Antonovsky (1979) defined SoC as a general orientation relating to the degree to which an individual perceives stimuli from the environment to be consistent or understandable (comprehensibility); the degree to which the individual believes that resources are available to cope with demands (manageability); and the degree to which the individual perceives it worthwhile to address the demands (meaningfulness).

The direct, moderating and mediating role of SoC in relation to organisational outcomes and work wellness indicators has been researched extensively (for an overview of a few studies, see Jenny et al., 2017; Mayer & Krause, 2011). Specifically, SoC has been found to be negatively associated with burnout (Fourie, Rothmann & Van de Vijver, 2008; Van der Colff & Rothmann, 2009), positively associated with work engagement (Fourie et al., 2008; Vogt, Hakanen, Jenny & Bauer, 2016) and to be moderating the effects of detrimental work conditions on health outcomes (Jenny et al., 2017). Conversely, Antonovsky (1987) also proposed that working processes could have both detrimental and health-promoting consequences for an employee’s SoC (Antonovsky, 1987). Numerous research studies have since confirmed that SoC is indeed influenced by a number of work and organisational variables (Jenny et al., 2017).

Work-related sense of coherence has been proposed as a context-specific application of SoC in the working environment (Bauer & Jenny, 2007). Similar to the definition of SoC, Work-SoC is defined ‘as the perceived comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness of an individual’s current work situation’ (Vogt, Jenny & Bauer, 2013, p. 1).

The perception of comprehensibility can be described as the degree to which information from the environment makes sense at a cognitive level, and the employee experiences the stimuli as consistent, clear, structured and thus predictable (Antonovsky, 1987; Vogt et al., 2013). Comprehensibility at work is generally influenced by enabling the employee to see his or her role in achieving the overall goals of the organisation, a sense of job security and the experience of shared values and identifying with a group at work in which clear normative expectations exist (Antonovsky, 1987). Even though stressors might be seen to be ordered, they can still pose demands, and comprehensibility on its own is therefore not sufficient.

Manageability can be described as the degree to which employees perceive resources to be available, to either themselves or other reliable individuals in the working environment and that these resources are adequate to meet the demands (Antonovsky, 1987; Vogt et al., 2013). Manageability in the work environment may be influenced by ‘an appropriate overload–underload balance’ (Antonovsky, 1987, p. 161). Employees must be convinced that the problems facing them are legitimate and applicable to their work; that they have the necessary knowledge, skills, material and equipment to address the task at hand; that their potential is fulfilled; and that support is available from legitimate others in the working context (Antonovsky, 1987).

Antonovsky (1987, p. 156) further proposed that employees must actually ‘care to cope’. Meaningfulness, as the third dimension of Work-SoC, therefore, relates to the degree to which employees regard stressors and demands or situations at work as worthy of investing energy in and worthy to commit to or become involved in (Antonovsky, 1987; Vogt et al., 2013). Meaningfulness relates to the degree to which employees feel a sense of ownership in their work, the degree to which they can participate in decision-making and the degree to which they may experience discretionary freedom in their task and work environment (Antonovsky, 1987).

Work-related sense of coherence has been found to be negatively related to job demands and burnout (Vogt et al., 2013) but positively related to job resources (Vogt, Jenny, Fülleman, Inaunen & Bauer, 2012), an employee-directed leadership style (Brossing & Sjovall, 2010), work engagement (Van der Westhuizen & Ramasodi, 2016; Vogt et al., 2013) and the perception that the organisational climate is supportive of employee health and well-being (Zweber, 2014). As a personal resource, Work-SoC can also act as a mediator in the work–health relationship, and Vogt et al. (2013) found that Work-SoC partially mediated both the relationship between job demands and exhaustion and the relationship between job resources and work engagement. The mediating effect, however, was stronger in the process that leads from job resources to work engagement (Vogt et al., 2013). One can therefore expect Work-SoC to change when work characteristics (such as job demands, job resources, leadership style and organisational climate) vary (Vogt et al., 2013) and to be related to employees’ work wellness.

Vogt, Bauer and Jenny (2014) proposed that Work-SoC can be used as a practical screening of employees’ perception of the health-promoting quality of their work situation. This assessment is thus useful for planning, managing and evaluating health-related interventions in a working environment.

Vogt et al. (2013) proposed that Work-SoC, as a context-specific application of SoC, may be more dynamic and sensitive to changes in the work context than general SoC. Eberz, Becker and Antoni (2011) investigated both SoC and Work-SoC in relation to work-related stress in a sample of pastors’ secretaries (N = 93). Evidence from this study suggests that Work-SoC explains incremental variance and seems to be a stronger predictor of work-related stress than SoC (Eberz et al., 2011). These findings seem to support the proposition that Work-SoC may serve as a better predictor of employees’ wellness in the work context in comparison to the measurement of general SoC. A recent call has been raised by Jenny et al. (2017) that the relationship between Work-SoC and SoC should be explored empirically. However, the findings of Eberz et al. (2011) have not yet been corroborated by any other studies. It is therefore important to determine if Work-SoC explains incremental variance above that of SoC in predicting work wellness. That way one can determine if the context-specific application is more effective in predicting employee wellness in the work context in comparison to the measurement of general SoC. The findings of the current study could guide management in planning and implementing interventions aimed at increasing the Work-SoC or SoC of employees in order to address fatigue (as a subdimension of burnout) and work engagement in the organisation.

