Source: Seligman (2012). Flourish: A Visionary new Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. New York: Free Press.

The constituents of happiness are matter for research. The contributors to happiness based on the metadata research are physical safety, physical health, wealth, community, fairness, being valued, trust, meaning, utilization, autonomy, positive emotions, work engagement, rewarding relationship, challenge of work, sense of purpose, leader influence, work-life balance, holistic approach and creativity (Andrews,2004). The happy people show four types of traits- emotional self esteem, a sense of control, optimism and extraversion. (Myers and Diener, 1995).

A. Issues of Extrinsic and Intrinsic factors:

The happiness is the outcome of combination of factors. The workplace is a texture of policies and practices of the organization. The influence of policies and practices on the employees may manifest in happiness. Herzberg et al. (1959) explaining the process of motivation has categorized the factors of motivation as intrinsic and extrinsic factors.

The intrinsic factors are content factors and often termed as motivators whereas context factors are hygienic in nature and classified as extrinsic factors. The intrinsic factors are achievement, recognition, rewards, appreciation, responsibility, advancement, growth, the work itself etc., and extrinsic factors are monetary rewards, fringe benefits, supervision, working conditions, co-workers, pay, policies and procedures. The intrinsic factors are strong orientation for achievement. The positive emotional status of individual towards work in the organization leads to satisfaction of job ((Wong, Hui, and Law, 1998; Jawahar and Hemmasi, 2006).

Andrew (2004) in his research work presents that rewards and recognitions are influencing the loyalty and commitment of an employee. The factors like supervision, working conditions, co-workers, pay, policies and procedures are considered to be extrinsic factors. In fact in the absence of these factors there is chance of causing dissatisfaction.

Harris and Eplion (2007) experimented for the impact of extrinsic factors and find positive relationship between job and performance of the employee. The job security is one of the extrinsic factor which is mainly concern about the level of responsibility and opportunity for advancement (Brotheridge, 2007).

The teachers motivation and their level of performance are interrelated (Lynn, 2002) but happiness as a factor of motivation is a nascent development area for the researchers. Furnham et.al (1992) studies, present satisfaction as the outcome variable with strong correlation between the salary and productivity. The facets of motivation are satisfaction levels with policies, supervision, pay, interpersonal relations, opportunities for promotion and growth, working conditions, work itself, achievement, recognition and responsibility (Ololube, 2005).

B. Issues of Work Life Balance:

The work life balance is often used in synonym with work –family balance (Hudson Resourcing, 2005). It refers to the multiple roles in a person’s life, and satisfaction or happiness derived from performing the work-family activity. The work life balance is directly related with the achievement and enjoyment of employee within an organization. The work life balance practices within the organization use different terms. The organizational support for balancing the work-family issues with appropriate practices increases happiness at both the workplace and home (Estesand Michael, 2005).

Catillo and Cano (2004) commented that when proper attention is given towards interpersonal relationship, recognition and supervision then the level of happiness among teachers in educational intuitions also increases. Karpin (1995) also added that happiness of teachers is determined by the degree to which the individual perceives job related needs are being satisfied. The level of happiness of the teacher depends on the teaching performance and in turn this will increase the teacher’s sense of responsibility.

The family plays a dominating role on turnover intention and intention to leave is more impacted by family-work conflict than work-family conflict (Nimitha Aboobaker, Manoj Edward and Pramatha, 2017).

C. Satisfaction Vs Happiness:

The satisfaction is derived when expectancy meets the rewards and performance (Vroom, 1964). The job satisfaction does not affect life satisfaction but whereas the life satisfaction effects the job satisfaction (Judge and Watanabe, 1994). Wheaton (1990) stated that self satisfaction purely depends on the personal traits. The National Workplace Happiness Survey (2014) was organized by Singapore Human Resources Institute (SHRI) with help of an instrument having 28 dimensions. These dimensions based on Maslow Need Hierarchy Theory were categorized into four elements Satisfaction, Alignment, Engagement and Well Being. The survey result presents happiness drivers at workplace as Brand Identity, Positive Emotions, Achievement, Culture, Role Identity and Hope. David G. Blanchflower and Andrew J. Oswald (2005) point a paradox from the report of Human Development Index which ranked Australia as third among a list of 134 participant countries. In their survey in 35 countries on Job Satisfaction at workplace Australia was ranked very low. Therefore, the Human Development and Job Satisfaction are not significantly related.

