Over the past few years, there has been a renewed focus on healthy organizations [1
] and thus happier workers. This is due to the links between work and the well-being of workers [2
] including happiness [3
]. The present study focuses on the happiness of leaders due to the growing pressures they face [4
] and the workplace challenges that might ultimately confront their happiness. It is important to examine leaders because research shows that leaders can influence others in their workplace—especially subordinates [5
]. Hence, a happy leader may well lead to a happy organization. We use a positive psychology approach to underpin our focus on a positive outcome [6
] like happiness, and examine the influence that positive interpersonal relationships play because they are a vital personal resource that managers can draw on to enhance their well-being [7
Our study makes four contributions. First, it builds on recent research examining positive relationships at work and its influence on well-being [7
] and extend this towards manager happiness. Second, we include MFW as a potential mediator due to its important role on employee outcomes including well-being [9
] and suggest as a mediator it allows us to better understand the process of influence regarding positive relationships on happiness. Next, we test two firm-level moderators—human capital and firm size—to capture the context that relationships exist within (higher quality workers and larger-sized firms with greater resources) and then combine these to test for moderated moderated mediation [10
]. Here, we examine firm-level factors as boundary conditions to better understand complex effects. Finally, our methodology includes time-lagged data from New Zealand managers to provide a distinct leadership angle to understanding happiness at work. Our focus on New Zealand is important because 2019 marked the beginning of the New Zealand Government’s wellbeing budget [11
]. Our study model is shown in Figure 1
Research on happiness has drawn increasing attention since the 1980s and its positive effects on organizational measures such as economic performance, productivity and decreases in turnover, have been repeatedly demonstrated in research [12
]. Happiness has been shown to be related to several positive outcomes in all major life domains such as work, relationships, and health [14
]. Not only are successful people happier but happiness also increases the likelihood for success [14
]. Happy workers show, for example, higher levels of activity, approach orientation, interest in work, and persistence when facing difficulties [15
]. Despite the endless potential benefits of happiness, it has been poorly defined at times, with analyses showing considerable overlap with other constructs, such as job satisfaction or engagement [3
These constructs contain elements of pleasant judgements or pleasant experiences but differ in terms of the level at which they are deemed to exist, the stability or variability over time and their content (see Ref. [3
] for a detailed discussion). Most constructs in the happiness domain are commonly “defined and measured as transient states” [3
] (p. 386). For the purpose of our paper, we thus define happiness as the propensity to experience frequent positive emotions, e.g., joy, interest, pride, pleasure, and infrequent negative emotions, e.g., sadness, anxiety, anger [3
]. The frequency of the experience has been established as being more relevant for the happiness construct than the intensity of emotions [16
]. Thus, being consistently positive and happy is more important than being deeply happy one day or weakly happy the next. Fisher (2010) [3
] criticizes the measurement of happiness for its lack of the “holistic appreciation” of the construct (p. 391), and we, therefore, follow previous research using only a single-item measure, asking participants to rate their happiness at work [14
In their review, Ref. [14
] showed that cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental research, consistently demonstrated positive effects of happiness. Cross-sectionally, happy individuals report higher levels of mental and physical health, as well as higher levels of success in work and relationships [14
]. Longitudinal studies also show positive effects of happiness across the different life domains: happiness precedes fulfilling and productive work, satisfying relationships, better mental and physical health, as well as longevity [14
]. Furthermore, Ref. [14
] highlights that a substantial body of experimental data demonstrated that short-term positive affect causes behaviors that parallel success (e.g., positive perceptions of self and others, self-efficacy, enjoyment of tasks). Transient happy moods have been shown to increase the likelihood for social interactions and lead to positive social consequences, such as seeking out others and initiating conversation [19
], higher energy and greater interest in leisure activities [20
], and increased openness and sensitivity to others [22
Despite the consequences of happiness, there is little consensus concerning how happiness at work can be increased [3
]. In her review, Ref. [3
] concluded that “it appears that happiness is a function of environmental events and circumstances, stable tendencies in the person, and the fit between the two, with the possibility of limited modification by carefully chosen and intentionally varied volitional acts” (p. 394). Fisher (2010) [3
] does allude to the importance of pleasant relationships at work towards shaping happiness and notes that workplace social connections have not undergone enough scrutiny by researchers, despite the known value of interpersonal relationships on well-being [23
]. We now proceed to look at a new construct that examines the roles of positive relationships at work and hypothesize how this might influence happiness.
