Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Psychological Well-Being of Individuals as Employees and a Paradigm in the Future Economy and Society

Written By

Simona Šarotar Žižek and Matjaž Mulej

Submitted: October 10th, 2016 Reviewed: February 16th, 2017 Published: August 23rd, 2017

DOI: 10.5772/67927

Chapter metrics overview

1,634 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


We report about a new non-technological innovation aimed to manage socioeconomic crises. Economic theory cannot manage them: it is too one-sided. The model suggests solving the crises with requisite holism (RH), social responsibility (SR), human personal requisite holism (HPRH), and well-being (WB). Qualitative analysis using RH, SR, HPRH, WB, and dialectical systems theory (DST) was applied in this research. Field research covered Slovene midsize enterprises. Findings include the following: The global and local political and economic decision-makers poorly know and use systemic behavior; they are therefore one-sided rather than requisitely holistic and caused the current global socioeconomic and environmental crisis. RH/SR would make decision-makers more/requisitely holistic, honest, and reliable. RH/SR supports holism better, if upgraded with increasing WB, not welfare alone. Both RH/SR and WB support HPRH. Their innovative synergy WB&RH/SR leads to the solution of crises. DST backs WB&RH/SR methodologically. Research was qualitative analysis in desk and previous field research. Its practical implications show that the RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH approach to managing socioeconomic crises helps practitioners essentially to avoid oversights and failures. Available literature offers no similar concept.


  • socioeconomic crisis
  • social responsibility
  • (human personal) requisite holism
  • well-being
  • dialectical systems theory

1. The selected challenge and aspect of treatment

The modern overspecialization without interdisciplinary creative cooperation causes one-sidedness causing the current worldwide socioeconomic crisis in the form of neoliberalism for decades [1]. Specialists are hardly replaceable with tools but interdependent due to their differences making them complementary. Hence, human resource management (HRM) must attain requisite holism (RH) and apply social responsibility (SR) to dig values of cooperation and creativity and make it innovative; preconditions include employees’ well-being (WB) and methodological support with dialectical systems theory (DST) [e.g., [2]]. If managers practice no human personal requisite holism (HPRH), they need an innovative shift of mind set from “persecution” of bad work into the “validation” and “promoting” of good work with positive psychology. The positive psychology offers new opportunities instead of exposing the negative events, properties, and consequences; therefore, the problems diminish optimism and its positive effects on employees and the organizational performance.


2. Positive psychology and psychic well-being

Positive psychology is included in socially responsible organizational governance and management developing HPRH and WB. WB has subjective and objective dimensions that one can measure at individual, organizational, or societal levels; it includes attributes of life satisfaction which avoid definition, explanation, or influence by economic growth [3], summarized after [1]. WB is complex, and its meaning remains contested; key distinctions are between (1) hedonic and eudemonic WB and (2) objective and subjective measures [3], in [1]. Different authors’ definitions of WB differ.

One can view WB with objective/outer descriptors and subjective/intern assessments of person’s physical, material, social, and emotional WB, together with the scope of personal development and purposeful activity, all weighed with selected values [4], summarized in [5].

Authors find WB a positive and sustainable condition, letting humans, groups, or nations thrive and flourish [6].

Authors associate WB with two different philosophies: (1) hedonism maintains that WB stresses pleasure and happiness, and (2) in eudemonism WB reaches beyond happiness and is based on the actualization of human potential.

Experiences show that WB is actually a multidimensional phenomenon, including aspects of hedonistic and eudemonistic concepts of WB. Several authors report similar findings [7].

  1. - Investigation of the connection between 18 indicators of WB detected two factors: (1) subjective well-being (SWB) and (2) personal growth [8]. These two factors were only modestly related. The survey indicated that the hedonistic and eudemonic views both overlap and differ; distinctive ways of measuring can improve understanding of WB.

  2. - When laymen were asked to identify characteristics constituting good life, they included notions of happiness and meaning [9].

  3. - Analysis of many mental indicators highlighted two factors: happiness and fullness of meaning; persons, pursuing personal goals and happiness, do not search meaning and integrity [10].

Although both theories overlap, the most interesting outcomes result from differences between both theories rather than from the overlapping attributes.

Combination of the three related models (subjective emotional WB (SWB), psychological WB (PWB), and self-determination (SD)) generated a general factor called psychic well-being (PWB); this model includes a hedonistic part of WB and a eudemonic part of WB in the context of a broad factor [11].


3. Effects of well-being and its measurement

We measured PWB with a new measurement scale, including the selective elements/claims of measurement scales about SWB, PWB, and SD that authors designed and presented.

In [1] we presented the finding: when individual’s income increases, it becomes less relevant for the growth of well-being; interpersonal relations and satisfaction at work become increasingly relevant. We summarized also some main ideas from [12], including:

  1. - Noneconomic indicators of social well-being matter, e.g., social capital, democratic management, and human rights support satisfaction at work and profitability.