Di Tella et al (2003) on examining the mean life-satisfaction and happiness scores on Europeans and Americans find that only 30 percent are very happy or very satisfied. Here the researcher uses the words satisfied and very happy as synonyms. Diener (1984) based on statistical analysis from metadata from different studies on happiness concludes with the following observations- Money alone does not lead to happiness, happiness and age are related, the structure of happiness shows similar patterns in industrialized countries, happiness changes with time period and issues that give happiness changes with time. However, Shawan Achor (2017) has found a statistically significant relationship between happiness, travel, stress and energy. The results show happiness is given by stress free travel, advantageous at the workplace and give positive energy. The empirical study by Devesh and Nageswara Rao (2017) has upheld the relation of extent of management control on teacher satisfaction, role stress and performance is more.

THE OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

The objective is to determine the level of happiness of teaching faculty in educational institutions. The study intends to understand and analyze the intrinsic and extrinsic factors which influence happiness at the workplace. Further to derive the influence of work-life issues on happiness.

Theoretical Framework of the Present Study:

The happiness factors were categorized into intrinsic and extrinsic factors similar to as defined under Herzberg Two theory and work-life issues. The extrinsic factor items derive happiness to the individual when provided at the workplace; the intrinsic factor items are associated with self-esteem, self-actualization which derives happiness to the individual from inner self. The Work Life factor includes items connected with flexibility, adjustment and counseling between work and family which derive happiness to the individual at the work place. These factors of happiness i.e. extrinsic, intrinsic and work-life were impacted or influenced by personal and employment variables. The study was formulated with the above conceptual framework.

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of the Present Study

Personal Factors age, gender, marital status number of children type of family	Intrinsic Factor	Happiness
	Extrinsic Factor
Employment Factors qualification experience spouse occupation
	Work-Life Factor

Source: Prepared by the author

METHODOLOGY:

The present study was conducted in a private higher education institute located in Visakhapatnam with highest NAAC grading. The sample cover includes the faculty members drawn from different streams of science, commerce and management with at least three years of experience. The sample was restricted to 53 for in-depth coverage of the research and it is approximately 30 per cent of the population in the universe. The survey was conducted with the aid of an instrument, which was developed based on literature review, existing instruments and expert opinion. The instrument with 39 items including Personal Profile and Employment Profile was tested for its validity and reliability by test-retest method and Cronbach Alpha Statistic. The actual questions on happiness were 25 and later these were categorized into factors as extrinsic, intrinsic and work-life issues.

The Extrinsic Factor consists of 9 items: 1,2,3,4,5,9,15,18 and 19

The Intrinsic Factor consists of 10 items: 7,8,10,11,12,13,20,21,22 and 23

The Work Life issues consists of 6 items: 6, 14,16,17,24 and 25

The personal and employment profile considered for analyses are age, gender, qualification, marital status, spouse occupation, experience, number of children and type of family.

The three factors of happiness i.e. intrinsic, extrinsic and work-life issues were analyzed with profile and employment factors by applying mean analysis and ANOVA statistical techniques.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:

The reliability of the data collected with the aid of 39 items schedule was tested with the help of Cronbach Alpha. The coefficient of the Cronbach Alpha is 0.64 and is within the level prescribed (>=0.60). The Cronbach Alpha results after standardization is 0.773(see table no. 1).

Table No. 1: Reliability Coefficients

Cronbach's Alpha	Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items	No. of Items
0 .640	0.773	39

Source: Prepared by the author

The average age of the sample respondents is 31.65 years. The other descriptive statistics of the sample are provided (see table no. 2 and 3).

