**2. Happiness: societal and organizational perspectives**

Throughout history, happiness has been conceived differently across time and space. For the ancient Greeks, happiness meant virtue, yet dependent on good luck and fortune, or favorable external circumstances. For the Romans, happiness implied prosperity and divine favor, whereas for Christians, happiness was equated with God [31] and, as such, only attainable in the next world. From the age of reason onward, though, authors have been holding the opposite, that is, that the only happiness man can expect to be found on earth [2]. The United States Declaration of Independence of 1776 takes it as a self-evident truth that the pursuit of happiness is an unalienable right comparable to life and liberty [22].

In recent decades, happiness has been the subject of growing attention from various academic disciplines, media, and governments. People's happiness—that is, citizens—has been hailed as the true measure of (societal) progress [32]. The ideal and pursuit of happiness became omnipresent in our daily lives. In the West, happiness is about feeling good; it denotes a preponderance of positive over negative affect and a general sense of contentment or satisfaction with life [5]. Happiness is everywhere: on TV and the radio, in books and magazines, at the gym, in food and diet advice, in hospitals, at work, at war, in schools, in universities, in technology, on the web, in sports, at home, in politics, and, of course, on market's shelves too [33]. This recent and widespread upsurge of public attention to the happiness, which some regard as the "happiness turn" [34], has not been immune to critique. Happiness is more intrinsically appealing and less threatening than competing themes such as sadness, depression, anxiety, stress, or burnout. And, apart from some notable exceptions [33, 35–38], it is probably hard to find anyone against happiness. Happiness haunts our cultural imaginary, and, as such, it is becoming both a contemporary romanticized obsession, a new moral regime, and a political concept [33].

### **2.1 Societal value of happiness: from individual virtue to collective value**

On 19 July 2011, Bhutan sponsored resolution 65/309, "Happiness: Towards a holistic approach to development," adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, inviting national governments to "*give more importance to happiness and well-being in determining how to achieve and measure social and economic development*" [39]. Since then, Bhutan's now-famous "Gross National Happiness" index has been widely heralded as an alternative to gross national product and other conventional measures of prosperity and growth for arriving at policy decisions and measuring progress [5].

On April 2, 2012, the first World Happiness Report presented evidence from the emerging science of happiness for the "*Defining a new economic paradigm: The report of the high-level meeting on well-being and happiness.*" And on June 28, 2012, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 66/281, proclaiming March 20th as the International Day of Happiness to be observed annually. The World Happiness Report is now released every year around this date as part of the International Day of Happiness celebration [39].

### *Happiness, Value, and Organizational Toughness: Three Concepts in Search of a Theory DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107333*

Happiness is typically defined by how people experience and evaluate their lives as a whole [40]. In contrast, well-being is defined as people's positive evaluations of their lives, including positive emotions, engagement, satisfaction, and meaning [41]. Current research on well-being has been derived from two general perspectives: the *hedonic* approach, which focuses on happiness and defines well-being in terms of pleasure attainment and pain avoidance; and the Aristotelian *eudaimonic* approach, which focuses on meaning and self-realization and defines well-being in terms of the degree to which a person is fully functioning [16]. When used in a broad sense, the term happiness is thus synonymous with "quality of life" or "well-being" [42], terms we use interchangeably in this chapter. During the last half-century, happiness, and happiness-related topics, *viz.* (subjective) well-being [16, 18, 23], and life satisfaction [43–45] of individuals and populations, have been the object of independent inquiries across the globe. Questions on happiness—or well-being—have been used in largescale survey studies, such as the General Social Survey in the USA (since 1972), the Eurobarometer in the European Union (since 1974), or the German Socioeconomic Panel (since 1984). In 2006, for instance, the Pew Research Center issued a technical report entitled "*Are we happy yet?*". Based on 3014 telephone interviews conducted in English and Spanish with a representative sample of adults, ages 18 or older, living in the continental U.S. did not look at life events or psychological characteristics but at happiness by demographic and behavioral traits [46]. Afterward, in 2010, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) set up the "*Better Life Initiative: Measuring Well-Being and Progress,*" aiming to evaluate the diverse experiences and living conditions of people and households in all 37 OECD countries. The initiative covers 15 dimensions, including perceived quality of health, subjective well-being, social connections, natural capital, safety, jobs, and incomes [47]. And other supranational organizations such as the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Commission, or global consultancy firms (e.g., Gallup) have all been directing attention—and resources—to the topic of happiness, well-being, or life satisfaction. Consequently, some argue that policymakers and businesses are increasingly making decisions and crafting policies based on such well-being measures [32, 48]. Across the board and the globe, the happiness of individuals is progressively considered *the* true measure of economic, social, and political progress [14, 39].

