A metatheoretical framework for organizational wellbeing research : Toward conceptual pluralism in the wellbeing debate

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Access rights

openAccess
publishedVersion

URL

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä

Major/Subject

Mcode

Degree programme

Language

en

Pages

22

Series

Organization, Volume 30, issue 3, pp. 551-572

Abstract

The organizational wellbeing discourse has in the past decades gravitated toward two adversarial camps. The first camp draws increasingly from positive psychology and studies wellbeing as the presence of positive attributes centered around the individual. The second camp is critical toward the first one from a sociological standpoint by warning about its hidden tyranny and detrimental organizational consequences. In this paper we interrogate the conceptual foundations of the two camps and argue that the paradigmatic divide between them can be traced to their antithetical assumptions about the nature of human freedom. To move beyond the paradigmatic standstill, we suggest adopting Kenneth Burke’s dramatistic pentad as a metatheoretical framework for organizational wellbeing research. The pentad can help integrate concerns and viewpoints from both camps and facilitate the exploration of novel opportunities to conceptualize wellbeing in organizations. The proposed metatheoretical framework acknowledges the plural and essentially contested character of wellbeing whilst promoting theoretical pluralism in organizational wellbeing research. We also illustrate the use of the dramatistic pentad through three thought-provoking conceptualizations of organizational wellbeing. The illustrations show how the dramatistic pentad can be used to spur much needed conceptual imagination within organizational wellbeing research.

Description

Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2023.

Other note

Citation

Kenttä, P & Virtaharju, J 2023, 'A metatheoretical framework for organizational wellbeing research : Toward conceptual pluralism in the wellbeing debate', Organization, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 551-572. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084221145568