Table No. 2: Means and Standard Deviations of the Variables, Dimension Wise for Age, Education Qualification, Gender, Marital Status, Spouse Occupation, Experience and Roles Perform

Age		Extrin-sic	Intrinsic	Work Life	Spouse Occupation		Extrinsic	Intrinsic	Work Life
>25		4.17	4.27	4.25	Employee	M	4.04	4.07	4.00
25-35		4.01	3.92	4.05		S D	0.34	0.36	0.37
35-45		3.89	3.94	3.79	Business	M	4.02	3.98	4.03
45 And Above		4.37	4.43	4.14		SD	0.14	0.47	0.24
Total		4.03	4.02	3.98	Professional	M	3.89	3.82	3.95
Education Qualification						SD	0.23	0.26	0.27
PhD	M	4.04	3.85	4.11	Unemployed	M	4.12	4.15	3.93
	SD	6.97E-	0.37	0.18		SD	0.24	0.42	0.26
PG	M	4.02	4.03	3.96	Any Other	M	4.03	3.90	4.00
	S D	0.30	0.37	0.34		SD	0.23	0.35	0.43
Any Other	M	4.17	4.31	3.91	Total	M	4.03	4.02	3.98
	S D	0.15	0.32	0.35		S D	0.27	0.37	0.32
Total	M	4.03	4.02	3.98	Experience
	SD	0.27	0.37	0.32	<2 Years	M	4.07	4.09	4.08
Gender						S D	0.10	0.12	0.11
Male	M	4.06	4.00	3.98	2-6 Years	M	3.98	3.91	3.97
	S D	0.32	0.41	0.29		SD	0.22	0.33	0.35
Female	M	4.00	4.03	3.98	6-10 Years	M	3.94	4	3.90
	SD	0.23	0.34	0.36		S D	0.22	0.36	0.40
Total	M	4.03	4.02	3.98	10-14 Years	M	3.99	3.85	4.02
	SD	0.27	0.37	0.32		S D	0.14	0.34	0.24
Marital Status					Above 14 Years	M	4.19	4.24	4.04
Unmarried	M	4.0714	3.9273	4.1		SD	0.38	0.40	0.29
	SD	0.1684	0.3993	0.2629	Total	M	4.03	4.02	3.98
Married	M	4.0421	4.0536	3.9786		SD	0.27	0.37	0.32
	SD	0.2784	0.3878	0.3134	Roles Performed
Widow	M	3.875	3.9545	3.7917	Teaching	M	4.03	4.016	3.98
	SD	0.4787	0.1892	0.5672		S D	0.283	0.38	0.33
Total	M	4.035	4.0223	3.9874	Other roles	M	4.0357	4.18	4.08
	S D	0.2776	0.3773	0.3282		S D	5.05E-	0.25	0.11

Source: Prepared by the author

Table No 3: Means and Standard Deviations of the Variables, Dimension Wise for No. Of Children, Type of Family, Reasons for Working, Motivation, Flexibility and Reasons for Choosing