It comes as no surprise that that developing, testing, and applying multidimensional surveys for subjective measuring happiness have become a focal point in this debate. Discussions on *how to* objectify or measure happiness come in many shapes and colors. Psychologists have long differentiated between an affective (or emotional) component and a cognitive (or judgmental) component of happiness or well-being. However, social conditions for happiness have been studied at the *macro*-levels of nations, *meso*-level of organizations, and *micro*-levels of individuals [42]. Empirical work on happiness uses surveys of people's perceptions of their lives, and the questions vary: "*Generally speaking, how happy are you with your life?*" (i.e., affective component) or "*Generally speaking, how (much) satisfied are you with your life*?" (i.e., cognitive component) [36]. The responses, though not unproblematic, are meaningful and reasonably comparable among various groups of individuals [1]. It should thus come as no surprise that answers vary across nations [42], and according to perceived institutional quality [49], individual freedom [50], socioeconomic status [42], economic freedom [51, 52], social networks [53], housing conditions [54], equality [55], age [56, 57], education [58, 59], or health [60, 61].

### **2.2 Organizational happiness: determinants and implications**

Happiness has become a ubiquitous topic in all societal domains, and organizations are no exception. We live in an organizational society [62]. Therefore, since much of our life is spent in organizations, namely workplaces, concerns abound about whether—and if so, how—happiness relates to organizational life [42]. What is more, the role that employment and workplace experiences play in shaping happiness for individuals has also been under scrutiny [63]. Paid work activities can provide enjoyable activities and a structure for the day, social contact, a means of achieving respect, and a source of engagement, challenge, and meaning [41]. Happiness in the form of pleasant moods and emotions, well-being, and positive attitudes has been attracting increasing research attention [26]. Research suggests that work and employment drive happiness, and happiness makes people more productive [40]. Moreover, the relationship between happiness and employment is deemed as mutually constitutive as it runs in both directions.

Organizational researchers have been generally focused on grasping the ins and outs of happiness at work and, mainly, on making sense of its causes and consequences. Theoretical foundations of this interest are to be found mostly in psychology and economics. In psychology, setpoint theory gained some academic attention before positive psychology—or science of happiness [64–66]—took over in the early 2000s, making inroads into numerous disciplines, including business and management. From a setpoint theory standpoint, individuals are believed to have a fixed setpoint of happiness or life satisfaction determined by genetics or personality, to which they usually return after temporary disturbances due to favorable or unfavorable external events [67]. Differently, positive psychology suggests that unprecedented levels of happiness can be reached as long as ordinary human strengths and virtues such as optimism, kindness, generosity, joy, honesty, originality, courage, empathy, flow, humor, gratitude, resilience, zestful work, and wellness can be nurtured [64, 66]. In contrast, when addressing happiness, economics draws on the importance of life circumstances—mainly on one's income and employment situation—to well-being [1].

Numerous studies have shown that happiness is associated not only with, for example, physical well-being, strong immune systems, longevity, satisfying human relationships, but also with work-related aspects such as effective coping, creativity, productivity, and higher earnings [68]. The notion of happiness—and well-being—at work is becoming increasingly important for organization scholars [25, 26, 69–77]. Research has shown that high levels of well-being at work are good for the organization *and* the employee, as they tend to imply, for example, lower sickness-absence levels, better retention, more satisfied customers [70], and positive work behaviors [41]. Well-being at work not only is desirable as an end in itself, but also can help to produce greater economic productivity [41].

For many years, organizational behavior scholars have studied a number of constructs that appear to have a considerable overlap with the broad concept of happiness, including organizational commitment, job involvement, engagement, thriving and vigor, affect at work, and job satisfaction, the latter being the most central and frequently used concept [26].

