Positive mental health and happiness at work in a sample of portuguese workers: A web-based cross-sectional study

Valentim, Olga et al. Article Positive mental health and happiness at work in a sample of portuguese workers: A web-based cross-sectional study Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Valentim, Olga et al. (2025) : Positive mental health and happiness at work in a sample of portuguese workers: A web-based cross-sectional study, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 2, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020044 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321189 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received: 16 December 2024 Revised: 2 February 2025 Accepted: 4 February 2025 Published: 5 February 2025 Citation: Valentim, O., de Sousa, L., de Sousa, C., Correia, T., Carvalho, J. C., Querido, A., José, H., & Laranjeira, C. (2025). Positive Mental Health and Happiness at Work in a Sample of Portuguese Workers: A Web-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Administrative Sciences,15(2), 44. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/admsci15020044 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article Positive Mental Health and Happiness at Work in a Sample of Portuguese Workers: A Web-Based Cross-Sectional Study Olga Valentim 1,2,3,* , Luís de Sousa 4,5 , Cristina de Sousa 4,6,7 , Tânia Correia 1,8 , José Carlos Carvalho 1,9 , Ana Querido 1,10,11 , Helena José 4,12 and Carlos Laranjeira 5,10,11,* 1RISE-Health, Nursing School of Porto (ESEP), 4200-450 Porto, Portugal; [email protected] (T.C.); [email protected] (J.C.C.); [email protected] (A.Q.) 2Nursing School of Lisbon (ESEL), Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1600-096 Lisboa, Portugal 3Nursing Research, Innovation and Development Centre of Lisbon (CIDNUR), Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1600-096 Lisboa, Portugal 4Atlântica High Health School, Fábrica da Pólvora, 2730-036 Barcarena, Portugal; [email protected] (L.d.S.); [email protected] (C.d.S.); [email protected] (H.J.) 5Comprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), University of Évora, 7000-801 Évora, Portugal 6Center for Research in Education and Psychology (CIEP-UE), University of Évora, 7005-345 Évora, Portugal 7Atlantic University Institute, 2730-036 Barcarena, Portugal 8Health School of Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, 3500-843 Viseu, Portugal 9Nursing School of Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 830, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal 10 School of Health Sciences, Polytechnic University of Leiria, Campus 2, Morro do Lena, Alto do Vieiro, Apartado 4137, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal 11 Centre for Innovative Care and Health Technology (ciTechCare), Rua de Santo André—66–68, Campus 5, Polytechnic University of Leiria, 2410-541 Leiria, Portugal 12 The Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing, Coimbra Nursing School, 3045-043 Coimbra, Portugal *Correspondence: [email protected] (O.V.); [email protected] (C.L.) Abstract: Positive mental health in individuals’ lives and happiness at work have been growing concerns for organizations. This web-based cross-sectional study aimed to understand these two factors and their interrelationship in a population of workers. Data were collected with an e-questionnaire from 1768 individuals currently employed in various public and private organizations. The variables studied included: social and occupational data, happiness at work, and positive mental health. Study participants showed good levels of positive mental health and happiness at work. Positive mental health was positively associated with both organizational happiness domains and function and with perceived productivity (p< 0.001). Using a multiple linear regression model, we found four predictors of overall happiness at work: age, perception of productivity, seniority, and positive mental health factors (personal satisfaction, autonomy and problem-solving and self-actualization) (R 2 = 0.249). Organizations wishing to make employees happier and more productive should promote mental health in the workplace. Interventions that focus on the adoption of positive coping techniques in the workplace, such as training focused on increasing intrapreneurial self-capital, should also be explored. Keywords: workplace happiness; productivity; positive mental health; job; health promotion 1. Introduction Work patterns have been evolving speedily in the modern world because of changing work settings (such as the growing globalization of