Taking previous research into account, the following hypotheses were formulated for this study:

This study followed a quantitative, descriptive approach and used a cross-sectional survey design in order to gather data. According to Zikmund (2003), a cross-sectional design is used when data from numerous people are collected at a single point in time.

In order to determine the validity of the measuring instruments, the measurement model was tested by means of structural equation modelling. The results are presented in Table 2. Several competing models were compared in the analyses. Model 1 was specified with Work-SoC consisting of three factors (comprehensibility – four items; manageability – two items; meaningfulness – three items) (Bauer et al., 2015; Van der Westhuizen & Ramasodi, 2016), SoC consisting of three factors (comprehensibility – two items; manageability – two items; meaningfulness – two items) (Barnard & Muller, 2012; Van Schalkwyk & Rothmann, 2008); fatigue consisting of one factor (five items) (Asiwe et al., 2014); and work engagement consisting of three factors (vigour – three items; dedication – three items; absorption – three items) (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Model 1 was not positive definite as the meaningfulness dimension of SoC displayed a negative residual variance. Model 2 followed the same template as model 1, but SoC was specified to consist of one factor (six items). Model 3 followed the template of model 2 but specified Work-SoC consisting of three factors (comprehensibility – three items; manageability – three items; meaningfulness – three items) (Bauer et al., 2015). Model 4 followed the template of model 3 but specified Work-SoC to consist of one factor (Bauer et al., 2015). Model 5 followed the template of model 3 but specified work engagement to consist of only the two core factors, namely vigour (three items) and dedication (three items) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). No additional modifications were done and further analyses were based on model 5.

Table 2 indicates that the measurement model as specified in model 5 displayed an acceptable fit (with fit indices CFI and TLI >0.90 and RMSEA below 0.08).

The descriptive statistics, reliability of the measuring instruments and the correlation between the variables are indicated in Table 3.

Table 3 indicates that all subscales and scales displayed an acceptable level of composite reliability (>0.70), except for the subscale of comprehensibility (p = 0.66). In line with the recommendations of Bauer et al. (2015) and Schaufeli et al. (2006), only the total scales of Work-SoC and work engagement were used in subsequent analysis. Relationships between Work-SoC and SoC on the one hand and fatigue and work engagement on the other hand were all practically significantly related (large effect) and in the expected direction.

Hierarchical multiple regression was used to determine if Work-SoC provided incremental variance over and above SoC in predicting work engagement and fatigue, respectively. The results are displayed in Table 4. In step 1, only SoC was entered. In step 2, Work-SoC was added. In step 3, Work-SoC was entered first, while in step 4, SoC was added to Work-SoC.

Table 4 indicates that both SoC and Work-SoC emerged as significant predictors of work engagement and fatigue, respectively, and when both were entered as predictors. Work-SoC predicted an additional 13% (R² change) over and above the 27% (∆R²) that was predicted by SoC of the variance in work engagement. When Work-SoC was entered first, SoC predicted an additional 6.6% over and above the 33.5% that was predicted by Work-SoC of the variance in work engagement. Work-related sense of coherence then also predicted an additional 6% over and above the 33% that was predicted by SoC of the variance in fatigue. When Work-SoC was entered first, SoC predicted an additional 13.6% over and above the 25% that was predicted by Work-SoC of the variance in fatigue. The percentages predicted were of large effect (ƒ² ≥ 0.35) except for Work-SoC predicting fatigue, which was of medium effect (ƒ² ≥ 0.15).

The work-related sense of coherence explained incremental validity of work engagement and fatigue as indicators of work wellness and could therefore be used with confidence in organisations as a context-specific application of SoC. Interventions aimed at addressing the work engagement of employees would be more suitable if they were to focus on Work-SoC as an indicator of coherent work experiences, rather than focusing on SoC. In this regard, management could consider increasing aspects like employees’ understanding of their contribution to the overall goals of the organisation, job security and effective teamwork in order to address their experience of comprehensibility. Ensuring an appropriate underload–overload balance, being equipped with the relevant knowledge and skills in order to perform required tasks and experiencing social support could address employees’ experience of manageability. Having discretionary freedom and being able to participate in decision-making in the work context could address the experience of meaningfulness of employees. However, if the aim of interventions is to address fatigue (as a dimension of burnout), it would seem that SoC could be a stronger predictor to take into account.

A number of limitations of the study should be noted. A convenience sample of only one population was used and the researcher did not know in which contexts or industries these employees were working. It is therefore not possible to generalise the results of this study to other employees in South Africa. In order to limit the number of items, only the short form of SoC and a dimension of burnout, namely fatigue, were included in the data collection. The full SoC and burnout scales could be used in further studies. Future research could also investigate the degree to which Work-SoC and SoC predict other variables of work wellness in organisations, using large, random samples from a variety of industries in South Africa. The hypotheses that Work-SoC is a stronger predictor in the motivational process of work wellness and that SoC is a stronger predictor in the energetic process of work wellness need to be tested in other studies.