  2. - The expected (economic) results more often result from well-being than vice versa.

  3. - Persons with the highest well-being attain more income and more success than those with lower WB.

  4. - Persons with higher WB live in better social relations.

  5. - Happy people more often live in a well-functioning family.

  6. - They tend to have a better health and longer life.

  7. - A higher WB is good also for the general economic situation, not only privately.

3.1. Influences of psychological well-being on coworkers

The coworkers’ WB becomes more crucial than their productivity and efficiency as a criterion of employment; employees with high WB are more productive, efficient, and loyal to their organization than employees with lower WB. Such studies clarify ratings of human WB in particular areas of life, including job. Continuous positive job experiences let humans establish positive relationships with others; they positively impact quality of other performances. Studies also emphasize the individuals’ purpose in life; therefore, motivation, strengthening the role, and rewards lead to personal growth [13].

3.1.1. Impacts of psychological well-being on employees’ health

A research on the relationship between employee’s WB and the state of the human cardiovascular system discovered that both physical and psychological WB should be seen as sources of efficiency. Human psychological WB is best viewed in psychological health; psychologically healthy people are able to optimally balance their negative and positive emotions [14].

3.1.2. Other impacts of employees’ psychological well-being

Well-being refers to employees’ physical and mental health. The benefits and facilities that employees might enjoy include a pension scheme; access to medical care; a healthy and safe working environment; help during long-term sickness; assistance in family matters, such as bereavement, crèche facilities, paternal leave for fathers, help in issues of education, and travel to job, if employees’ families must move to other places; counseling; chance to receive employee support, such as an internal occupational support scheme (OSS) or an employee assistance program (EAP); food on job, socializing, and recreational conditions; preparation for the case of firing and pensioning; and advise in case of the current welfare topics [15], summarized after [1].

Coworkers should enjoy stress-free and physically safe work conditions; this situation is differently hard to achieve in different organizations. But this is not all: humans have many not only professional attributes in synergy but also (1) physical, (2) mental, (3) social, (4) spiritual, (5) economic, and (6) professional specialization. All these and other attributes form synergies [16]. Due to these attributes, individuals differ from each other.

Therefore, we must mention [17], summarized after [1], seeing well-being in its broadest and most comprehensive sense, recalling Aristotle’s eudemonia as the realization of one’s true potential, as an overarching indicator of well-being and happiness and its causes. Well-being is not a simple absence of the negative; instead, it is the presence of the positive [17].

3.2. The impacts of psychological well-being on organizations

Increasingly, many researchers explore impacts of WB [15], summarized after [18]. In the modern world, characterized by interdependence and complexity, employees are under pressure that negatively impacts their health and WB and results in high costs due to absence from work in both the private and public organizations (more in [19]). Employees’ WB, among other attributes, impacts the increasingly aging workers and the need for people to work longer hours in order to secure economic security, even after retirement [18]. In addition, the new technology, increasing the speed of change, characterizes WB. The fact that both parents are economically active which creates problems of balancing between work, family, and life satisfaction, influences WB, too. The work environment, its requirements, work organization, etc. impact WB.

These facts make the growing interest for employees’ WB, either in business or in governmental organizations: the coworkers’ health and happiness crucially impact the current and future survival of organizations and WB of the society in general. Leaders’ duty covers conditions, helping employees work in a safe, happy, and healthy environment. If their organizations have invested in healthy work conditions and WB, later on their benefit [16].

WB on job is an important factor in organizational effectiveness [20]. The reason for this is the fact that healthy employees, who feel well, are essential preconditions for organizational success and viability [19]. More and more employers recognize the so-called benefits of wellness policies; the satisfied employees are also healthy colleagues [20]. Strategies for overcoming health problems of workers help them to effectively return to work from rehabilitation and proactively support employers providing employees’ WB.

The psychological contract that existed between employers and employees changed [21]. The perception of personal performances, short-term and unethical behavior of management contributed to the growth of cynicism on job, ruins employees’ WB and work performance; to eliminate that perception, managers should pay more attention to trust, respect people, and communicate with all employees in a way that expresses honesty and commitment [22].

  1. - HRM techniques support the coworkers’ WB; hence, managers must [18].

  2. - Practice support and be worth the trust: this results in WB.

  3. - Practice a work environment for coworkers to thrive and enjoy WB at work.

  4. - Practice trust, honesty, mutual support, and engagement as the organizational culture.

  5. - Create opportunities for coworkers’ participation in decision-making and teamwork that support employees’ WB; this supports flexibility, balances both the work and personal life, improves work efficiency, and causes less absenteeism; and this motivates coworkers and supports equality and fairness.

  6. - Enable coworkers’ development by additional training and suitable pay.

  7. - Develop coworkers’ mental and emotional health by helping coworkers be self-confident, self-esteeming, attain their objectives, feel important, and emotionally resilient.