3. Positive Relational Management
The Positive Self and Relational Management (PS&RM) model [24
] is a newly created positive psychology framework, which examines positive relationships in the workplace. Within the PS&RM model, Ref. [25
] highlights the pivotal role that positive relational management (PRM) plays, because it includes a focus on relational management including the self [24
]. Through PRM, Ref. [25
] suggests that employees can build their individual competencies that enable them to accomplish and succeed when facing workplace challenges. Specifically, these competencies are built around skills relating to socialization, relationships and social support. The PRM scale includes interactions—not just with co-workers in the workplace—but also with the self—to capture relationships more completely [26
The PRM scale [7
] focuses on three dimensions: (1) respect, (2) caring, and (3) connectedness. The first dimension is defined by Ref. [7
] as Respect, which relates to an employee’s respect for others, their own personal respect for themselves, as well as the perception of others’ respect for them. It is this multiple approach to PRM that enables a thorough encompassment around relationships [16
]. The second dimension is Caring, which relates to an employee’s perception of the care they have for others, themselves, as well as the perception of how much others care for them. Thus, a high score in caring reflects someone who not only cares for others and themselves but feels other co-workers and work colleagues provide care for them too. The final dimension is Connectedness, which reflects the quality of connections with family, friends, workmates and significant others like a partner. Overall, the factors of respect, caring and connectedness form the PRM which provides positive psychological resources that employees should be able to draw on [25
], to enhance their well-being and ultimately happiness. This resource has alignment with the Conservation of Resources (COR) framework [28
], whereby employees seek to retain, acquire and minimize the loss of psychological resources [29
]. Thus, PRM becomes a source of resources that enables a manager to draw on to facilitate their happiness. Here, we might expect managers struggling with a work challenge to engage and receive respect, care and connections, and this will reaffirm their value and benefit their happiness.
Studies of PRM have found positive links to well-being [30
], including moods (positive affect), life satisfaction, flourishing, and meaningfulness [7
]. Indeed, social connections that are of a higher quality can be important factors in shaping employee happiness [31
]. For example, Ref. [33
] reports that employees with strong relationships at work—specifically having a best friend—reported much higher engagement levels. Consequently, we expect managers who report higher levels of PRM (respect, caring and connectedness) will represent those managers with an abundance of psychological resources [28
], which will enable them to draw on and ultimately experience greater happiness. We posit the following.
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
PRM will be positively related to happiness.
Descriptive statistics for the study variables are shown in Table 2
shows that PRMS is significantly correlated with MFW (r = 0.34, p
< 0.01) and human capital (r = 0.46, p
< 0.01), as well as happiness (r = 0.21, p
< 0.01). MFW is significantly correlated with human capital (r = 0.40, p
< 0.01), firm size (r = –0.17, p
< 0.01), and happiness (r = 0.37, p
< 0.01). Happiness is significantly correlated with human capital age (r = 0.24, p
< 0.01), firm size (r = –0.15, p
< 0.01), and age (r = 0.18, p
The results of the moderated moderated mediation regression are presented in Figure 2
The results show that PRMS is significantly related both to happiness (β = 0.69(0.21), p = 0.0013 [LL = 0.27, UL = 1.1]) and MFW (β = 0.22(0.08), p = 0.0088 [LL = 0.06, UL = 0.38]), supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2. Furthermore, MFW is significantly related to happiness (β = 0.77(0.17), p = 0.0000 [LL = 0.43, UL = 1.1]), and when included in the model, it fully mediates the effect of PRMS on happiness: (β= drops to 0.18(0.24), p = 0.4489 [LL = -0.29, UL = 0.66]). These findings support Hypotheses 3 and 4.
Human capital did not interact significantly with PRMS towards either MFW or happiness, failing to support Hypotheses 5. Firm size did interact with PRM towards MFW (β = 0.11(0.03), p
= 0.0008 [LL = 0.05, UL = 0.18]) and similar so between PRM, human capital and firm size towards MFW (β = 0.11(0.04), p
= 0.0108 [LL = 0.02, UL = 0.19]) for significant two-way and three-way interactions, supporting Hypothesis 6a and 7a. Finally, the results of the index of moderated moderated mediation was found to be significant (Index = 0.08(0.04), p
= 0.0220 [LL = 0.01, UL = 0.17]). Regarding interpreting this effect, Ref. [10
] indicates it means the indirect effect of PRMS on happiness (mediated through MFW) differs between managers in different-sized firms and workplaces with different human capital. To illustrate effects, we present the graphed interactions (two-way and three-way) in Figure 2
and Figure 3
and the moderated moderated mediation effects in Figure 4
, Figure 5
and Figure 6
The significant two-way interaction in Figure 2
shows that at low levels of PRMS, the influence on MFW is greater for manager respondents in small-sized firms than large-sized firms. When we compare respondents at high levels of PRMS, both groups of respondents report higher levels of MFW, but the group with the highest MFW is reported by respondents in large-sized firms, supporting the expected effects. The three-way interaction (Figure 3
) shows that at low levels of PRMS, the influence on MFW is distinct, with respondents in high human capital firms reporting significantly higher MFW, with modest differences across firm size. When we compare respondents reporting high levels of PRMS, this group of respondents reports higher levels of MFW, although again there are clear distinctions (and benefits) in high human capital firms over low human capital. Here, respondents report the highest MFW when they work in large-sized firms, supporting our expected effects.
