The academic environment in South African higher education institutions, and specifically universities of technology (UoTs), has been affected by significant restructuring and transformation (Du Pré, 2009). These changes have had adverse effects on the morale of staff. Higher Education South Africa (HESA) has confirmed that it is currently facing challenges in retaining key and talented academic staff (HESA, 2011) because of the ‘brain drain’ phenomenon where staff members leave to other sectors. Retaining staff is vital to ensure that universities accomplish their visions and missions, and become centres of excellence (Ng’ethe, Iravo & Namusonge, 2012). Academics who are not flourishing may decide to resign (Theron, Barkhuizen & Du Plessis, 2014). In order to optimise the potential of staff members and retain staff, it is necessary to study their flourishing and fit in their jobs and organisations.

Flourishing describes subjective well-being, which focuses on how individuals evaluate their experiences in different contexts. The notion of subjective well-being emerged during the 1950s and initially focused squarely on hedonic or emotional well-being, such as happiness, life satisfaction or affect balance (Diener, 1984). Later, the two aspects of psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989) and social well-being (Keyes, 1998) were incorporated, also known as eudaimonic well-being. The Mental Health Continuum (MHC) and the Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC-SF) were developed to measure these well-being components, also known as flourishing (Keyes, 2002, 2009). Keyes (2005) conceptualised flourishing in life as a multidimensional perspective of emotional well-being (feeling well) and psychological and social well-being (functioning well). Rothmann (2013) extended these concepts to the work context.

Research is needed regarding flourishing at work. A study by Rothmann (2013) identified a framework for flourishing at work, while a study by Rautenbach (2015) validated a scale, the Flourishing-at-Work Scale (FAWS), which measures flourishing at work. Although the factorial validity and reliability of the FAWS were confirmed by Rautenbach (2015), the relations of the measuring instrument to individual and organisational outcomes were not studied. Therefore, more research is needed to validate the FAWS. Intention to leave and flourishing at work were previously studied in relation to flourishing in life (Diedericks, 2012; Swart, 2012). Hence, the aim of this study was to analyse the reliability and validity of the FAWS by exploring not only its psychometric properties but also its relations with person-environment (P-E) fit and intentions to leave.

Psychological studies increasingly use the concept of flourishing to describe well-being and/or hedonic and eudaimonic components of happiness (Seligman, 2011). Flourishing is a state in which individuals experience emotional well-being, psychological and social well-being (Keyes & Annas, 2009). Flourishing can be linked to several theoretical models that conceptualise flourishing aspects through research done by Keyes (2002), Diener et al. (2010), Seligman (2011), Huppert and So (2013), and Noble and McGrath (2015), as indicated in Table 1.

Keyes (2002, 2007) developed the MHC. Individuals’ well-being on the MHC vary from flourishing, to moderately mentally healthy, to languishing. Languishing individuals experience low levels of emotional, psychological and social well-being. Moderately mentally healthy individuals are neither flourishing nor languishing. Flourishing individuals experience high levels of emotional, psychological and social well-being. Keyes (2009) developed the MHC-SF, a brief questionnaire which allows individuals to rate frequency of occurrence of the three well-being components.

Other researchers also conceptualised flourishing and developed measures of flourishing. For example, Diener et al. (2010) conceptualised flourishing in terms of self-perceived success regarding relationships, self-esteem, purpose and optimism. They developed a one-dimensional scale (consisting of eight items) to measure flourishing.

Seligman (2011) conceptualised flourishing in terms of five dimensions in the PERMA model: positive emotions (P), engagement (E), relationships (R), meaning (M), and accomplishment (A). In line with the MHC, the PERMA model suggests that well-being consists of feeling and functioning dimensions. The PERMA-profiler was created to provide a brief measure of the five well-being dimensions (Forgeard, Jayawickreme, Kern & Seligman, 2011).

Huppert and So (2013) conceptualised flourishing in terms of positive emotions, positive characteristics (including emotional stability, vitality, optimism, resilience and self-esteem) and positive functioning (including engagement, competence, meaning and positive relationships). In their PROSPER model, Noble and McGrath (2015) suggested that positivity (P), relationships (R), outcomes (O), strengths (S), purpose (P), engagement (E) and resilience (R) are essential elements of flourishing in educational contexts. Although the above-mentioned models suggest important dimensions of flourishing, they were not developed for work contexts.