Happiness at work includes, but is far more than, job satisfaction. The causes of workers happiness, well-being, positive moods, and emotions are multifaceted. A host of diverse contextual, environmental, and job-related factors has been implicated in this relationship, including low noise levels [78], air pollution [79],

### *Happiness, Value, and Organizational Toughness: Three Concepts in Search of a Theory DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107333*

positive behaviors of the supervisor [80], promotional opportunities, pay and benefits satisfaction, performance appraisal satisfaction, training, and workload [81], workplace health culture [82], employee involvement and participation [83], organizational climate [84], inclusive leadership [85], quality of work life [86], corporate volunteering activities [87], high-performance work systems [88], career success [89], work-life balance strategies [90], corporate social responsibility [91], organizational culture [92], organizational justice [93], organizational trust and organizational support [94], organizational benevolence [95], workplace relationships [96], type of occupation and working hours [97], person-job fit [98], job resources [99], job characteristics (*viz.*, task significance, skill variety, task identity, feedback, autonomy) [100], and meaningful work [101].

Happiness and positive attitudes do not directly result from all these factors but rather from individuals' subjective perceptions, interpretations, and appraisals of those factors. Appraisals, in turn, are to be influenced not just by the objective nature of those constructs, but also by dispositional characteristics, expectations, attributions, and social influence. Happiness at work results from both personal and environmental factors [26]. The existence of any of, or a combination of some of those situational factors, may contribute to individual's positive moods, emotions, and wellbeing at work, but it is insufficient to fully explain it. Research suggests that social and affective influence abound in groups, playing a key role in the positive moods and emotions of their members [102]. The conscious or unconscious process through which individual or group moods, emotions, or behaviors influence the moods, emotions, or behaviors of other individuals or groups is known as emotional contagion [103]. In organizations and workplaces, people do not live in emotional islands. Group members experience moods at work, and these moods ripple out. In the process, these moods influence not only other group members' emotions, but also their group dynamics and individual cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors as well [104].

Happiness is believed to have an impact across multiple life domains, including marriage, friendship, income, work performance, and health [17]. Now, we turn our attention to the potential implications of happiness, and happiness-related topics to work and organizational life. In so doing, we seek to shed light into the potential *value* of happiness to organizations.

Since the 1930s there is a great deal of interest in the relationship between well-being and productivity [105]. The so-called "*happy-productive worker thesis*" [105–107] has long fascinated organizational scholars and practitioners alike. According to this contested [108–110] yet highly popular thesis, all things being equal, happy workers show higher levels of job-related performance behaviors than unhappy workers. In other words, happy workers perform better and are thus more productive than non-happy workers. Unsurprisingly, it almost became a truism to say—or claim—that a happy worker is more productive. Knowing whether happiness promotes productivity has important implications for management and strategies for workplace improvements [105].

A considerable amount of person-level and organizational-level empirical research involving happiness-related constructs and work outcomes suggests that positive attitudes and experiences are associated with beneficial consequences for both employees and organizations [26]. Happy and state positive moods among workers have been positively associated with creativity [111], productivity and profitability [41], job performance [75], organizational citizenship behavior [71], innovative behavior [112], job satisfaction [113], career success [114], efficiency gains and productivity [115], employee or work engagement [116], reduced absenteeism and

withdrawal [117], organizational learning [71], employee retention [118], knowledge sharing [119], cognitive flexibility [120], workplace cooperation and collaboration [121], organizational commitment [122], problem-solving and decision-making [17], intrinsic and extrinsic motivation [123], proactive behavior [124], customer satisfaction, and perceived service quality [125].

What emerges from these findings is that the discussions about the implications of happiness, subjective well-being, or positive affect to organizations and employees has become less a matter of hope, optimism, or wishful thinking, and more about, for example, scales' validity and reliability, levels of analysis (transient experiences, stable person-level attitudes, and collective attitudes) and multiple foci (discrete events, the job, and the organization) [26]. Unsurprisingly, skepticism exists as to whether any of those scales, however complex they might be, can realistically capture the essence and value of happiness. Recognizing its relevance to organizations is not at odds with the accredited difficulty of understanding or measuring it fully. Moreover, the importance of conceptual and empirical research on happiness lies in supplying "eye-openers" to possible connections, controversies, and conflicts between the foundations of well-being at work and its positive outcomes, at both individual and organizational levels. At all levels, there is mounting evidence that happiness is associated with positive and successful valuable outcomes [126]. We turn now our attention to the mechanisms through which product value is created.