Regarding the moderated moderated mediation effects, we follow Ref. [55
] to probe the conditional indirect effect. Specifically, we examine the magnitude and significance of the indirect effect of PRMS on happiness through MFW, conditional on human capital (at −2SD, mean, and +2SD) for firms across the sizes of small, average and large (Figure 3
, Figure 4
, Figure 5
and Figure 6
). We find that for respondents in small-sized firms (Figure 3
), there is no significant indirect effect of PRMS on happiness, conditional on human capital as all values cross zero. In average-sized firms (Figure 4
), we find a significant indirect effect of PRM on happiness vis-à-vis MFW which was significant and strongly positive at low levels of human capital (estimate = 0.25(0.14), p
= 0.0344; LLCI = 0.03; ULCI = 0.56). On the other hand, for those respondents in average-sized firms and with average human capital, the effect of PRMS on happiness vis-à-vis MFW was significant, positive and modest (estimate = 0.17(0.09), p
= 0.0000; LLCI = 0.02; ULCI = 0.38). Finally, for those respondents in average-sized firms and with high human capital, the effect of PRMS on happiness vis-à-vis MFW was non-significant (estimate = 0.09(0.09), p
= 0.1717; LLCI = -0.07; ULCI = 0.29).
Finally, for those respondents in large-sized firms with low human capital, the effect of PRMS on happiness vis-à-vis MFW was significant, positive and strong (estimate = 0.31(0.15), p = 0.0229; LLCI = 0.05; ULCI = 0.65). For those respondents in large-sized firms and with average human capital, the effect of PRMS on happiness vis-à-vis MFW was significant, positive and stronger (estimate = 0.37(0.14), p = 0.0054; LLCI = 0.12; ULCI = 0.68), and at high levels of human capital, this was stronger again (estimate = 0.42(0.16), p = 0.0035; LLCI = 0.15; ULCI = 0.76). Ultimately, these effects show that the indirect effect of PRM on happiness is stronger in weaker human capital firms when they are average sized, but as expected, in larger-sized firms, greater human capital leads to stronger indirect effects from PRM, supporting our hypothesis. Ultimately, the models account for a robust amount of variance towards MFW (31%) and more modest for happiness (21%).
The present study examined the role of positive work relationships on the happiness of managers due to Ref. [2
] highlighting the importance of work on the well-being of workers. This study extended the work of Ref. [9
] around the importance of positive interpersonal relationships at work by examining manager happiness. Our focus on managers aligns with the importance of leaders in organizations [4
], their ability to directly influence subordinates [5
], and acknowledges the high pressures that leaders face [4
]. Our positive psychology approach of PRM aligns with arguments that a healthy organization [1
] should facilitate positive relationships and positive outcomes like happiness. In support, we found that healthy and positive interpersonal relationships (relating to higher respect, caring and connectedness) between managers and subordinates (in both directions)—as well as having respect, care and connections with themselves—were an essential factor in building manager happiness. Our findings align well with those of other PRM studies [7
], indicating effect sizes that are similar and thus providing external validity to the potential benefits of positive relationships at work.
Further, we understand that positive work relationships and happiness align with greater well-being and work engagement and performance [7
]. For example, Ref. [57
] found that happiness is positively related to work engagement and negatively related to job burnout, highlighting beneficial well-being and work relationships for happier workers. Work engagement is a key organizational factor that plays a vital role including its positive links to individual and organizational performance [59
]. Hence, happiness, engagement and performance are likely intertwined, making a happier employee more likely to be a productive one. In a similar vein, Ref. [61
] reported that happier employees were less likely to be absent, highlighting the notion that a happier employee is a healthy employee. Thus, this ‘moto’ might be expanded to say happy employees are healthier and more productive.
Overall, our analysis showed support for the PRM scale in a sample of New Zealand managers, which extends the reach of this construct beyond Italy [7
]. However, our analysis showed that while PRM was positively related to happiness, it was also a significant predictor of MFW, and this factor fully mediated the influence of PRM on happiness. This is an important contribution because it highlights the nature of relationships [62
] and indicates a potential process pathway to understanding the effects. In consideration though, this might reflect the sample of managers. Our findings suggest that positive relationships build the importance and meaning of work, which in turn influences happiness. Thus, we find that a happy manager is one that finds strong meaning in their work, and this might be understood as being built on positive relationships at work. Further replication of these relationships on non-manager samples might confirm whether this is an effect unique to managers, or generalizable across other workers.