No. Of Children		Extrin-sic	Intrin-sic	WorkLife	Motivation		Extrin-sic	Intrin-sic	Work Life
0	M	3.95	4.03	3.86	Self	M	4.08	4.09	4.01
	SD	0.26	0.22	0.49		SD	0.25	0.41	0.29
1	M	3.97	3.98	4.03	Parents	M	3.98	3.91	3.95
	SD	0.22	0.25	0.22		SD	0.31	0.30	0.25
2	M	4.07	4.07	3.93	Spouse	M	3.95	4.03	3.97
	SD	0.34	0.45	0.37		SD	0.35	0.20	0.51
6	M	4.07	3.94	4.1	Friends	M	3.71	3.81	3.16
	S.D	0.16	0.41	0.26		SD	.	.	.
Total	M	4.03	4.02	3.98	Any Other	M	4	3.63	4.16
	SD	0.27	0.37	0.32		SD	0	0.51	0.23
Type Of Family					Total	M	4.03	4.02	3.98
Nuclear	M	4.04	4.05	4.00		SD	0.27	0.37	0.32
	SD	0.28	0.41	0.36	Flexibility
Joint	M	4.00	3.99	3.94	Yes	M	4.18	4.13	4.14
	SD	0.28	0.35	0.29		SD	0.19	0.24	0.21
Single	M	4.17	3.95	4.25	No	M	3.95	4.09	3.86
	SD	5.05E-02	6.43E-02	0.1179		SD	0.36	0.44	0.41
Total	M	4.03	4.02	3.98	Partly	M	3.97	3.81	3.96
	S D	0.27	0.37	0.32		SD	0.15	0.33	0.25
Reasons For Working					Total	M	4.03	4.02	3.98
Independent	M	3.98	3.95	3.83		SD	0.2	0.37	0.32
	SD	0.22	0.23	0.38	Reasons For Choosing
Share Knowledge	Mean	4.09	4.13	4.029	Self Interest	M	4.04	4.05	3.99
	SD	0.18	0.32	0.30		SD	0.29	0.35	0.31
Financial Support	M	3.99	3.93	3.99	No Oppor- tunities	M	3.8	3.84	3.61
	S D	0.37	0.47	0.30		S D	0.10	0.64	0.38
Any Other	M	4.12	4.18	4.25	Any Other Reason	M	4.04	3.72	4.22
	SD	0.10	0.25	0.16		SD	4.12E-	0.45	0.19
Total	M	4.03	4.02	3.98	Total	M	4.03	4.02	3.98
	S D	0.27	0.37	0.32		SD	0.27	0.37	0.32

Source: Prepared by the author

Table No. 4: ANOVA Results for Experience, No. Of Children, Type of Family with the Factors of Happiness

Experience			Sum Of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Extrinsic * Experience	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.547	4	0.137	1.898	0.126
	Within Groups		3.459	48	0.072
	Total		4.006	52
Intrinsic * Experience	Between Groups	(Combined)	1.125	4	0.281	2.151	0.089***
	Within Groups		6.278	48	0.131
	Total		7.403	52
Wl * Experience	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.175	4	0.044	0.387	0.817
	Within Groups		5.428	48	0.113
	Total		5.603	52
No. of Children
Extrinsic * No. Of Children	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.146	3	0.049	0.618	0.607
	Within Groups		3.86	49	0.079
	Total		4.006	52
Intrinsic * No. Of Children	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.142	3	0.047	0.319	0.811
	Within Groups		7.261	49	0.148
	Total		7.403	52
Wl * No. Of Children	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.295	3	0.098	0.908	0.444
	Within Groups		5.308	49	0.108
	Total		5.603	52
Type Of Family
Extrinsic * Type Of Family	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.065	2	0.033	0.415	0.663
	Within Groups		3.941	50	0.079
	Total		4.006	52
Intrinsic * Type Of Family	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.055	2	0.027	0.186	0.831
	Within Groups		7.349	50	0.147
	Total		7.403	52
Wl * Type Of Family	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.195	2	0.097	0.901	0.413
	Within Groups		5.408	50	0.108
	Total		5.603	52

Source: Prepared by the author ***Significant at 10 per cent level

Table No. 5: ANOVA Results for Reasons for Working, Reasons for Choosing, and Flexibility with the Factors of Happiness