These techniques must be part of holistic human resource management in each organization. The guideline in developing such model should be the people—owners, managers, coworkers, local population, partners, competitors, and coworkers—who serve as the critical dimension for a successful implementation of the business.

These factors show that organizational objectives are not only economic (final earnings), but they should include also the important and often overlooked WB on job, which can generate an appropriate framework for employees’ requisitely holistic happiness and organizational success. Neglecting the impact of WB and employee satisfaction on job on improved productivity, reduced absenteeism, or other organizational benefits can hinder the organization’s stability, employees’ WB, and social stability [16].

It is not realistic to think: “equipment alone is essential, and the technological innovations alone matter; coworkers are replaceable and cause cost rather than benefit.” With such a perception, detriments happen that are seen as side effects and left aside, despite their essential long-term impacts, at least [23], summarized after [24]. Among others, there are data uncovering that the richness of the western countries after WWII has been growing more in bookkeeping than in long-term economic terms: the cost of maintenance of the natural preconditions for human life in real time is not covered, but piled up [25], summarized after [24]. The economic consequences of such short-sighted abuse of the law of external economics are enormous [26], interviewed by [27]: if humankind does not act on climate changes very quickly and radically, these climate changes might cause humankind’s cost as high as 5500 (five thousand five hundred) billion Euros, which reaches beyond the cost of both World Wars combined. Without measures diminishing the hot-bed gasses, the worldwide gross domestic product (GDP) will fall for 5%, maybe even 20%’ [26], summarized after [24].

Humans should remember several different levels of WB. Low levels of WB can have in the modern crisis many forms, from employees’ diseases to strikes; methods of solving the problem must be adapted to various forms of combining solidarity, economics, and integrity. Their common denominator might be SR that includes business innovation in the values, culture, ethics, and norms (VCEN) of behavior. SR VCEN makes people, for normal egoistic reasons, less selfish (i.e., short minded and narrow minded) than without SR. Thus, such an innovation of VCEN is preconditioned for humankind’s survival. Therefore, humankind needs the new synergy of knowledge of (1) the rise of the creative class, (2) SR, (3) modesty rather than the greedy affluence that is a dead alley (because nature has finite resources), and (4) the new motivation: employees’ WB is backed by creation and innovation [24] and based on RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH approach.

Organizational development may apply coworkers’ WB: consideration of them as creative humans with equal rights enables organizations to avoid resistance, revolt, striking, and similar disturbances of creativity in work processes. Hence, the given models about treatment of coworkers fail to include RH, expressed as SR and honest consideration; thus, they offer no solutions but cause absenteeism, fictitious and serious illnesses, resistance to work instead of gladness to have chances to be creative, search for all kinds of tacit striking, including coworkers’ proving to their bosses that the bosses’ instructions cannot be realized because they are not requisitely realistic, etc. [24]. Perhaps, the effort aimed at innovative business and RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH generates a basis for work success, encouraging coworkers’ to create to the benefit of their organization and broader society, rather than for blocking them. The (inter)national leaders should and could support RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH, e.g., with an (inter)national strategy fostering the employees’ and citizens’ WB, including monitoring the given situation and trends [28], summarized in [24].

The coworkers’ well-being requires also a global/planetary ethic/SR. Single organizations may find it difficult to accept SR as the only ones. Though, poverty resulting from poor well-being and related bad productivity and rationality at work, caused by poor innovativeness, belongs to the biggest threats to the global harmony [29]. This conclusion reflects the fact that the global wealth is distributed essentially differently than in times of Adam Smith when they started to create the economic theory: then, the richness differed between the big areas of civilization on the Planet Earth was less than 2:1, and now it is more than 74:1 [23] and growing [public press in January 2017]. The current civilization is ruining itself, because it respects no limitations in no areas; humankind needs planetary ethic [23]. Namely, “unequalities ran beyond any proportions, causing hyper-terrorism against the privileged ones.” Hence, humankind must innovate relation of humans to their natural environment by humans becoming “citizens of the entire world rather than single countries only.” The current huge differences in income and richness cause poverty of all including people living in affluence: they also live unhealthy lives [public press in January 2017] rather than in RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH approach.

Employees’ WB encourages organizational innovation. WB raises revenues and diminishes costs, hence raising organizational performance.

3.3. The impacts of well-being on society

The current richness in the economically “advanced” countries diminishes the lack of resources covering the real needs; this lagging of resources behind the needs was/is the topic of the traditional economics of life, and now supply is replaced by affluence causing that supply extremely exceeds the demand. Therefore, suppliers are creating artificial and fictitious needs [30], total quality, low prices, and wide selection; they often neglect natural environment and therefore health, inadequate welfare of workers and people who cannot afford everything they see others have, etc. This kind of competitive pressure is no longer good, once one leaves aside the substantial side effects of the traditional economic theory: in reality, natural preconditions for the existence of humankind and WB of people are expensive. Economic growth endangers people for whom it is intended, especially when the natural preconditions are disappearing and people are neither healthy nor happy, but only wealthy [24].