business, and new technology and organizational practices). In this framework, a happier work atmosphere encourages employees to perform their jobs well and improves the organization’s success (Gu et al.,2022). Happy people are generally more productive, while those who are unhappy tend to have Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 44 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020044 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 44 2 of 14 greater difficulty concentrating on their tasks, which can negatively affect their performance (Wesarat et al.,2015;Sousa & Carvalho,2023;Misra & Srivastava,2023). Moreover, happy individuals tend to be more engaged, efficient, and satisfied with their work, as well as with their relationships with colleagues. In contrast, unhappy and disconnected employees perceive the work environment more negatively and contribute less, leading to a detrimental impact on the organization (Mckee,2019). Happiness is closely linked to subjective well-being and encompasses life satisfaction, positive affect, and low levels of negative affect (Carr,2004;Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2004;Medvedev & Landhuis,2018;Seligman,2011). Research suggests that emotions and cognition are interrelated, influencing work performance and overall job satisfaction (Mckee,2019;Hökkä et al.,2020). Initially explored in psychology and later in economics, workplace happiness is associated with job satisfaction and is recognized as a key factor in improving organizational productivity (Wesarat et al.,2015;Krause-Pilatus,2014). In this context, organizational happiness can be defined as the subjective perception of well-being and satisfaction in the work environment, resulting from the interaction between individual and contextual factors of the organization (Dutschke & Dias,2023; Dutschke et al.,2024;Fisher,2010). However, this concept is not homogeneous and can be analyzed from two complementary perspectives: eudaimonic and hedonic. Eudaimonic well-being is associated with personal development, self-realization, and a sense of purpose at work, while hedonic well-being is related to pleasure and immediate satisfaction in the professional environment (Seligman,2011;Ryff & Boylan,2016). These two dimensions influence organizational results differently, impacting productivity, employee engagement, and job satisfaction (Salas-Vallina et al.,2020;Oswald et al., 2015). Thus, understanding the interaction between the eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness at work allows us to design more effective strategies to promote an organizational culture that balances employee well-being and organizational performance. The role one performs within the organization is an important element, because organizational happiness is associated with happiness in the different job functions ( Fisher,2010 ; Dutschke,2013). According to Dutschke (2013), the following factors affect both levels of happiness: internal environment, recognition and trust, personal development, salary, liking one’s work, sustainability and innovation, identifying with the work function, leaders and organization, objectives, and balance between the profession and family, among others. The author emphasizes the importance of assessing happier professionals, who tend to be more productive, while ensuring that multiple organizational and functional factors influence their happiness. At the organizational level, workplace culture, leadership, recognition, trust, and innovation play a crucial role in fostering a positive environment. At the functional level, factors such as personal development, fair compensation, job satisfaction, alignment with work functions, clear objectives, and work–life balance contribute to individual well-being and engagement. Together, these elements shape a sustainable and fulfilling professional experience, benefiting both employees and the organization (Oswald et al.,2015;Dutschke,2013). In addition, a healthy organization must include essential aspects such as health and safety in the workplace; a harmonious psychological environment, including a management system and organizational culture; and human resources and means to improve the health of employees and their families (WHO,2010;Sorensen et al.,2018). Mental health is an integral component of the World Health Organization’s definition of health as a complete state of physical, mental, and social well-being (WHO,2021). This concept is related to the concepts of happiness and productivity (Ryff & Boylan,2016;Salas-Vallina et al.,2020). In an experimental study, a causal link between