Our findings also help shape and build our understanding of MFW, especially in the context of managers. There is little exploration of the links between positive work relationships and MFW and similarly so towards happiness. Given the central role that work plays in most employees’ lives [65
], we can only assume this centrality is even stronger for managers who face specific pressures from their roles [4
]. We find that a manager with strong meaning in their work is significantly more likely to report happiness compared to other managers with low MFW. The three-way interaction effects also highlighted that high human capital is key for the MFW of managers, reflecting additional positive benefits at high levels of PRM. Our findings build on the most recent meta-analysis on MFW and its consequences found strong links to well-being but excluding happiness [66
]. The present study shows that happiness is indeed another well-being outcomes influenced by work. Further studies examining the links between MFW and happiness are encouraged.
Finally, it was through examining boundary conditions that the present study makes its most important contributions. We found that the indirect influence of positive relationships at work varied markedly across firm size and in relationship to whether the organization worked for had stronger employee talent (high human capital). We found that in small firms, positive relationships had no significant indirect effect although this reversed in large sized firms. In firms with large size and thus extensive resources, we found the indirect influence of PRM on happiness strengthens as the quality of a firm’s workforce grows (human capital increases from low to high). Interestingly, in average-sized firms, there is a significant indirect effect from positive relationships and they are strongest in firms with weak human capital and reduce in strength when there is average human capital and are not significant at high levels of human capital.
These effects highlight the value in conducting moderated moderated mediation analysis, because such differences are not normally tested, typically being outside the scope of analytical tests [10
]. Hayes (2018) [10
] argues this test “quantifies how quickly the relationship between a moderator and an indirect effect is changing as a second moderator changes” (p. 4), and we find empirical evidence that highlights the dual nature, and conflicting effects, of firm size and human capital in our study. Ultimately, these findings highlight that the greater manager happiness from positive relationships at work (PRM) occurs in larger-sized firms populated with high-quality staff. The analysis also shows that as a boundary condition, firm size is important but especially so in combination with the firm-level construct of human capital. We argued that larger firms with better resourcing and ore quality workforces—with whom managers engage in interpersonal relationships more positively—would report the highest happiness, and this was effectively supported. Overall, these insights encourage further exploration of such factors in combination (moderated moderated mediation).
8.1. Implications and Future Research
These findings have implications for researchers and organizations who might be interested in the happiness of workers, especially managers. Future research might examine additional workplace factors towards happiness or extend the well-being outcomes to include mental health factors, like anxiety and depression. Further, researchers need to embrace the potential moderated moderated mediation tests and explore more complicated moderation tests to gain deeper insights into potentially complex relationships. In addition, other firm-level moderators might provide unique insights and we encourage further analysis of these, especially in tandem with boundary condition tests. For organizations, we suggest a happy leader means a happy workforce and organization, and the foundation might start with positive relationships (i.e., PRM). The links between happiness and absenteeism [61
], satisfaction with performance [60
], as well as happiness with engagement [57
] and engagement with productivity [59
] provide a strong business case for organizations focusing on employee happiness. Hence, happiness should not be considered a ‘nice’ organizational focus but an important and potentially imperative
employee factor to focus on, due to the consequences of being a healthy and productive business. Thus, HR Managers might seek to facilitate greater engagement and interpersonal interactions between leaders and their subordinates, because greater development here is likely to have better effects throughout the organization—potentially beyond the managers own happiness. This might involve organizational practices seeking to implement shared activities and greater time for managers and subordinates to interact and socialize, although this should not include more meeting times [67
]. In addition, practices around organizational training for inclusion and acknowledging the values of others [68
], as well as training around the importance of social support with subordinates and others, is encouraged.
Overall, while our sample size is adequate (n = 302), our separation of data across time (PRM and the moderators) at time 1 and MFW and happiness (a month later at time 2), follows suggestions by Ref. [69
], and thus provides greater certainty and robustness in our analysis. Our analysis of CFA in SEM, the use of PROCESS and finding significant moderation effects also points to less potential for common method variance [70
]. Despite these factors, we did test happiness using a single-item construct. While potentially leading to issues around unknown error variance and reliability, previous research shows that convergent validity between single-item and multi-item measures for satisfaction constructs are strong [73
]. In addition, research of this construct showed good reliability as well as concurrent, convergent, and divergent validity [75
], and it is well used [17
] and shown to be very useful. Finally, it is worth noting that while our models are robust and informative, there is always the potential issue around constructs that were not included. For example, the Big 5 personality constructs have been found to link with happiness [76
], and thus future studies might seek to include or control for Big 5 factors. Similarly, future studies might include other demographic factors as potential moderators such as gender, as this might also have important effects on the relationships examined here. Overall, we used a good sample of managers and time-lagged data and sophisticated analyses and suggest these findings are reliable and generalizable.