The level of use of workers’ capabilities and talents in the USA reaches only 23% [31]. This percentage cannot be higher in the transitional societies, such as Slovenia, since the problem has the equal source. Many owners and their authorized representatives—governors and managers—still see in the organizational hierarchy their right to be dictators like in the ancient times of building the Egyptian pyramids, when such a hierarchy was a non-technological innovation aimed at quick provision of the few experts’ knowledge to their many coworkers [32]. The rise of the quoted 23% is crucial for the current economy and society. It depends on RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH approach [16].

Better implemented capabilities could destroy the blind alley of the affluent society and its natural environment. This society understands and practices creativity and the economic measures of effectiveness in a too narrow way. With the gross domestic product (GDP), e.g., one measures the market of operations but excludes the cost of exploitation of nature, it does not tell how much of the nature’s self-reproducing capacity is still around for the further existence of human civilization. The economic growth is self-purposed rather than a part of it means for people’s well-being.

The affluence is achieved for a small part of humankind. One should measure affluence in terms of its negative impact: less or no interest in hard work, because one’s needs are covered. Thus, better indicators might include, e.g., destroying people with drugs (such as marihuana, alcohol, passive TV mania, and computer games, etc.); their life in both work time and leisure time is unpleasant and empty, because they lack creativity. Therefore, they have a low selfesteem, and this has many negative consequences for humans, including the resulting economic ones. A huge part of potential talents remains socially and personally idle and unused source [33].

A better use of capabilities and talents includes RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH approach, making an innovative society. This view is supported by research data [34]; see [33]: friendship/interdependence is much more productive than narrowly conceived egoism, and mutual help relieves many of the problems which egoism cannot, but it has caused them. Less egoism (narrowness) would benefit people for pure selfish reasons, by making others better and be more accepted by them too [33]. If specialists are willing and able to work in interdisciplinary teams, they are able to solve many more problems than with the knowledge of one single discipline [35]; see [33]. Thus, WB in group shows stimulation for cooperation and creativity enabling innovation. The next basis of competitiveness [36] (see [33]) is an innovative phase but after it gives up the spoiled affluent society. This was now admitted also in the Davos meeting [daily press in January 2017].

More attention to the RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH approach would support the well-being of coworkers and help a transition society, such as Slovenia, more easily become an innovative society, equal to the currently most developed societies. Actually, worldwide, the most develop areas have the biggest share of the “creative class,” not the areas having the biggest mineral and similar natural resources. The employees’ WB is an essential transition factor for the less-advanced areas. The current crisis is only the surface just a financial crisis; it is not solely an economic crisis but a crisis of a socio-developmental concept. The traditional concept works no longer; the new one is not there yet. The model for the employees’ well-being, based upon the creativity, SR, innovation, and requisite holism rather than laziness, makes the chances grow. The RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH approach enables it. But one must know how to define and measure it; sources known so far in literature accessible to us offer no outcomes [24].


4. The link between the well-being of employees and the success of organizations

In organizations innovativeness must be strengthened in due the global market demands. Hence, the (HR) management needs new bases. Applicable methods include DST and applied HRM and psychology.

Humans are not just “homo economicus” to who profit and property mean everything, even after their important needs have been met. Humans are much more holistic and complex. The economic indicators show achievements that only partially contribute to human satisfaction and WB. The usual business policy is often based too narrowly on economic and accountancy data. Important noneconomic indicators of well-being and economic success include social capital, democratic governance, and human rights. Therefore, organizations must monitor the workers’ WB and improve it. Improving the individuals’ WB from psychological and sociological viewpoints better solves the problems and generates chances for improvement of economic outcomes than the economic indicators do. The more and the less innovative organizations differ. No model for integration of economic and other indicators is known, at least not concerning the transitional organizations. The RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH approach might offer a new chance.

Supportive, reliable social relations support well-being. Well-being leads to good social relations and economic outcomes rather than only vice versa, by supporting creative cooperation. If humans are excluded from the groups or have poor relationships in groups, they suffer. Positive social relationships are crucial for policy management and may well support management’s policy and success. The good results, even the economic ones, are more often caused than followed by well-being.

We built our model—the RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH approach—with qualitative and quantitative research methods to establish well-being as a primary managerial focus. The suggested model will enable its users to consider that well-being involves positive emotions, commitment, purpose, and meaning and contributes to the business quality reflected in a company’s success and effectiveness.

Thus, organizations begin implementing interventional strategies to ensure the quality of life in order to strengthen employees’ WB on job, to improve productivity, performance, and employees’ potential. Investigators in organizational behavior rarely researched employees’ PWB in terms of their happiness [13]; WB is primarily associated with work efficiency and quality. They assumed that the increase of WB at work enhances staff’s efficiency, productivity, and commitment [13].