happiness and employee performance was identified, wherein happier people had higher levels of productivity Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 44 3 of 14 ( Oswald et al.,2015 ). Valuing people and promoting their mental health is essential to the success and productivity of organizations. Positive mental health comprises “emotional and psychological components of wellbeing and suggests positive functioning”. While happiness frequently refers to “subjective or hedonic well-being, the psychological component of positive mental health refers to eudaimonic ideas such as self-acceptance or life purpose” (Bieda et al.,2019, p. 129). The absence of positive elements makes people more vulnerable to psychological problems. Thus, strategies to promote mental health should try to increase people’s resources and mental health and reduce mental suffering. The detrimental impacts of poor mental health extend beyond the direct expenses of treatment and encompass much bigger indirect costs associated with lost productivity, such as absenteeism and presenteeism (i.e., poor performance while still working) (Wu et al., 2021;de Oliveira et al.,2023;Gilbreath & Karimi,2012). Promoting mental health in the workplace reduces productivity losses (Ammendolia et al.,2016). The work environment should be salutogenic and promote a healthy exchange of values, rights, and duties among the organization’s actors, where everyone is valued, and their interests taken into account. Recent research has shown a link between employee mental health and a variety of organizational outcomes, such as daily work behavior, job satisfaction, employee emotional expression, job performance, and company success (Yu et al.,2021;Cao et al.,2022; Ford et al.,2011;Montano et al.,2017). Employees with good mental health may “exhibit a positive working state and devote themselves to work tasks with greater enthusiasm, whereas poor mental health may result in inactivity at work and deterioration of interpersonal relationships, which, in turn, negatively affects employee work performance” (Lu et al.,2022, p. 1). To date, evidence has mostly focused on the negative aspects of occupations, such as job stress and burnout. This emphasis on the negative elements of employees’ mental health offers little direction in how to promote and improve total well-being and happiness. Furthermore, no study in Portugal has examined the relationship between happiness at work and positive mental health. By adopting a positive psychological approach, the aims of this study were: (a) to characterize a sample of workers regarding sociodemographic and professional variables; (b) to determine the levels of happiness and positive mental health status; (c) to measure and compare organizational happiness, functional happiness, positive mental health, and productivity perception between groups; (d) to determine the correlations between positive mental health, organizational happiness, functional happiness, years in organization and function, and productivity perception; and (e) to identify predictive factors associated with overall happiness. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Design A web-based cross-sectional design was conducted among the Portuguese adult active population. This study was reported following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist (von Elm et al.,2008). 2.2. Setting and Sample According to PORDATA (2020), there were about 5.1 million working people in Portugal. An online sample size calculator (SurveyMonkey © ) was used to determine the sample size required for this study. Hence, the minimum required sample size of n= 664 was calculated for proportions, considering the most conservative scenario (a proportion of 50%), a confidence level of 95%, and a margin of error of 5%. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 44 4 of 14 The study’s inclusion criteria were the following: (1) individuals aged ≥ 18 years; (2) working in public or private organizations; (3) ability to read and write in Portuguese; (4) access to the Internet/email; and (5) provide informed permission and thoroughly answer all the questions used to identify the study variables. 2.3. Data Collection The questionnaire was distributed online using a Google form, from May to July 2020, when Portugal was in lockdown due to COVID-19. Individuals were recruited by receiving the questionnaire’s web link through the research team’s network of contacts, through community groups in social networks (Facebook and Instagram), and through other participants with a non-probabilistic snowball sampling procedure. 