there is a very strong relationship between the two.

Table 6.

Intercorrelation between SWB, PWB, and Work Engagement Variables

Note: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

A statistical analysis using the stepwise regression method was used to determine how big a role hedonic and eudaimonic well-being play in work engagement. Table 8 shows that the three stages of the analysis show that eudaimonic well-being (PWB) has a regression coefficient that is more significant than the regression coefficient between hedonic well-being and work engagement.

Table 7.

Multiple Regression Analysis with Stepwise Method

Note: a. Dependent Variabel: Work Enggagement

b. The intercept model is omitted, as no meaningful information can be shown.

In this research, factor analysis using the Principal Component Analysis method was carried out on aspects of hedonic well-being, namely LS – Life Satisfaction, PA – Pos- itive Affect, NA – Negative Affect, and aspects of PWB eudaimonic well-being, namely AA – Aspect of Autonomy, EM – Environment Mastery, PG – Personal Growth, PR – Positive Relations, PL – Purpose in Life, and SA – Self Acceptance can conclude that at stage-1 only the NA – negative affect aspect cannot be explained in this study. In contrast, all other he- donic and eudaimonic aspects are formed in one component with loadings ranging from 0.19 to 0.840. This can be interpreted as saying that hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are just one well-being unit. The conclusion is that hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are one unit. However, different results were obtained in the stage-2 and stage-3 analyses, which were calculated from a more significant number of subjects and with more diverse characteristics than the stage-1 analysis. In stages 2 and 3, it was stated that the LS, PA, and NA components tend to form a single group that differs from aspects of PWB. It is also stated that the correlation be- tween the two concepts of SWB and PWB is low and insignificant (table 7). This means that the

hedonic and eudaimonic concepts are different factors.

This differs from the theory, which states that the hedonic and eudaimonic ap- proaches differ. The hedonic approach focuses on happiness and defines well-being as attain- ing pleasure. The avoidance of pain and the eudaimonic approach focus on meaning and self-realization and define well-being in terms of the degree to which a person fully functions. Hedonism and eudaimonism developed on different views of human nature and what consti-

tutes society. Thus, the questions about how developmental and social processes relate to well-being differ. After a regression analysis is carried out between SWB and PWB on WE using the step-

wise method, the same conclusion can be obtained that the three analyses consistently show that PWB is a eudaimonic well-being concept that is stronger in predicting Work Engagement than

SWB as a hedonic well-being concept. This conclusion confirms the research by McMahan and Estes (2011), when comparing the concepts of Hedonic well-being and Eudaimonic well-being, that the concept of well-being in eudaimonic terms is relatively more important for predicting positive psychological functioning. The conclusions of this research are also in line with the opin- ion of Aiello & Tesi (2017), Altunel et al. (2015), and Çankir & Şahin (2018), which stated that PWB can predict employee work engagement. Apart from that, this is in line with research by McMahan and Estes (2011), which concluded that the eudaimonic dimension is more substan- tial in predicting well-being than the hedonic dimension, so that is why Chacko (2015) stated that work engagement is an affective, motivational state of work-related well-being. Being. Eudai- monic well-being is the presence of personal and social skills and abilities (e.g., meaning in life, a sense of ongoing personal growth, and social contribution) that contribute to optimal psychosocial functioning (Ryff, 2018). Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are theoretically distinguishable and based on different philosophical traditions (Fave, 2014). Additionally, factor analytic studies suggest that hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are related but distinct factors (Joshanloo, 2019).

The research results stated that Psychological Well-Being predicted work engagement more strongly than Subjective Well-Being. This is in line with Waterman (1993), who stated that eudaimonic occurs when human life activities are in line or linked to firmly held values and are involved or involved holistically or entirely. In addition, based on SDT theory, eudaimonic is closely related to being autonomous, competent, and cooperative (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Self-determinant theory (SDT) states that individual behavior and attitudes will be influenced by a need for competence, social relationships, and autonomy, which gives rise to intrinsic solid motivation (Ryan & Vansteenkiste, 2023). According to the Self-Concordance Theory Supported by Culture, internal motivation grows from individuals' values (Sheldon, 2014). This theory explains that culture can influence how individuals internalize values and norms to achieve their goals of meeting needs. This theory confirms that Psychological Well-Being more strongly predicts individual work engagement because it emphasizes individual needs to fulfill individual potential for competence, social relationships, and autonomy, which pro- vide deep meaning in life and experience satisfaction in achieving meaningful goals. Individ- ual needs arise because of the values formed by the culture or environment they have had.

It can also be said that the better a person's ability to develop themselves at work, the more competent and independent they tend to be, which will impact higher enthusiasm for work. The individual tends to be able to enjoy work more. The more precise their life goals are, the more enthusiastic employees will tend to be at work. The more they can make sense of their work, the more employees tend to enjoy it and can become engrossed in it, so their time at work seems to go by more quickly.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the Principal Component Analysis analysis, it can be concluded that hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are two factors that are separate from each other. However, they appear to be one factor if the research subjects have more homogeneous characteristics. In predicting work engagement, it was concluded that the concept of eudaimonic well-being, expressed as Psychological Well-Being (PWB), was more substantial than the concept of hedonic well-being, expressed with the concept of Subjective Well-Being (SWB). The results of this research provide information for institutions or companies that it is necessary to further increase employees' positive attitudes towards themselves and others by giving employees opportunities to make decisions and

work processes independently, giving employees opportunities to organize a work environment that increases morale and providing a system that can explore and develop the employee's self. There are limitations to this research, namely that the research subjects are limited to certain ethnicities in Indonesia, namely the Javanese ethnic group. The hope is that cross-cultural work engagement research is necessary to develop diversity.