WB reflects people’s happiness with their overall life quality; it includes their judgment of their sustained mood (happiness), evaluation of their human being (satisfaction with the human physical and mental health and performance), and its relationship to physical and psychosocial environment (both their life and job satisfaction). One can generate one’s WB-based happiness by implementing one’s psychological benefits, including one’s day-to-day practice and crucial development objectives. Domain-specific WB areas differ with essential impacts on the transfer of experiences between life areas. For example, a poor WB on job has a negative influence on the WB at home and vice versa [13].

The achieved human WB, which is often based on multiple domains including work, matters: the satisfied employees are more productive, efficient, and loyal to organization. Also, if humans enjoy continuous positive experience at work, they establish positive relations with others, hence the basis of positive feedback information from colleagues on the quality of their work, the construction of human purpose in life, and their personal growth result from motivation, empowerment, and rewards [13].

Organizations and their managers successfully prepare, adopt, and implement decisions, including those regarding WB, if they achieve RH. Success results equally from knowledge and information and from the (interdependent!) values, culture, ethics, and norms (VCEN): they direct ones’ use of professional skills [37]. Requisite holism/wholeness essentially depends on VCEN, which we express with ethics of interdependence [38, 39]: humans need each other because they complete each other up with their differences and find ways to RH and hence to success. A single individual can only achieve requisite holism/wholeness alone in very simple situations. Significantly, more holism and wholeness can be achieved in interdisciplinary creative cooperation.

Synergy of all crucial professions, attained by their interdisciplinary creative cooperation and ethic of interdependence in really democratic processes, including the ones in organizations, not only in politics, enables humans to achieve RH. RH is the aim of SR, if one applies the principles and measures of innovative business, supporting the humans’ effort to attain WB, too. SR is aimed at reaching beyond the scope required by power holders in legislation to benefit humans and nature [] and to take responsibility for one’s impacts on society [40]. WB results from interdependent action linking SR, economic efficiency, and requisite holism/wholeness; they generate a triple bottom line of economic success. Humans practice this triple synergy every moment, either consciously or subconsciously and either actively or passively. They practice SR by attaining RH and hence economic efficiency; they improve their WB by benefiting from SR of their co-citizens and organizations [24].


5. Strategy of promotion of social responsibility (SR): a precondition for psychological well-being and the future economy and society

Like the psychological well-being and the future economy and society, SR also is a demanding concept to promote as a specific case of RH having to do with the human approach to other people and nature with influence over the psychological well-being and the future economy and society. For success/survival many/all influential people should practice RH via SR. Work of a few individuals – professionals is not enough, except in the seeding phase, a general social support based on a clear strategy is needed, e.g. on the national, international, and world-wide levels. This is easier to see than to admit [16, 4150] and (hundreds of references cited in them).

SR Mission should be to promote global VCEN of SR in order to help humankind, including one-self, survive by doing something good to all stakeholders (based on RH and ethics of interdependence) rather than evil (based on one-sidedness and ethics of economic independence of bosses and dependence of subordinates) beyond the official legal obligation and limitation to stockholders or owners only, but extended to stakeholders.

To realize this mission, the following goals should/could be met:

  1. To create a basic interdisciplinary core of researchers working on monitoring the situation concerning SR in the area under investigation, to compare the collected findings and suggest changes/IIDP and innovations in the given area.

  2. To prepare legal draft bases for legislation changes, where they are needed to cover SR everywhere per areas/topics.

  3. To prepare professional, RH bases for making up the SR program in all ministries.

  4. To establish dialogue with professional associations, government bodies, public institutions, non-governmental organizations, businesses and other parts of society in order to attain a shared activity for promotion of SR.

  5. To include topics on SR in primary, secondary, higher and life-long/adult education, and to promote values of SR in daily mutual contacts of youngsters and adults alike.

  6. To create and implement a national and world-wide program of public relations communication about SR in order to promote general awareness on how crucial a SR-based behavior of all humans and their organizations is for getting the society out of the current crises, as well as preventing long-term ones.

  7. To establish portals for both-way communication in public relations concerning the SR-based behavior with both good and bad examples.

  8. To collect good and bad examples of SR and related practices of RH and innovation based on SR rather than on one-sidedness, for the society to become, be and remain a RH/SR and innovative society with SR as a basic criterion of its excellence.

  9. To collect information on development of SR anywhere and in the area under investigation in order to report about them.

  10. To support initiatives of various stake-holders promoting SR and practicing it.

Tactics and operation should be defined per areas/topics, but in the style of a coordinated decentralization: whatever can be done on lower administrative levels remains there.

Ethic of interdependence expresses VCEN enabling the strategy of SR. This includes weighing and concerting of solidarity and economic efficiency, sufficiency, and effectiveness by RH via SR. This may help humans to provide an equilibrium with no resulting need for a too exaggerated solidarity (such as the ‘equal stomachs philosophy’ from the pre-industrial village solidarity) or too much protesting against the one-sided decisions and actions of authorities all way to terrorism (See daily press).