2.4. Instruments The data collection tool consisted of a questionnaire characterizing social and occupational aspects, such as educational level, time in the organization, time in function, intention to leave the company, and productivity perception. The Positive Mental Health Questionnaire (PMHQ), initially developed by Lluch (2003), was translated and validated for the Portuguese population by Sequeira and Carvalho (2009). This 39-question questionnaire contains a series of statements about each person’s way of thinking, feeling, and acting. Questions are grouped into six factors/dimensions (personal satisfaction, prosocial attitude, self-control, autonomy, problemsolving skills and self-actualization, and interpersonal relationship skills). Participants have four possible answers presented on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4: “always or almost always”; “most of the time”; “sometimes”; and “rarely or never”. The global score of PMHQ varies from 39 points (low positive mental health) to 156 points (high positive mental health). Cronbach’s alpha for the PMHQ in this sample was 0.92. The Happiness at Work Scale developed by Dutschke et al. (2024,2015) includes a first part with 38 questions using a five-point Likert scale (1: “I totally disagree “ to 5: “I totally agree”), which measures the level of happiness of the individual within the organization (Organizational Happiness). The second part of the questionnaire includes 26 questions with the same Likert scale and measures the respondents’ own perspective on what makes them happy in the job (Happiness in Function). These items reflect the following components: workplace relationships, acknowledgment and respect, continuous learning, personal development, sustainability and job/family balance, and leadership (Dutschke et al.,2024,2015). All the scale items are positive; there are no negative items. A high score indicates that the individual had higher levels of happiness. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.92, indicating excellent internal consistency (Polit & Beck,2016). 2.5. Ethical Considerations Electronic consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Before answering the main questionnaire, all participants supplied informed permission for participation, data collection, and analysis by clicking the “Yes, I agree and give my informed consent” box on the digital form. Responses to the electronic questionnaire were anonymous; no personal data were requested to identify the participant. The design did not contain any ethical aspects requiring prior authorization from the Local Ethics Committee. The current research followed the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration, ensuring that all participants received the same information while completing the questionnaires. The research was in accordance with European Data Protection Law. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 44 5 of 14 2.6. Data Analysis The number of cases in each category and corresponding percentages were compiled for the qualitative variables. The minimum, maximum, and mean values, and the standard deviation (SD) were compiled for the quantitative variables. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess the reliability of the scales in this sample. Pearson linear correlation coefficients (r) were used to measure correlations between variables. Furthermore, Student’s t-test was employed for mean comparisons between two groups, and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni correction was utilized for comparisons among more than two groups. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene tests were used to examine the assumptions of normality and variance uniformity required for mean comparisons. Furthermore, a logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the associations between the predictor variables (i.e., socio-occupational variables and positive mental health questionnaire) and the outcome variable (happiness at work). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics software), version 28.0, was used for data analysis. All tests considered a level of significance of 5% (p< 0.05). 