PERMA+4: A Framework for Work-Related Wellbeing, Performance and Positive Organizational Psychology 2.0

Abstract

A growing body of empirical evidence suggests that positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishments (PERMA) may be a robust framework for the measurement, management and development of wellbeing. While the original PERMA framework made great headway in the past decade, its empirical and theoretical limitations were recently identified and critiqued. In response, Seligman clarified the value of PERMA as a framework for and not a theory of wellbeing and called for further research to expand the construct. To expand the framework into organizational contexts, recent meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews showed that physical health, mindset, physical work environments and economic security could be seen as essential contextually relevant building blocks for work-related wellbeing and are therefore prime candidates to expand the PERMA framework for use within organizational contexts. Through expanding the original PERMA framework with these four factors, a new holistic approach to work-related wellbeing and work performance was born: the PERMA+4. As such, the purpose of this brief perspective paper is to provide a conceptual overview of PERMA+4 as holistic framework for work-related wellbeing and work performance which extends beyond the predominant componential thinking of the discipline. Specifically, we aim to do so by providing: (1) a brief historical overview of the development of PERMA as a theory for wellbeing, (2) a conceptual overview of PERMA+4 as a holistic framework for work-related wellbeing and work performance, (3) empirical evidence supporting the usefulness of PERMA+4, and (4) charting a course for the second wave of positive organizational psychological research.

Grand Challenges for Positive Psychology: Future Perspectives and Opportunities

“…In their position paper, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi ( 2000 , p. 5) attempted to provide a meta-theoretical paradigm perspective of positive psychology. They defined positive psychology as: “a science of positive, subjective experience, positive individual traits, and positive institutions [aimed at] improving quality of life and to prevent the pathologies that arise when life is barren or meaningless.” This definition and the approach outlined in their paper did not clarify what constitutes “positivity,” nor did it present a clear purpose of positive theories (Donaldson et al, 2021 ). Further, they did not indicate what types of theories and approaches are needed to advance the science of positive psychology (Donaldson et al, 2021 ).…”

“…They defined positive psychology as: “a science of positive, subjective experience, positive individual traits, and positive institutions [aimed at] improving quality of life and to prevent the pathologies that arise when life is barren or meaningless.” This definition and the approach outlined in their paper did not clarify what constitutes “positivity,” nor did it present a clear purpose of positive theories (Donaldson et al, 2021 ). Further, they did not indicate what types of theories and approaches are needed to advance the science of positive psychology (Donaldson et al, 2021 ). Donaldson et al ( 2021 ) also stated that they did not stipulate the criteria for what exactly constitutes a “positive theory” nor highlight the methods/processes required to generate knowledge in positive psychology.…”

“…Metatheories should also be comprised of ever restrictive grand- and mid-range theories and theoretical models/frameworks explaining a phenomenon (Wallis, 2010 ). Without a clearly articulated, unifying metatheory, positive psychology will be constrained to componential thinking, which is compounded by a hyper-focus on developing specific states, traits or behaviors (Donaldson et al, 2021 ). Alternatively, it could also lead to little or no consensus on how core concepts of the discipline should be approached or defined (Wallis, 2010 ; Gruman et al, 2018 ).…”

“…Further, they did not indicate what types of theories and approaches are needed to advance the science of positive psychology (Donaldson et al, 2021 ). Donaldson et al ( 2021 ) also stated that they did not stipulate the criteria for what exactly constitutes a “positive theory” nor highlight the methods/processes required to generate knowledge in positive psychology.…”

“…Positive psychology is one of the fastest-growing sub-disciplines of psychology (Donaldson et al, 2021 ; Martín-del-Río et al, 2021 ) and established itself as a genuinely transdisciplinary science (Lomas et al, 2021 ). With applications ranging from neuroscience to architecture and from climate change to criminology (Greene and Seligman, 2016 ; Sander et al, 2019 ), the scientific study of the positive states, -traits, and -behaviors underpinning quality of life has flourished (Bohlmeijer and Westerhof, 2021 ).…”