This strategy and ethics of interdependence may be well supported by a RH approach to the governance and management process on the organizational level. See Table 1.

Management Phases Preparation Phases
Definition of vision
Drafting of vision, mission, policy, strategy, tactics, operation
Definition of mission
Definition of starting points for drafts
Definition of policy/ies
Consideration of experiences
Definition of strategies
<=== Intervening when and where needed
Definition of tactics in all management phases
Running the operations Checking the results of operation

Table 1.

The cybernetic circle of the preparation and implementation of the management process practicing SR (too) as a crucial IIDP (a simple model) [51, 52].

  • Vision may be briefed as “survival on the basis of competitiveness by RH/SR creative work and cooperation aimed at a systemic quality in accord with customers’ requirements/needs.”

  • Mission: “delight customers with an excellent systemic quality and attract them as sustained and sustainable customers.”

  • Policy: “implement innovative business and SR as a source of a continuous systemic quality in all parts of the business process and all units.”

  • Strategy towards implementation of such a policy may employ continuous self-assessment of one’s own quality in terms of the Deming Prize of Japan, the European Excellence Award, or Baldrige Award of USA, or (as a first phase) attainment and re-attainment of International Standards Organization’s rules as ISO 9000, 14000, 27000 certificates, and/or something similar (See the Slovenian [53] reward for SR HORUS at

  • Tactics for implementation of such an IIDP strategy include organized criticism, followed by teams, and task forces, to work on solution of the selected problems (on a free-will basis and on company/organizational time, one hour a week) with awards for inventions (symbolic in value, but with no delay) and innovations. Innovation reward is foreseen for all of the innovative team, all members of their own organizational units, every organizational member including managers, while a half of the value created by innovation enters the company business funds to support further IIDP.

  • Practice: permanent IIDP on a RH/SR basis as its management style and process.

  • Monitoring and Intervening: Managers’ committee for promotion of IIDP and excellence based on SR – in session once in 3 or (later) 6 months, agenda: 1. Comparative assessment of all units; 2. Variable part of income of units’ managers depending on this assessment; 3. Approval of new innovation (of all types) related objectives of units.

  • Rewarding: non-monetary (justified feeling of being considered creative and innovative by peers and bosses) and monetary (e.g. 50% of innovation-based profit goes to enterprise funds, 50% to coworkers, of which: 30% to authors and coauthors, 10% to all in the innovative unit, and 10% to all in the enterprise, including managers).

  • Training: in profession and creation, including creative interdisciplinary cooperation.

We learned from practice and its summary in e.g. Gladwell [5456](2004; 2008; 2009) that a good preparation is crucial, but it includes consideration of conditions and preconditions, too.


6. Conclusions

Well-being matters for both employees and their organizations, improving their success and innovativeness. Organizations with more employees’ well-being care more for their employees with programs reducing employees’ stress, too. They enjoy less absenteeism, more employee satisfaction at work, and better results. RH/SR/WB/DST/HPRH approach supports this non-technological innovation process toward the way out from the current. This is the way and the opportunity how organizations and employees can be changed and become more well-being and less profit oriented. Therefore, it is necessary to integrate social responsibility, which values, culture, ethics, and norms (VCEN) goes beyond the limitations prescribed by the law. We can speak about important non-technological innovation of leadership, human resource management, and strategic management.

To improve the enterprise’s performance and indirectly also the objective and subjective well-being of individuals and society, we suggest testing the proposed non-technological innovation in several enterprises. This will provide opportunities to improve these potential innovations, which affect all levels of management and therefore also organizational policy. With these proposal we can build new organizations on the enterprise’s governance/policy hierarchical level. This is based on idea of integral management and such management values that influences governance. This management is based on persons and social responsibility, requisite holism, and well-being.