3. Results 3.1. Sample Description Of the 1982 survey participants, only 1768 (89.2%) provided a complete response to the variables used in the analysis: 1060 employees were female (59.95%) and 708 were male (40.05%). Professionals belonged to several sectors according to the following frequencies and percentages: commerce (n= 255, 14.4%); tourism, catering, and leisure (n= 230, 13%); consulting and teaching (n= 221, 12.5%); nursing (n= 171, 9.7%); communication and information (n= 166, 9.4%); health and social support (n= 154, 8.7%); financial and insurance (n= 136, 7.7%); industry (n= 129, 7.3%); state employees (n= 127, 7.2%); construction and real estate (n= 101, 5.7%); creative industry and transport (n= 78, 4.4%). The sample was characterized according to the relevant socio and occupational variables, as presented in Table 1. Table 1. Socio-occupational characteristics of the sample (n= 1768). Education n% Primary school 15 0.8 High school 321 18.2 Professional Education 156 8.8 Higher education 1237 70.0 Missing data 39 2.2 Time in the organization (years) Less than 1 year 333 18.83 1–2 years 358 20.25 3–5 years 316 17.87 6–10 years 181 10.24 More than 10 years 579 32.75 Missing data 1 0.06 Time in function (years) Less than 1 year 297 16.8 1–2 years 331 18.72 3–5 years 333 18.83 6–10 years 226 12.78 More than 10 years 580 32.81 Missing data 1 0.06 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 44 6 of 14 Table 1. Cont. Education n% Intention to leave the company I don’t like anything 824 46.60 I would not like 282 15.95 Indifferent 298 16.86 Would 163 9.22 I would very much like 199 11.26 Missing data 2 0.11 Productivity perception Very bad 19 1.07 Bad 36 2.04 Average 219 12.39 Good 839 47.45 Very Good 645 36.48 Missing data 10 0.57 Regarding qualifications, most of the sample (70%) had higher education. The majority of the participants had more than 10 years of experience in their organization and 46.6% of the professionals stated that they had no intention of leaving their company. Most participants had positive productivity perceptions, either good (47.45%) or very good (36.48%). 3.2. Description of Results on Positive Mental Health and Happiness at Work Below we describe the results for the two instruments: Positive Mental Health Questionnaire and Happiness at Work Scale. Table 2summarizes the results for the former’s six dimensions. Table 2. Results of Positive Mental Health Questionnaire (n= 1768). PMHQ Item No. Min./Max M SD Average Score (M/Total Items) F1: Personal satisfaction 8 11–32 27.82 3.67 3.45 F2: Prosocial attitude 5 8–20 17.51 2.36 3.50 F3: Self-control 5 6–20 15.70 2.85 3.14 F4: Autonomy 5 5–20 16.39 2.58 3.28 F5: Problem-solving and Self-actualization 9 9–36 29.89 4.82 3.32 F6: Interpersonal relationship skills 7 11–28 21.58 2.77 3.08 PMHQ total 39 82–156 128.90 14.61 3.31 Abbreviations: M—mean; SD—standard deviation; PMHQ—Positive Mental Health Questionnaire. Overall, the professionals in our sample indicated high levels of positive mental health, with a global mean of 128.90. The results show higher means of personal satisfaction and pro-social attitude and lower means concerning self-control and interpersonal skills (see Table 2). Participants showed good levels of organizational happiness (M = 3.76; SD = 0.86 ), happiness in function (M = 3.89; SD = 0.79), and total happiness at work (M = 3.83; SD = 0.81). 3.3. Comparisons Between PMHQ, Organizational Happiness, Happiness in Function and Participants’ Socio and Occupational Variables An ANOVA was used to compare PMHQ, Organizational Happiness, and Happiness in Function, taking into account educational qualifications, time in the organization, time in the function, intention to leave the company, and productivity perception. The results are presented in Table 3. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 44 7 of 14 Table 3. Comparison of scale results according to participants’ socio and occupational variables (n= 1768). Variables PMHQ M (SD) Organizational Happiness M (SD) Happiness in Function M (SD) Education Primary school 2.83 (0.44) 3.51 (0.61) 3.50 (0.62) High school 3.31 (0.40) 3.79 (0.86) 3.88 (0.83) Professional education 3.23 (0.43) 3.85 (0.87) 3.95 (0.85) Higher education 3.32 (0.35) 3.75 (0.86) 3.88 (0.78) ANOVA * F= 10.081; p< 0.001 F= 1.446; p= 0.227 F= 1.409; p= 0.238 Time in the organization (years) Less than 1 year 3.30 (0.37) 3.93 (0.87) 4.00 (0.82) 1–2 years 3.27 (0.38) 3.83 (0.80) 3.90 (0.76) 3–5 years 3.32 (0.40) 3.80 (0.84) 3.97 (0.78) 6–10 years 3.32 (0.35) 3.80 (0.84) 3.97 (0.77) More than 10 years 3.32 (0.36) 3.59 (0.88) 3.77 (0.81) ANOVA * F= 1.088; p= 0.361 F= 9.797; p< 0.001 F= 5.207; p< 0.001 Time in function (years) Less than 1 year 3.34 (0.37) 4.00 (0.86) 4.06 (0.83) 1–2 years 3.30 (0.37) 3.87 (0.80) 3.92 (0.76) 3–5 years 3.29 (0.41) 3.78 (0.83) 3.89 (0.77) 6–10 years 3.32 (0.34) 3.72 (0.79) 3.90 (0.73) More than 10 years 3.30 (0.37) 3.59 (0.90) 3.76 (0.82) ANOVA * F= 0.797; p= 0.527 F= 13.309; p< 0.001 F= 6.953; p< 0.001 Intention to leave the company I don’t like anything 3.39 (0.35) 4.21 (0.72) 4.30 (0.68) I would not