### **3. Theorizing value: beyond the triple bottom line**

In modern societies, people look for and buy products—*viz*. goods, services, ideas, information, experiences—to fulfill their needs and desires, providing that these can meet expected or desired value. The absolute, relative, or comparative value individuals ascribe to products can be seen as an appropriate measure of their perceived utility or meaning at different affective or cognitive levels. Accordingly, individuals can distinguish products according to different layers of value, for example, personal, societal (community-level), and environmental (planet-preservation level).

An extensive analysis of traditional theories of value has been performed [30]. This analysis defines value creation as the utility a product can provide to individuals, linked to satisfying their needs and desires [127]. We also focus on the concept of distributed or perceived value of use, defined as the difference between the total value and the total cost of the product. The distributed or perceived value of use may also include experiences, sensations, and mental states. The total cost to the customer comprises all types of costs: financial (price, ability to pay, opportunity cost) and nonfinancial (physical, psychological, and social aspects related to the use of the product, such as accessibility, embarrassment, usability, etc.).

Economic value exists in all types of products. Customers' satisfaction lies at the core of the economic value of a product [128]. For the organization, this value consists of cash flow and/or non-financial profit through effectively fulfilling its mission. There may also be economic value for society, resulting from job creation and wealth growth, as well as economic externalities, which various stakeholders share.

Social value relates to the well-being of individuals, communities, and the environment [129]. Additionally, social value meets basic and lasting needs, such as food, water, shelter, education, and medical services to those in need [129]. However, competing views have been proposed [130, 131]. For these authors, the social value may or may not exist in products. Social value is intertwined with other types of

*Happiness, Value, and Organizational Toughness: Three Concepts in Search of a Theory DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107333*

values. Still, it relates mainly to social impacts, like processes of socialization, social inclusion, equal opportunities, health and/or safety in the community, and the quality of life of the society.

Ecological value is related to the natural environment, biodiversity, sustainability, and protection of the planet. Avoiding a negative ecological footprint has become a general concern since people's quality of life depends on how the products are produced and consumed. However, this type of value may not exist in a product.

The fourth is psychological or transformational value [130, 131]. Since it may also comprise social impact, most scholars tend to equate psychological with social value. However, sociology and psychology have different traditions and objects of study. The subjective concept of value is to be found at the individual rather than at the social level, as it is unwarranted to measure product utility (value of use) collectively [132]. Consequently, the psychological value may resonate at the individual level through attitude and behavioral change. This change happens when products influence, for instance, additive behaviors, healthier or ecological lifestyle, discrimination awareness, change of mentality, openness to new ideas, improved knowledge or new skills, self-realization, self-esteem, or self-efficacy. The potential transformations these products involve may, or may not have any significant social impact, as it frequently occurs with alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. Growing public awareness did not result in reduced consumption, that is, significant behavioral changes. Moreover, similar products may impact persons differently, which is shared with social products and medicines. Thus, if a product may include any psychological value, it should be openly disclosed by organizations.

The separation between products' social and psychological value has been acknowledged [131, 133]. Research suggests that people are mainly self-concerned with the products' values for themselves rather than their particular social value [133]. Studies also indicate that social products appear to be more valuable in people's perceptions. Findings from a survey with more than 800 university students in Portugal suggest that tobacco, mobile phone, Internet, libraries and museums, schools/education, foster care, domiciliary support, and disability support services are perceived to impact their life more significantly than their social environment [133]. In sum, individuals may acknowledge four types of product value, illustrating the tetrad-value theory. All products have economic value, and many of them also have ecological, social, and psychological values. Now, we turn our attention to the concept of organizational toughness, discussing its connections, tensions, similarities, and differences with close allies, such as plasticity or resilience.