Rothmann (2013) extended the MHC of Keyes (2002, 2005) to the work context. He suggested that flourishing is a multidimensional concept that includes dimensions of both feeling well (i.e. emotional well-being) and functioning well (i.e. psychological and social well-being) in work contexts. Emotional well-being consists of job satisfaction and a positive affect balance and was conceptualised based on the research of Keyes (2002, 2005) and Rojas and Veenhoven (2013). Psychological well-being consists of autonomy, competence, relatedness, learning (personal growth), meaning and purpose, and engagement. Theoretical justification of these dimensions came from Deci and Ryan (2011), Frankl (1992), Kahn and Heaphy (2014), Keyes (2002), Ryff (1989), Seligman (2011), Spreitzer, Lam and Fritz (2010), and Steger, Dik and Duffy (2012). Social well-being refers to experiences focused on social tasks that are encountered in organisations (Keyes, 1998).

Concerning emotional well-being, job satisfaction relates to employees’ perceptions of all aspects of their current jobs in relation to their wants and expectations. Positive affect in the work environment refers to pleasant experiences such as joy, gratitude, serenity, hope, pride and amusement. Negative affect refers to unpleasant emotions experienced in the work context, because of events such as anger, sadness, anxiety, boredom, frustration and guilt. Subsequently, the most salient affective experiences affect work life through need gratification (Rojas & Veenhoven, 2013).

The self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2011; Ryan, Huta & Deci, 2008) provides a theoretical justification for the inclusion of three psychological needs individuals have: autonomy, competence and relatedness. The need for autonomy concerns the desire to experience freedom of choice when making decisions. Competence (referred to as environmental mastery in the model of Ryff, 1989) refers to the individual’s inherent desire to control outcomes and to experience mastery in an environment. Relatedness indicates the need to connect to others, to interact with them and to care for others. The concept of learning is included based on the concepts of ‘personal growth’ in the psychological well-being model of Ryff (1989) and ‘learning’ in the model of thriving (Spreitzer et al., 2010). Individuals experience learning when they sense that they are acquiring and applying the knowledge and skills they need to do their work. Meaning and purpose at work can be viewed as employees’ subjective experiences that their work is significant, valuable and purposeful (May, Gilson & Harter, 2004; Steger et al., 2012). Work engagement refers to employees’ connections to work (Kahn & Heaphy, 2014), investing their energies in role behaviours and expressing themselves in roles by exhibiting authenticity (Rothbard & Patil, 2012). Work engagement consists of a cognitive component (being alert at work, feeling absorbed and involved in one’s work), an emotional component (being dedicated and connected to one’s work and colleagues, and experiencing a sense of worth) and a physical component (being physically involved in a task and displaying energy) (Kahn, 1990; Kahn & Heaphy, 2014).

Five features described social well-being in the work context (Rautenbach, 2015) based on Keyes’ (2005) conceptualisation of social well-being in life: (1) Social acceptance refers to a positive attitude towards and acceptance of diversity; (2) Social growth signifies whether individuals believe in the potential of development of colleagues, groups and organisations; (3) Social contribution refers to whether individuals think that their daily actions add value to the organisation and others; (4) Social coherence indicates whether employees find their institutions and social lives meaningful and understandable; (5) Social integration reveals whether employees are experiencing a sense of relatedness, comfort and support from the organisation.

In summary, flourishing at work consists of three dimensions: emotional, psychological and social well-being. Emotional well-being consists of positive affect, negative affect and job satisfaction. Psychological well-being consists of autonomy, competence, relatedness, learning, meaning and purpose, and engagement. Social well-being consists of social acceptance, social growth, social contribution, social coherence and social integration.

Person-environment fit can be defined as the compatibility between employees and the environments in which they find themselves (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). Edwards (2008) describes the theoretical foundations of P-E fit in the organisational context through the matching model of career decision-making of Parson (1909), the need-press model of Murray’s (1938, 1951) and Lewin’s (1935, 1951) field theory. P-E fit is considered as a multidimensional construct as individuals experiencing fit are simultaneously nested in multiple aspects of an environment (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). Therefore, several levels of fit have been specified, such as the fit between persons and the entire organisation or their group or their job (Su, Murdock & Rounds, 2015). The current research focuses on these three types of fit in the organisational context, namely, person-organisation fit (P-O fit), person-group fit (P-G fit) and person-job fit (P-J fit).