Reasons For Working			Sum Of Squares		Df	Mean Square		F		Sig.
Extrinsic * Reasons For Working	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.159		3	0.053		0.675		0.572
	Within Groups		3.847		49	0.079
	Total		4.006		52
Intrinsic * Reasons For Working	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.552		3	0.184		1.317		0.28
	Within Groups		6.851		49	0.14
	Total		7.403		52
Wl * Reasons For Working	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.591		3	0.197		1.926		0.138
	Within Groups		5.012		49	0.102
	Total		5.603		52
Reasons For Choosing
Extrinsic * Reasons For Choosing	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.076		2	0.038		0.48		0.621
	Within Groups		3.931		50	0.079
	Total		4.006		52
Intrinsic * Reasons For Choosing	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.394		2	0.197		1.405		0.255
	Within Groups		7.01		50	0.14
	Total		7.403		52
Wl * Reasons For Choosing	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.594		2	0.297		2.965		0.061***
	Within Groups		5.009		50	0.1
	Total		5.603		52
Flexibility
Extrinsic * Flexibility	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.567	2	0.284		4.122		0.022**
	Within Groups		3.439	50	0.069
	Total		4.006	52
Intrinsic * Flexibility	Between Groups	(Comb)	1.03	2	0.515		4.041		0.024**
	Within Groups		6.373	50	0.127
	Total		7.403	52
Wl * Flexibility	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.73	2	0.365		3.748		0.03**
	Within Groups		4.872	50	0.097
	Total		5.603	52

Source: Prepared by the author **Significant at 5 percent level ** * Significant at 10 percent level.

Table No. 6: ANOVA Results for Gender, Marital Status, and Age with the Factors of Happiness

Gender					Sum of Squares	df		Mean Square			F		Sig.
Extrinsic * Gender	Between Groups		(Comb)		0.04	1		0.04			0.62		0.43
	Within Groups				3.95	51		0.07
	Total				4.00	52
Intrinsic* Gender	Between Groups		(Comb)		0.01	1		0.01			0.08		0.77
	Within Groups				7.39	51		0.14
	Total				7.40	52
Wl * Gender	Between Groups		(Comb)		0	1		0			0		0.99
	Within Groups				5.60	51		0.11
	Total				5.60	52
Marital Status
Extrinsic* Marital Status		Between Groups		(Comb)	0.118		2		0.059	0.756		0.475
		Within Groups			3.889		50		0.078
		Total			4.006		52
Intrinsic * Marital Status		Between Groups		(Comb)	0.147		2		0.073	0.506		0.606
		Within Groups			7.256		50		0.145
		Total			7.403		52
Wl * Marital Status		Between Groups		(Comb)	0.283		2		0.142	1.33		0.274
		Within Groups			5.32		50		0.106
		Total			5.603		52
Age
Extrinsic * Age		Between Groups		(Comb)	1.338		3		0.446	8.187		0*
		Within Groups			2.669		49		0.054
		Total			4.006		52
Intrinsic* Age		Between Groups		(Comb)	1.802		3		0.601	5.254		0.003*
		Within Groups			5.601		49		0.114
		Total			7.403		52
Wl * Age		Between Groups		(Comb)	1.105		3		0.368	4.012		0.012*
		Within Groups			4.498		49		0.092
		Total			5.603		52

*Significant at 1 per cent level

Table No. 7: ANOVA Results for Educational Qualification, Spouse Occupation, and Roles Performed with the Factors of Happiness

Educational Qualification			Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Extrinsic * Educational Qualification	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.044	2	0.022	0.277	0.759
	Within Groups		3.962	50	0.079
	Total		4.006	52
Intrinsic * Educational Qualification	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.373	2	0.187	1.327	0.274
	Within Groups		7.03	50	0.141
	Total		7.403	52
Wl * Educational Qualification	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.145	2	0.073	0.665	0.519
	Within Groups		5.458	50	0.109
	Total		5.603	52
Spouse Occupation
Extrinsic * Spouse Occupation	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.262	4	0.065	0.838	0.508
	Within Groups		3.745	48	0.078
	Total		4.006	52
Intrinsic * Spouse Occupation	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.673	4	0.168	1.199	0.323
	Within Groups		6.731	48	0.14
	Total		7.403	52
Wl * Spouse Occupation	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.053	4	0.013	0.114	0.977
	Within Groups		5.55	48	0.116
	Total		5.603	52
Roles Performed
Extrinsic* Roles Performed	Between Groups	(Comb)	0	1	0	0	0.997
	Within Groups		4.006	51	0.079
	Total		4.006	52
Intrinsic * Roles Performed	Between Groups	(Comb)	0.053	1	0.053	0.367	0.547
	Within Groups		7.351	51	0.144
	Total		7.403	52
WL * Roles Performed	Between Groups	(Combined)	0.019	1	0.019	0.175	0.678
	Within Groups		5.584	51	0.109
	Total		5.603	52