### **4. Organizational toughness: beyond resilience, flexibility, and plasticity**

Organizations are critical players in modern societal landscapes, facing multiple risks (e.g., financial, strategic, technological, market, competitive, reputational, environmental, political, and economic). However, if organizational risks are to be fully understood, then the systemic risks related to the possibility of occurring a pandemic, terrorist threats, revolutions, natural disasters, or strikes in sectors of activity that immobilize one's business should also be taken into account. Systemic risks may hamper organizations' production for at least two other reasons: (1) Governments can adopt preventive laws aiming at protecting workers from contagion or physical damage and (2) disturbances across value chains or infrastructures and facilities. These adverse situations call for novel preventive management behaviors,

requiring alternative approaches to organizations' survival strategies. In the context of the COVID pandemic, unplanned and untested organizational solutions have been adopted to keep up with the production of goods and services.

Organizational approaches to risk, plasticity, and resilience, that is, corporate coping mechanisms with turbulence, uncertainty, and complexity, coalesce around the concept of organizational toughness [30]. This concept emerged from a particular stream of management research, which draws on four properties of materials studied in physics to explain business phenomena: resilience, flexibility, plasticity, and toughness. First, resilience is defined as the ability of a material to absorb energy when it is deformed elastically, a combination of strength and elasticity [134, 135]. Second, flexibility is defined as the ability of an object to bend or deform in response to an applied force [136]. Third, plasticity is defined as the ability of a material to undergo irreversible or permanent deformation without breaking or rupturing [137–139]. And fourth, toughness relates to the capability of materials to absorb energy or withstand shock and plastically deform, without fracturing, as a combination of strength and plasticity [30]. Thus, during uncertain and turbulent periods, the comparative advantage of the concept of Organizational Toughness is that beyond (organizational) resilience, flexibility, and plasticity, and it captures the possibility of organizations to evolve and become different and better adapted to the future uncertainty. As the theory of material properties suggest, toughness combines plasticity and strength. Thus, by analogy, the concept of Organizational Toughness includes the concepts of Organizational Plasticity and Organizational Strength. The concept or organizational toughness evolved from the literature, as extant ideas were unable to represent what was taking place to organizations adequately during the pandemic period [30].

Therefore, Organizational Toughness is represented by two other constructs: organizational plasticity and organizational strength. Organizational plasticity also includes two constructs: staff preparation and structure adapted to change. In turn, the former presents, as manifest variables, staff flexibility, competencies, and motivation, while the latter includes strategic planning, leadership, and market-oriented organizational learning. Organizational strength comprises internal and external availability of resources as manifest variables [30]. Next, these extant constructs and concepts are described.

Organizational plasticity relates to organizational adaptability, flexibility, or agility. The idea of plasticity has been introduced to specify how organizations define their strategic planning [140]. The concept of plasticity has its roots in psychological approaches, emphasizing different reactions that individuals present to similar circumstances [137, 140–142]. The link between agile thinking and organizational plasticity development [138, 143] enhances strategic agility or organization plasticity [144]. Organizational change can be seen as the combination of organizational agility and resilience, resulting in the ability to respond to fast and/or disruptive changes in the market and sustain future organizational success [134]. In this context, human resource flexibility is an essential dynamic organizational capability [145–147], which is studied *via* three components: employee skills, employee behavior, and human resource practices [148]. These variables positively impact organizational performance [147, 148] when organizations face new environment situations.

Competencies and motivation add to staff flexibility. Skilled and motivated workers can adjust their behaviors more quickly to new activities or situations [145, 149]. Competencies can be defined as a set of capabilities, skills, knowledge, experience, and effort that can result in higher levels of performance [150]. Employees' competencies are critical to developing flexible or agile organizations [151, 152], as well

*Happiness, Value, and Organizational Toughness: Three Concepts in Search of a Theory DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107333*

as employees' adaptability [153], flexibility [147], and agility [154]. A broad set of workers' competencies helps organizational adjustment to changes in the market or the environment [147].

Nevertheless, competencies are only meaningful if employees experience wellbeing and are motivated to change and act [75, 112, 123]. A turbulent or disruptive situation can lead to demotivating factors such as fear or loss of income. Neuroscience and psychology suggest that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations shape work plasticity and behaviors [138, 155, 156]. Skilled employees may lack the behavioral motivation to change [146]. Better disposal of their competencies, practical activities, rewards, and recognition may improve employees' motivation. Moreover, workers need to be embedded in an organization with a structure adapted to change; otherwise, their skills, motivation and flexibility could thwart.