P-O fit is defined as the correspondence between personal goals and values of employees and the goals, norms and values of their organisation (Su et al., 2015). If people experience this correspondence, a perception of social inclusion and intention to stay emerges (Van Vianen, Stoelhorst & De Goede, 2013). P-G fit entails the compatibility between the values, goals, personality and interpersonal styles of employees and their work groups (Su et al., 2015). P-G fit includes interdependence (i.e. the extent to which employees are required to work together) and social interactions (i.e. work-based relationships) (Glew, 2012). P-J fit refers to the congruence between employees’ personal characteristics and their job characteristics. P-J fit includes demands-abilities fit and need-supplies fit. Demands-abilities fit occurs when employees have the knowledge, skills and abilities to meet the demands of their jobs. Needs-supplies fit occurs when a job satisfies an employee’s needs (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011).

According to P-E fit theory, well-being of individuals is affected by their interactions with their environments, as well as the match between individual characteristics (e.g. knowledge, abilities, skills, needs and values) and environmental characteristics (e.g. role characteristics, organisational values and structures) (Shipp & Jansen, 2011). Research by Schneider (1987) and Su et al. (2015) showed that people perform better and remain in organisations that match their personal characteristics.

Research by Kristof-Brown and Billsberry (2013) has shown that P-E fit is positively associated with favourable work attitudes and behaviours (e.g. job satisfaction and performance) and negatively associated with unfavourable outcomes (e.g. organisational withdrawal and turnover). Gabriel, Diefendorff, Chandler, Moran and Greguras (2014) found that P-O fit and P-J fit relate positively to positive affect and job satisfaction, and negatively to negative affect in the work environment.

Johnson, Taing, Chang and Kawamoto (2013) state that a self-regulation process underlies the attainment of fit. Through action identification, individuals become aware of and connect to their jobs. The connection with their jobs gives meaning and purpose in the work context (Dik, Byrne & Steger, 2013). According to Van Vianen et al. (2013), people experience a fundamental need to belong and therefore develop collaborative relationships with others to become socially included; thus defining natural P-O fit outcomes in terms of relatedness and social integration.

Studies (Diedericks & Rothmann, 2014; Seligman, 2011) showed that higher levels of positive emotions, engagement, meaning, positive relations and social well-being are negatively related to intention to leave. Intention to leave refers to an employee’s decision or choice to leave an organisation to seek a position elsewhere (Theron et al., 2014).

This study implies that P-E fit can influence flourishing at work and can impact intention to leave via flourishing at work:

H1: Emotional well-being, psychological well-being and social well-being load on one factor (namely, flourishing vs. languishing).

H2: P-E fit predicts flourishing at work.

H3: Flourishing at work inversely predicts intention to leave.

H4: P-E fit relates negatively to intention to leave.

H5: P-E fit indirectly affects intention to leave via flourishing.

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between P-E fit, flourishing at work and intention to leave. The results confirmed the internal consistency and construct validity of the long form of a measure of flourishing at work. The results provided support for a model in which P-E fit predicted flourishing at work, which in turn predicted intention to leave. P-E fit had a large effect on flourishing. A lack of flourishing had a large effect on the tendency of individuals to leave organisations.

The multidimensional perspective of flourishing at work confirmed the inclusion of the feeling well (emotional well-being) and functioning well (psychological and social well-being) dimensions, as adopted in the model of Keyes (2005). A three-factor model of flourishing at work was found to be superior to the one- and two-factor models. This finding corresponds with the findings of Rautenbach (2015) supporting the three well-being dimensions of the FAWS. These results support the construct validity of the FAWS. The reliabilities of the flourishing dimension scales were acceptable (p > 0.70), except for the subscale that measures negative affect. Thus, the FAWS provided a useful assessment of self-reported flourishing at work.

