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 & 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, 2011) because 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 & Tesi, 2017). In addition, (Hutagalung, 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 & Şahin, 2018). Other research stated that PWB influences work engagement. The research results of (Schaufeli & 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 & Oerlemans, 2011), (Russell, 2008), and (Sahai & 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 wellbeing 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 wellbeing (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)(Diener et al., 2013) and (Oishi & 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.

interesting concepts related to well-being. (Huta, 2016) and (Joshanloo, 2019) stated that psychological well-being is included in Eudaimonic wellbeing, 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 & 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.

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.

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.

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.

Extraction Method: 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 & 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 5, 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 components, 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.

The relationship between hedonic well-being, eudaimonic well-being, and work engage-ment at each stage can be shown in Table 6 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.

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 7 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.

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 & 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 & 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.

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.