  1. 1. Mulej, M., Dyck, R. 2013. Social responsibility beyond neoliberalism and charity. Oak Park, Bentham.
  2. 2. Zadel, A. 2013. Slovenija v ospredju. [online]. available at: [accessed 10.5.2013].
  3. 3. Sustainable Development Research Network—SDRN 2006. Wellbeing concepts and challenges. [online]. available at: [accessed 13.5.2011].
  4. 4. Felce, D. and Parry, J. 1995. Quality of life: its definition and measurement. Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 51-74.
  5. 5. Šarotar Žižek, S., Mulej, M., Potočnik, A. 2011. Human’s well-being: a cause or a result of social responsibility. in Doucek, P., Chroust, G., Oškrdal, V. (ed.), 19th Interdisciplinary Information Management Talks [also] IDIMT-2011, September 7-9, 2011, Jindřichův Hradec, Johannes Kepler Universität, Institut für Systems Engineering & Automation, Linz, pp. 175-189.
  6. 6. Huppert, F., Baylis, N. and Keverne, B. 2005. The science of well-being. Oxford, University Press, Oxford.
  7. 7. Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. 2001. On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp.141-166.
  8. 8. Compton, W. C., Smith, M. L., Cornish, K. A. and Qualls, D. L. 1996. Factor structure of mental health measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 406-413.
  9. 9. King L. A., Napa C. K. 1998. What makes life good?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 156-165.
  10. 10. McGregor, I. and Little, B. R. 1998. Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: on doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 494-512.
  11. 11. Musek, J. 2008. Dimenzije psihičnega blagostanja. Anthropos, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 139-160.
  12. 12. Diener, E. and Seligman, M. E. P. 2004. Beyond money; toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-31.
  13. 13. Garg, P. and Rastogi, R. 2009. Effect of psychological well-being on organizational commitment of employees. The Icfai University Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 42-51.
  14. 14. Wright T. A. 2003. Positive organizational behavior: an idea whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 24, pp.437-442.
  15. 15. Currie, D. 2001. Managing employee well-being. Oxford, Chandos Publishing.
  16. 16. Šarotar Žižek, S. 2012. Vpliv psihičnega dobrega počutja na temelju zadostne in potrebne osebne celovitosti zaposlenega na uspešnost organizacije: doktorska disertacija. Maribor, S. Šarotar Žižek.
  17. 17. Nelson, L. D., Little, M. L. and in Frazier L. M. 2008. Employee well-being: the heart of positive organizational behavior. in Kinder, A., Rick H. in Cooper C. L. (ed.), Employee well-being support: a workplace resource. West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons.
  18. 18. Babtiste N. R. 2008. Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and performance: a new dimension for HRM. Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 2, 248-309.
  19. 19. Department for Work and Pensions. 2006. Resource accounts 2006-07. London, The Stationery Office.
  20. 20. Tehrani, N., Humpage, S. and Willmott, B. 2007. What’s happening with well-being at work?. [online]. London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2007. (Change agenda). available at: [accessed 15.5.2010].
  21. 21. Rousseau, D. M. 2003. Extending the psychology of the psychological contract: a reply to putting psychology back into psychological contracts. Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 229-238.
  22. 22. Rogers, C. R. 1995. The psychological contract of trust: part I. Executive Development, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 15-19.
  23. 23. Bourg, D. 2007. Interviewed by Y. Sciama: special report climate change—toward a planet–wide ethic. Research*eu, 52, pp. 16-17.
  24. 24. Šarotar Žižek, S., Mulej M. and Treven, S. 2009. Dobro počutje sodelavcev v tranzicijskih organizacijah s primerjavo inovativnih in manj inovativnih. Globalna finančna kriza ter trajnostni razvoj: zbornik posvetovanja. Mulej M. (ed.) Maribor, UM, Ekonomsko-poslovna fakulteta.
  25. 25. Božičnik, S. 2007. Dialektično sistemski model inoviranja krmiljenja sonaravnega razvoja cestnega prometa. Maribor, Univerza v Mariboru, Ekonomsko-poslovna fakulteta.
  26. 26. Stern, N. 2006. The stern review. The economics of climate change. [online]. available at: http:/ [accessed 11. 3. 2007].
  27. 27. Stein, M. 2007. Special report. The climate change. The economic argument. Research*eu, 52, pp. 14-15 (Earlier: RTD info), Interview with the economist N. Stern.
  28. 28. Leicester, G. 2007. Policy learning. Can government discover the treasure within? European Journal of Education, 42 (2), 173-184
  29. 29. Marcuello Servos, Ch. 2006. Perseus’ shield: sociology for a global society. in Marcuello Servos, Ch. & Fandos, J. L. (ed.), Cultural change, social problems and knowledge society. Zaragoza, Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza, pp. 9-20.
  30. 30. Prosenak, D., Mulej, M. and Snoj, B. 2008. A requisitely holistic approach to marketing in terms of social well-being. Kybernetes, Vol. 37, No. 9/10, pp. 1508-1529.