Findings revealed that almost a quarter of academics had intentions to leave their organisation. The loss of human capital might hold severe cost and productivity implications for these institutions (Son, Kim & Kim, 2014). The manifestation of intention to leave by academics, the so-called brain drain, was found in studies in higher education (Theron et al., 2014). The results of this study supported the multidimensionality of the scale which was used to measure P-E fit. P-O fit was strongly related to P-G fit, while P-J fit was moderately related to P-O fit and P-G fit. Unexpectedly, the reliability of P-J fit subscale was lower than the guidelines of 0.70.

P-E fit predicted a large percentage of the variance in flourishing. Therefore, individuals who perceived that they fit into their work and organisational environment were more inclined to feel and function well. Previous studies (Dik et al., 2013; Gabriel et al., 2014; Kristof-Brown & Billsberry, 2013; Van Vianen et al., 2013) also showed that dimensions of P-E fit had a close connection to the dimensions of flourishing at work. Su et al. (2015) found that people who perceive a fit between their personal goals and the organisation goals are motivated towards positive behaviours and career outcomes. These positive behaviours and career outcomes support flourishing at work and might, therefore, be seen to play a bigger role in defining P-E fit. Results showed that academics who feel that they fit in their organisations are also individuals who experience positive affect, feel satisfied with their jobs, experience meaning, purpose and emotional engagement in work and their social well-being is higher. The results showed that the P-O and P-G contributed more to explaining the variance in P-E fit than P-J fit. However, the poor reliability of the P-J fit subscale probably contributed to this finding.

Academics who feel they fit with their group members experienced positive affect, job satisfaction and social well-being. These results concurred with findings on experiences of employees in previous studies (Dik et al., 2013; Gabriel et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2013; Van Vianen et al., 2013).

Flourishing at work predicted a large percentage of variance in intention to leave, which suggests that employees who do not flourish might think of leaving their organisations. This result is supported by findings that low intentions to leave are explained by flourishing at work (Diedericks & Rothmann, 2014; Swart & Rothmann, 2012). The current challenges in retaining key and talented academic staff (HESA, 2011) can thus be addressed by focusing on the increment of flourishing behaviour.

The study had several limitations. Firstly, self-reports were used to gather data, which might cause inflated results. This is especially true for the relation between PE fit and flourishing. Future studies could consider alternatives for self-reports of fit assessment, such as co-worker and supervisor ratings. Secondly, the sample was restricted to three UoTs in the Free State and Gauteng, and therefore external generalisation cannot be made from this study. Thirdly, given the cross-sectional design of the study, it was not possible to study the stability of flourishing over time. Lastly, only one item was used to measure each facet of social well-being in this study. Future studies should include at least three items per facet (Kline, 2010). Although most of the findings were encouraging and an important step towards understanding the nature of flourishing at work, more research is needed in different organisational environments. Work-related factors associated with the flourishing of employees should be investigated, and intervention programmes should be developed and implemented to promote flourishing in the work context.

This study showed that relationships between P-E fit, flourishing at work and intention to leave do exist. The fact that P-O and P-G fit showed high results in relation to flourishing gives an indication that human resource practitioners and industrial psychologists should consider interventions focusing on the promotion of P-O and P-G fit in order to increase flourishing of employees, which will in turn curb intentions to leave.

Interventions to address fit aspects should focus on recruitment and selection practices to ensure that the right person is appointed in the right job, provide substantial coaching and orientation programmes for newly appointed staff to create a sense of belonging and engagement, and initiate diversity training workshops to provide a better perspective and understanding of differences between people.

Flourishing-specific interventions of employees could focus on the implementation of training programmes to enhance personal growth and development, provide counselling opportunities, initiate resilience training, and build and promote positive social relationships. By promoting healthy social relations, social well-being in the environment will enable employees to positively contribute to individual, group and organisational success. Coupled with the theoretical perspectives, the belief is that there is compelling evidence to show that efforts to improve fit on organisational and group levels, as well as to enrich social well-being, will enhance P-E fit and flourishing at work. Consequently, higher levels of flourishing at work will reduce intentions to leave.

The study confirmed the reliability and validity of a multidimensional scale which measures well-being at work on a continuum from flourishing to languishing. Flourishing at work is strongly related to P-E fit, specifically the P-O fit dimension. P-E fit and subjective well-being (expressed on a continuum from flourishing to languishing) strongly predicted intentions to leave the organisation.