The ANOVA analysis between age and extrinsic, intrinsic and work-life factors of happiness were significant (table no.6). The extrinsic and intrinsic factors are major contributors of happiness for age group 45 and above whereas for less than 25 age group work-life factors are a priority for happiness. The relation of factors of happiness with gender is insignificant. The importance for factors vary based on gender, the extrinsic factors is important for men where else for females intrinsic factors are important. The mean analysis shows work-life issues are important based on highest qualification. The differentiation of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on educational qualification is marginal. The respondents with other qualifications rate extrinsic and intrinsic factors as high whereas work-life issues are ranked high on the happiness scale for PhD holders. However, the ANOVA analysis between educational qualification and each of the factors of happiness is insignificant (table no.7). The factors of happiness were examined for impact with marital status (table no.2). The mean analysis shows that teachers who are married have extrinsic and intrinsic factors of happiness ranked similarly. The Work life balance as a factor of happiness is given more preference by unmarried group than married and widows. The ANOVA analysis between marital status and each of the factors of happiness shows intrinsic and extrinsic have no significant relationship (table no.6).

The employees with unemployed spouses are having higher extrinsic and intrinsic factors influence on happiness. The employees with spouses who are running business have happiness influenced by work-life issues then those as employee or professional or any other. The data on spouse occupation springs a surprise; the employees with unemployed spouse have least influence of work-life issues on happiness. However, the ANOVA results are otherwise and needs further data which is beyond the scope of the present study. The results between happiness and extrinsic, intrinsic and work-life issues find no significant relation.

The factors of happiness were examined for impact with experience (table no.3). The mean analysis shows extrinsic and intrinsic factors of happiness are ranked high for teachers having experience of 14 years and above. The Work life balance as a factor of happiness is given more preference by teachers having a less experience of 2 years or above 14 years of experience. The ANOVA analysis between experience and each of the factors of happiness shows extrinsic and work life balance issues have no significant relationship. But the intrinsic factors are significant at 10 percent level.

The number of children and factors of happiness were examined for priority and the analysis presents work life issues as a factor of happiness is given priority as the number of children requires. However, none of the factors of happiness are significant (table no.4). This is a major variation from the priority. The reasons attributed to working are financial support and share knowledge. The factors of happiness are insignificant with reasons for working. The reason for working is not a significant factor of happiness for teachers. Further it can be established from the study other factors are operating on happiness.

The factors of happiness were examined for impact with who motivated to join this profession (table no.3). The mean analysis shows intrinsic factors of happiness are ranked similarly for self and spouse group. The Work life balance as a factor of happiness is given more preference by any other group and self than others like parents spouse or friends. The priority for happiness with respect to extrinsic factor is high for self followed by any other and less for other motivators like parents spouse and friends. The ANOVA analysis between motivation factor and each of the factors of happiness shows none of the factors have significant relationship.

The factors of happiness were examined for impact with flexibility (table no.5). The mean analysis shows similar result for extrinsic and intrinsic factor. The Work life balance as a factor of happiness is given more preference by teachers having flexibility. The ANOVA analysis between flexibility and each of the factors of happiness shows intrinsic, extrinsic and work life balance have significant relationship.

The factors of happiness were examined for impact with roles performed. (Table no.7). The mean analysis shows extrinsic factors of happiness are ranked similarly for teaching and other roles performed. The Work life balance as a factor of happiness is given more preference by those who perform other roles than teaching. The priority for happiness with respect to intrinsic factor is high for other roles performed than teaching. There is no significant relationship between roles performed and each of the factors of happiness.