  31. 31. Ackoff, R. L. and Rovin, S. 2003. Redesigning society, Stanford, Ca, Stanford Business Books.
  32. 32. Mulej, M., Espejo, R., Jackson, M., Kajzer, S., Mingers, J., Mlakar, P., Mulej, N., Potočan, V., Rebernik, M., Rosicky, A., Schiemenz, B., Umpleby, S., Uršič, D., Vallee, R. 2000. Dialektična in druge mehkosistemske teorije (podlaga za uspešen management). Maribor, University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business
  33. 33. Schmidt, J. 1993. Die sanfte Revolution. Von der Hierarchie zu selbststeuernden Systemen. Frankfurt, Campus.
  34. 34. Šarotar Žižek, S., Mulej M. and Treven, S. 2009. Dobro počutje/subjektivna blaginja sodelavcev kot bistveni dejavnik prehoda v inovativno družbo. Organizacija, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. A122–A132.
  35. 35. Barbič Goleš, G. 2008. Izzivi globalizacije—ustvarjalnost in timsko delo, Zbornik prispevkov. in Blažič, M., (ed.) Izzivi globalizacije in ekonomsko okolje EU. Zbornik prispevkov, Visokošolsko središče Novo mesto, Visoka šola za upravljanje in poslovanje, pp. 21-26.
  36. 36. Mulej, M., Hyvarinnen, L., Jurše, K., Rafolt, B., Rebernik, M., Sedevčič, M., Uršič, D. 1994. Inovacijski management, 1. del, Inoviranja managementa. Maribor, Univerza v Mariboru, Ekonomsko-poslovna, fakulteta.
  37. 37. Potočan, V. and Mulej, M. (ed.). 2007. Transition into an innovative enterprise. Maribor, UM, Ekonomsko-poslovna fakulteta.
  38. 38. Mulej, M. and Kajzer, S. 1998. Tehnološki razvoj in etika soodvisnosti. Raziskovalec, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1-10.
  39. 39. Mulej, M. and Kajzer, S. 1998. Ethic of interdependence and the law of requisite holism. Proceedings of the 1rd International Conference on Linking Systems Thinking, Innovation, Quality, Entrepreneurship and Environment. STIQE 1998. M. Rebernik and M. Mulej (ed.), Maribor, pp 56-67.
  40. 40. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: a renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for corporate social responsibility. Brussels, European Commission, 25.10.2011. Com (2011) 681 Final.
  41. 41. Mulej, M., Guest-editor and Author, with Co-authors. 2014 and 2015. Social responsibility – a new socio-economic order. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 2
  42. 42. Mulej, M., Merhar, V., Žakelj, V. (ed.). 2016. Nehajte sovražiti svoje otroke in vnuke. Družbeno-ekonomski in osebni pogoji za družbeno odgovornost (Stop Hating Your Children and Grandchildren. Socio-economic and Personal Preconditions of Social Responsibility. In Slovene), Book 1. Maribor, IRDO and Kulturni Center
  43. 43. Mulej, M., Hrast, A. (ed.) 2016. Nehajte sovražiti svoje otroke in vnuke. Inforemacijski pogoji družbene odgovornosti (Stop Hating Your Children and Grandchildren. Informational Preconditions of Social Responsibility. In Slovene), Book 2. Maribor, IRDO and Kulturni Center
  44. 44. Mulej, M., Čagran, B. 2016. Nehajte sovražiti svoje otroke in vnuke Uveljavljanje družbene odgovornosti v vzgoji in izobraževanju., (Implementation of Social Responsibility and Education. Stop hating your children and grandchildren. In Slovene) Book 3. Maribor, University of Maribor, Faculty of Education, IRDO and Kulturni Center
  45. 45. Šarotar Žižek, S., Mulej, M. 2014. In Treven, S. (ed.) Zagotavljanje zadostne in potrebne osebne celovitosti človeka. Maribor, IRDO
  46. 46. Šarotar Žižek, S., Mulej, M. 2014. In Treven, S. (ed.). Osebna celovitost človeka. Maribor, IRDO
  47. 47. Šarotar Žižek, S. 2014. In Treven, S. (ed.) Psihično dobro počutje zaposlenih. Maribor, IRDO
  48. 48. Šarotar Žižek, S. 2014. In Treven, S. (ed.) Model psihičnega dobrega počutja zaposlenih na temelju zadostne in potrebne osebne celovitosti za krepitev uspešnosti. Maribor, IRDO
  49. 49. Šarotar Žižek, S. 2014. In Milfelner, B. (ed.) Vpliv menedžmenta človeških virov na uspešnost organizacij. Maribor, IRDO
  50. 50. Šarotar Žižek, S., Mulej, M., Treven, S., Vaner, M. 2014. Well-being of all stakeholders in higher education – from knowledge management to knowledge-cum-values management. International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 225-243.
  51. 51. Mulej, M., Božičnik, S., Čančer, V., Hrast, A., Jere Lazanski, T., Jurše, K., Kajzer, Š., Knez-Riedl, J., Mlakar, T., Mulej, N., Potočan, V., Risopoulos, F., Rosi, B., Steiner, G., Štrukelj, T., Uršič, D., Ženko, Z. 2013. Dialectical Systems Thinking and the Law of Requisite Holism Concerning Innovation. Litchfield Park, AZ, USA, Emergent Publications’
  52. 52. Mulej, M., Guest-editor and Author, with Co-authors. 2013. Social responsibility – measures and measurement. Systems Practice and Action Research, Vol. 26 No. 6
  53. 53. Slovenian reward for SR HORUS, availble at:
  54. 54. Gladwell, M. 2004. Prelomna točka (The Tipping Point). Ljubljana, Orbis
  55. 55. Gladwell, M. 2008. Preblisk. (Blink). Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga.
  56. 56. Gladwell, M. 2009. Prebojniki. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga.

Written By

Simona Šarotar Žižek and Matjaž Mulej

Submitted: October 10th, 2016 Reviewed: February 16th, 2017 Published: August 23rd, 2017