like 3.23 (0.39) 3.72 (0.64) 3.81 (0.59) Indifferent 3.25 (0.36) 3.44 (0.63) 3.58 (0.60) would 3.21 (0.36) 3.25 (0.74) 3.39 (0.67) I would very much like 3.24 (0.41) 2.89 (0.91) 3.16 (0.87) ANOVA * F= 20.19; p< 0.001 F= 190.99; p< 0.001 F= 166.44; p< 0.001 Productivity Very bad 3.23 (0.35) 2.83 (1.10) 2.87 (1.10) Bad 3.07 (0.50) 3.37 (0.93) 3.48 (0.91) Average 3.15 (0.41) 3.50 (0.89) 3.61 (0.83) Good 3.32 (0.33) 3.71 (0.82) 3.83 (0.75) Very Good 3.36 (0.39) 3.97 (0.84) 4.10 (0.77) ANOVA * F= 16.82; p< 0.001 F= 23.79; p< 0.001 F= 28.90; p< 0.001 * ANOVA test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (alpha = 0.05). There were significant statistical differences in PMHQ according to educational qualifications, as the participants with primary education had lower average values compared to other groups. Organizational happiness and function also varied significantly according to time in organization and function. Those working for less than a year reported the highest mean, while those working longer than ten years reported the lowest values. Significant statistical differences were also found (in all scales) according to intention to leave the company. Employees who expressed that they did not want to leave the organization had the highest mean value of positive mental health, organizational happiness, and happiness in function. Productivity perception varied statistically in all scales. Employees who perceived themselves as more productive presented higher mean values of positive mental health, organizational happiness, and happiness in function. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 44 8 of 14 3.4. Correlations Between Happiness Scale and Other Variables We used Pearson correlations to better understand the relationships between PMHQ factors and total, organizational and function happiness scales, years in organization and function, as well as productivity perception. Table 4depicts the correlation matrix. Table 4. Pearson correlations between PMHQ factors and total, organizational and functional happiness scales, years in organization and function, and productivity perception. Variables OH HF TH YO YF P F1: Personal satisfaction 0.37 * 0.41 * 0.40 * 0.01 −0.03 0.18 * F2: Prosocial attitude 0.21 * 0.26 * 0.25 * 0.01 −0.03 0.07 * F3: Self-control 0.26* 0.28 * 0.28 * 0.02 −0.01 0.16 * F4: Autonomy 0.14 * 0.19 * 0.17 * 0.09 * 0.08 * 0.11 * F5: Problem-solving and self-actualization 0.27 * 0.31 * 0.30 * 0.02 −0.02 0.14 * F6: Interpersonal relationship skills 0.17 * 0.19 * 0.19 * −0.01 −0.04 0.08 * PMHQ Total 0.32 * 0.37 * 0.36 * 0.03 −0.01 0.17 * Organizational Happiness (OH) - 0.92 * 0.98 * −0.15 * −0.17 * 0.26 * Happiness Function (HF) - - 0.98 * −0.10 * −0.12 * 0.25 * Total Happiness (TH) - - - −0.12 * −0.15 * 0.24 * Years in Organization (YO) - - - - 0.68 * 0.12 * Years in Function (YF) - - - - - 0.11 * Notes: * p< 0.01. Abbreviations: PMHQ—Positive Mental Health Questionnaire; OH—Organizational Happiness; HF—happiness in function; TH—total happiness; YO—years in organization; YF—years in function; P—productivity perception. There were several statistically significant positive correlations among the several variables. These results show that better positive mental health (in all dimensions) was associated with greater happiness, at both the organizational and functional levels. Seniority, both in function and organization, was also positively correlated with the perception of higher productivity and more autonomy. Nevertheless, despite the weak correlation, seniority was negatively associated with the happiness indicators (organizational, functional and total). 3.5. Predictors of Happiness in Work We performed stepwise multiple linear regression analysis to identify the predictors of overall happiness. The results are presented in Table 5. Table 5. Results of hierarchical regression analysis concerning overall happiness score. Block Variables B SE βt Sig. R2 Change Sig. F Change I (Constant) 5.524 0.293 - 18.831 0.000 0.115 <0.001 Age 0.031 0.005 0.209 6.805 0.000 Productivity perception 0.552 0.047 0.275 11.776 0.000 Education −0.034 0.046 −0.017 −0.738 0.461 Time in the organization −0.155 0.036 −0.147 −4.300 0.000 Time in function −0.224 0.035 −0.207 −6.326 0.000 II (Constant) 2.003 0.401 - 4.998 0.000 0.134 <0.001 Age 0.022 0.004 0.152 5.304 0.000 Productivity perception 0.393 0.044 0.195 8.874 0.000 Education −0.099 0.043 −0.050 −2.318 0.021 Time in the organization −0.151 0.033 −0.143 −4.541 0.000 Time in function −0.168 0.033 −0.155 −5.110 0.000 Personal satisfaction 0.149 0.013 0.335 11.451 0.000 Prosocial attitude 0.021 0.022 0.031 0.971 0.332