CONCLUSION:

The happiness at workplace is derived from all the three factors i.e. extrinsic, intrinsic and work life. The age as a factor of happiness at the work place is a significant factor. The critical age group (35-45 years) where happiness is lower in comparison with other age groups requires measures for improvement in all the factors of happiness. The Organization has to vary the inputs in extrinsic, intrinsic and work-life issues with the increase in the mean age in the organization. The work-life issues are important during the early period of employment and extrinsic are more important at advancing age. Happiness influenced by work-life issues then those as employee or professional or any other and the study confirms Estesand Michael (2005) findings. The data on spouse occupation springs a surprise; the employees with unemployed spouse have least influence of work-life issues on happiness. The possible explanation is the adaptability with work-life issues improves with time. The intrinsic variables priority of spouse is a major motivator for happiness. The reason for higher happiness with work-life for lowest age group stem from lesser life responsibility.

The results show intrinsic factor moves happiness for those performing other roles than teaching. The conclusion upholds that academic teaching derives motivation not from monetary (Sharma, 1986) but from other factors. The self-motivation is a source of happiness for teachers is the conclusion from the study. The teaching as profession is chosen as choice but not chance. The money is an extrinsic factor (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959), the Diener (1984) conclusion that money does buy some amount of happiness is evident from the study. However money is not an end in itself is also evident from the study. The drivers of happiness are not universal (National Happiness Survey Report, 2014), they study found evidence of the changes in the factors based on age, stage of life-cycle and work-life.

The Organization has to create better flexibility for different age groups. The choice of teaching profession is due to flexibility in work aspects, flexibility with intrinsic factors and work-life issues are the reasons for choosing the faculty profession. The experience is influenced by intrinsic factor of happiness. The Organization can improve happiness at the workplace by providing for monetary and in-house facilities suitable to age and experience. The choice of faculty as a profession is due to flexibility and happiness of faculty can be improved by providing flexible timings in the Organization.

Managerial Implications:

The flexibility in terms and conditions for employee happiness is a critical issue for HRM policy making. The future workplace rules shall incorporate ways and means for balancing work-life issues for employee happiness. The intrinsic factors are to be balanced age-wise. The work place happiness is a measure for healthy work environment and practices; the manager needs to create culture where grievances regarding work-life issues are effectively addressed. The stage of life-cycle is linked to monetary, the Organization has to devise wage scheme linked to age and stage in life-cycle.

FUTURE RESEARCH:

The role of spouse in the choice of profession and its relation with happiness is inconclusive from this study. The study outcome was mainly on the work-life issues and flexibility in employment, therefore future studies may be conducted on the former factor. Further in future the study may be enlarged to cover larger sample, other professions and occupations. The inter and intra occupational influence and the level of education as influencer of happiness is niche area for research.

REFERENCES:

1. Andrew, S.S. (2009). The Servant Shepherd: A New Leadership Paradigm for Job Satisfaction and Happiness at the Workplace. In S. S. Sengupta (Ed.), Integrating Spirituality and Organizational Leadership. (pp. 377 –391 ).New York: Macmillan Publishers.

2. Argyle M. (1987). The experience of happiness. London: Methuen

3. Castillo, J. X., and Cano, J. (2004). Factors Explaining Job Satisfaction among Faculty. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(3), 65-74

4. Cropanzano R. and Wright T.A. (2001). When a “happy” worker is really a productive worker: are view and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 53, 182-199

5. D Jessica Pryce-Jones (2010). Happiness at Work: Maximizing your Psychological Capital for Success. Oxford, UK: Wiley

6. David G. Blanchflower and Andrew J. Oswald (2005). Happiness and the Human Development Index: The Paradox of Australia.NBER Working Paper No. 11416, June.Cambridge, M.A.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

7. Devesh Baid, Nageswara Rao S. V. D. (2017). Management Controls of Teachers—Scale Development and Validation. Global Business Review, 18(3), pp. 719 – 733.