In the scope of an organizational structure adapted to change, "*Strategic planning is critical to developing adaptive and/or innovative processes between the organization's resources and capabilities and its market objectives, opportunities and threats*" [150] (p. 175). Strategic agility is the capability of an organization to continuously adjust the strategic direction and develop innovative ways to create value [157]. This dialectic approach is essential to a balanced strategic plan, which tries to predict a roadmap for the organization to achieve its goals and objectives and tries to forecast a contingency plan to deal with uncertainties and unexpected events. In this context, leadership is crucial to developing a strategic plan. Organizational survival becomes facilitated when the leadership is well adapted to diverse situations and the situational workers' context [150].

From a behavioral plasticity standpoint, research shows that ethical leadership is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior and negatively associated with deviant behaviors [158]. Agile-thinking leaders may predict and analyze environmental problems and more easily cope with them, using different and innovative approaches [138]. They should promote workers' flexibility, agility, and adaptability to handle a changing and unpredictable business environment [159]. Market-oriented organizational learning is also crucial in any context [150]. This strategic approach is based on a strategic plan that promotes learning at all levels, individual, collective, and organizational. Organizational learning is a process by which organizations learn through interaction with their environments [160], creating knowledge capital through four activities [161]: (1) constant challenge to the organization's practices and beliefs, reflecting an attitude of openness of mind; (2) formal and informal commitment to learning and training; (3) sharing a vision; and (4) practices related to information research, experimentation, and innovation. These practices are also based on behavioral plasticity [162]. These characteristics should be market-oriented to produce successful organizational outcomes [161], namely in dealing with environmental turbulence [163, 164]. Thus, an organization needs an effective information system (generation, dissemination, analysis) with inter-functional coordination to respond to market turbulence and unexpected events [161]. An organization that presents flexible strategic planning and leadership that fosters market-oriented organizational learning can achieve competitive advantage and be more successful in the face of all market changes.

In sum, the construct of Organizational Plasticity is bracketed with two other ideas: (1) "Structure adapted to change" and all types of contingencies [134, 165], which calls for a versatile and agile leadership [159], flexible strategic planning to timely develop adaptive and/or innovative processes [150, 157], and market-oriented organizational learning [162–164]; and (2) "Staff preparation" that is based on

workers' flexibility [145, 147], competencies [151, 152], and motivations [155, 156]. As such, Organizational Plasticity is defined as the ability of an organization to change irreversibly and permanently its strategic approach to the markets to survive and/or grow under different environmental conditions (adaptability) and pressures (flexibility) and be able to timely and effectively (agility) react to threats and proactively seize opportunities [30].

Organizational Strength relates to organizations' ability to obtain internal and external physical, human, intellectual, and financial resources [166, 167] and capabilities [147, 148, 168], which are dependent on the environment [169], and transforming them into products with economic value [30, 159]. All resources should be planned for easy access, preventing unexpected problems. It is also important to assess organizational resource flexibility, considering the possibility of using the resources differently and transforming or combining them to apply in different situations [166, 168].

New scales were developed, tested, and validated to measure these variables in the Portuguese clothing sector, one of the most affected during the COVID pandemic [170]. Moreover, this empirical study shows that the construct of Organizational Toughness and its components—Organizational Plasticity and Organizational Strength—present a statistically significant impact on the Economic and Social Sustainability of the organizations. However, it was impossible to discriminate between Staff Preparation and Structure Adapted to Change. Nevertheless, all the variables of these two aspects contribute to the construct of Organizational Plasticity. Results show that all the predicted variables are essential to organizational survival and success: flexible strategic planning, company leadership, learning quickly with the context to be more adaptable to the market, high workers' competencies, motivation, and flexibility, and internal and external availability of resources.

Thus, organizations should prepare the logistics of their resources to continue producing, avoiding, for instance, just-in-time strategies. The companies' owners or managers should develop an organizational culture that considers a market-oriented perspective to learn how to be close to the clients' needs in any environment. Survival and success require flexible strategic planning, adjusted leadership, and effective personal recruitment and training that properly comprehends the needed competencies, motivation, and flexibility to address turbulent times or unexpected events.
