How can wellbeing at work and sustainable employability of gifted workers be enhanced? A qualitative study from a capability approach perspective.
Capabilities
Capability approach
Gifted
Intelligence
Qualitative
Sustainable employability
Wellbeing
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 02 2021
23 02 2021
Historique:
received:
29
11
2020
accepted:
09
02
2021
entrez:
24
2
2021
pubmed:
25
2
2021
medline:
21
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Being gifted with a very high IQ (> 98 percentile) can provide an advantage in the occupational context but can also come with its` own specific challenges. Where some studies found higher than average levels of wellbeing at work and successful careers amongst the gifted, other studies report boredom and less job satisfaction. This poses the question what gifted people value in work, and which factors are associated with the achievement of valued work related outcomes, wellbeing and sustainable employability. In this study these questions were explored using the value driven capability approach as a theoretical framework. A qualitative approach was chosen and 16 in-depth semi-structured interviews with gifted workers (IQ > 130) were conducted. The transcripts were analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis aimed at identifying the work related outcomes participants aspired to achieve and the contextual and personal factors that affected the actualisation of these outcomes. Participants placed great value on the opportunity to learn, to use their knowledge and skills, and tended to have high ethical standards. If realized, these values contributed to wellbeing whereas if not fulfilled, this often resulted in frustration and sadness. The most important personal factors associated with wellbeing at work and sustainable employability were the level of organizational awareness, self-knowledge, a willingness to compromise, and fear of stigmatisation. Contextually a facilitating leadership style of managers was important, allowing the worker autonomy and decision latitude. Socially, participants enjoyed others as sparring partners but often had an aversion to small talk which could lead to social avoidance and loneliness. If gifted workers managed (to get) what they valued in work, this was associated with wellbeing and sustainable employment Coaching aimed at improving organizational awareness, specific social skills (e.g. small talk, adaptability) and understanding their own cognitive processes could be valuable. The application of an autonomy supporting facilitative leadership style by supervisors would be beneficial. Further research should try to confirm the findings using quantitative methods and needs to examine more closely the impact of stigmatisation and leadership styles.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Being gifted with a very high IQ (> 98 percentile) can provide an advantage in the occupational context but can also come with its` own specific challenges. Where some studies found higher than average levels of wellbeing at work and successful careers amongst the gifted, other studies report boredom and less job satisfaction. This poses the question what gifted people value in work, and which factors are associated with the achievement of valued work related outcomes, wellbeing and sustainable employability. In this study these questions were explored using the value driven capability approach as a theoretical framework.
METHOD
A qualitative approach was chosen and 16 in-depth semi-structured interviews with gifted workers (IQ > 130) were conducted. The transcripts were analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis aimed at identifying the work related outcomes participants aspired to achieve and the contextual and personal factors that affected the actualisation of these outcomes.
RESULTS
Participants placed great value on the opportunity to learn, to use their knowledge and skills, and tended to have high ethical standards. If realized, these values contributed to wellbeing whereas if not fulfilled, this often resulted in frustration and sadness. The most important personal factors associated with wellbeing at work and sustainable employability were the level of organizational awareness, self-knowledge, a willingness to compromise, and fear of stigmatisation. Contextually a facilitating leadership style of managers was important, allowing the worker autonomy and decision latitude. Socially, participants enjoyed others as sparring partners but often had an aversion to small talk which could lead to social avoidance and loneliness.
CONCLUSIONS
If gifted workers managed (to get) what they valued in work, this was associated with wellbeing and sustainable employment Coaching aimed at improving organizational awareness, specific social skills (e.g. small talk, adaptability) and understanding their own cognitive processes could be valuable. The application of an autonomy supporting facilitative leadership style by supervisors would be beneficial. Further research should try to confirm the findings using quantitative methods and needs to examine more closely the impact of stigmatisation and leadership styles.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33622286
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10413-8
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-10413-8
pmc: PMC7901097
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
392Références
J Psychol. 2019;153(2):247-266
pubmed: 30285570
J Occup Rehabil. 2020 Mar;30(1):84-92
pubmed: 31410722
J Psychol. 2014 Nov-Dec;148(6):659-81
pubmed: 25175889
Psychol Sci. 2006 Mar;17(3):194-9
pubmed: 16507058
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2016 Jan;42(1):34-42
pubmed: 26618990
Soc Indic Res. 2017;133(1):345-371
pubmed: 28769147
Front Psychol. 2016 Mar 21;7:368
pubmed: 27047409
Nurs Health Sci. 2013 Sep;15(3):398-405
pubmed: 23480423
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Jan;86(1):162-73
pubmed: 14717634
Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:733-67
pubmed: 25148851
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Oct;97(4):634-51
pubmed: 19785483
J Occup Health Psychol. 2005 Apr;10(2):170-80
pubmed: 15826226
Psychol Methods. 2019 Dec;24(6):796-804
pubmed: 31008623
Assessment. 2019 Jul;26(5):929-943
pubmed: 28948838
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2016 Jan;42(1):71-9
pubmed: 26595874
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2015 May;19(2):113-47
pubmed: 25125368
BMC Psychol. 2020 Apr 21;8(1):36
pubmed: 32317023