8. Di Tella, Rafael, MacCulloch, Robert, and Oswald, Andrew J. (2003). The Macroeconomics of Happiness. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 809-827.

9. Diener, Edward (1984). Subjective Well-Being. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 542-575.

10. Estes, S. B., and Michael, J. (2005). Work-family policies and gender inequality at work: A Sloan work and family encyclopaedia entry. Retrieved on March06, 2017, from http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_ entry.php? Id =1230andarea=All.

11. Furnham, A., and Brewin, C. R. (1990). Personality and happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1093–1096.

12. Harris, K. J., Harris, R. B., and Eplion, D. M. (2007). Personality, leader-member exchanges, and work outcomes. Journal of Behavioural and Applied Management, 8(2), 92–107.Retrieved from http://ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol8/no2/ JBAM_8_2_1.pdf.

13. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd Ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

14. Hudson Resourcing (2005). The case for work/life balance: Closing the gap between policy and practice. Retrieved on March, 20th, 2017 from www.hudson.com.

15. Ito, J. and Brotheridge, C. (2007). Exploring the predictors and consequences of job insecurity’s components. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 40-64.

16. Jawahar and Pegah Hemmasi, (2006).Perceived organizational support for women's advancement and turnover intentions: The mediating role of job and employer satisfaction. Women in Management Review, 21(8), 643-661.doi:10.1108/09649420610712036

17. Judge, T. A., and Watanabe, S. (1994). Individual differences in the nature of the relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67,101–107.

18. Karma URA (2015).The Experience of Gross National Happiness as Development Framework. ADB South Asia Working Paper Series, 42. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

19. Karpin, David (1995).Enterprising nations Reviewing Australia managers to meet the challenges of the Asia Pacific Century. Report on the Task force on leadership and management skills. Canberra: Australian Government publishing Service.

20. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23, 695-706.

21. Lynn M., Snyder C. R. (2002). Uniqueness seeking. In Snyder C. R., Lopez S. J. (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology. (pp. 395-410). New York, NY: Oxford.

22. Myers, D.G., and Diener, E. (1995). Who Is Happy?. Psychological Science, 6(1), 1017-19.

23. Nimitha Aboobaker, Manoj Edward and Pramatha K.P. (2017). Work–family Conflict, Family–work Conflict and Intention to Leave the Organization: Evidences Across Five Industry Sectors in India. Global Business Review, 18(2), pp. 524 – 536.

24. Ololube, N. P. (2005). Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Motivation for School Effectiveness: An Assessment. Retrieved on 20th March, 2017 from http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol182006/ololube.pdf.

25. Seligman (2012). Flourish: A Visionary new Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. New York: Free Press.

26. Seligman, Martin E.P. (2002). Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfilment. New York, NY: Free Press.

27. Sharma, B.R. (1986).Not By Bread Alone. New Delhi: Shri Ram Centre.

28. Shawn Achor (2017).When a Vacation Reduces Stress- and When It Doesn’t. Harvard Business Review South Asia, February-July, 27-28.

29. Sheldon, K. M., and Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need-satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The Self-Concordance Model. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 76, 482–497.

30. Singapore Human Resources Institute (2014).The National Workplace Happiness Survey Annual Report-2014. Singapore: Singapore Human Resources Institute.

31. Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

32. Warr, P. (2007). Work, Happiness, and Unhappiness. New Jersey: Mahwah.

33. Wheaton (1990). Life transitions, role histories, and mental health. American Sociological Review, 55, 209–223.

34. Wong, C.S., Hui, C., and Law, K.S. (1998).A longitudinal study of the job perception-job satisfaction relationship: A test of the three alternative specifications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71,127-146.

Received on 29.08.2017 Modified on 09.09.2017

Asian Journal of Management. 2018; 9(1):251-260.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00038.0