**1. Introduction**

*For centuries the contemplation of this desire [happiness] was the exclusive preserve of philosophers and theologians, who speculated and offered prescriptions on 'the good life' [1].*

Learned men have been writing about happiness since antiquity [2]. In ancient Greek, *eudaimonia* emerged as the most popular proxy word to happiness, next to a constellation of closely related terms such as *eutychia* (lucky), *olbios* (blessed; favored), and *makarios* (blessed; happy; blissful) [3]. In every Indo-European language, the modern words for happiness, as they took shape in the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, are all cognate with luck. For instance, there is the Old French *heur* (luck; chance), *root of bonheur* (happiness), and *heureux* (happy); and the Portuguese *felicidade*, the Spanish *felicidad*, and the Italian *felicità*—all derived ultimately from the Latin *felix* for luck (sometimes fate) [4]. Etymologically, the term happiness has originated from the Middle English and Old Norse word "*happ*," suggesting chance, that is, happiness would be whatever would happen to someone. Only later, the concept of happiness became also associated with luck and fortune, implying that happiness—that is, being *fortunate*—was then conceived as dependent on events outside human control [4]. Currently, the term is popularly defined as a state of well-being, contentment, and a pleasurable or satisfying experience (Merrian-Webster). Etymology, however, can be misleading because it reflects a socially embedded, contextual, and historical set of commonly accepted beliefs rather than a comprehensive body of scientific knowledge on a specific topic or domain. Definitions in dictionaries are useful interpretative devices for common usage, but they cannot be seen as guiding mechanisms for scientific inquiry. Moreover, such an etymological definition of happiness seems to involve distinctive sets of fundamental assumptions about what constitutes happiness as a reality (ontology) and how to make sense of it (epistemology). On the one hand, it portrays happiness as a state, that is, an attained—or attainable—emotional, mental, or psychological condition. On the other hand, it also depicts happiness as an experience, that is, a gratifying process toward a specific desired state. In this chapter, we argue that the separation of the happiness state (what is) from the happiness process (reaching it) is conceptually unwarranted, artificial, if not flawed or misleading.

The idea of happiness—however, is defined in its specifics—makes a claim about what is most desirable and worthwhile in a person's life [5]. However, happiness has been regarded as an elusive, contested, incomplete, and fluid concept, just like it has been deemed a much-sought value, aspiration, desire, possibility, expectation, and even a right or entitlement. How people conceive of, evaluate, and pursue (or not) happiness can reveal much about who they are, how and for what they live, and the values they hold dear in a particular context [5]. What is more, throughout history, the concept of happiness has been subject to different interpretations. For instance, in ancient Greece, in the fourth century B.C.E., happiness was seen as an activity of the soul that expressed virtue, whereas the Romans later claimed that happiness is a function of the will, not of external forces, conveying an alternative view on human agency [4]. In the eighteenth century and the values of Enlightenment, the belief in the intimate association of virtue ("mother") and happiness ("daughter") was widely shared [4]. The cultural environment created by the Enlightenment promoted an intellectual shift toward the valuation of earthly matters and a reduced commitment to Christian staples such as original sin, making it legitimate to seek happiness and avoid unhappiness [6]. After hundreds of years of Christian emphasis on the afterlife, Western culture started to envision the ideal of human existence predominantly in the earthly realm [7]. What is more, it was also in the eighteenth century that new middle-class work ethic came close to arguing that work should be a source of happiness [6].

Happiness has been influenced by a multitude of sources, including religion, politics, culture, philosophy, and even arts. Unsurprisingly, happiness has been the subject of growing attention from various academic disciplines, including history and anthropology [5, 8, 9], philosophy [10–12], sociology [13–15], psychology [16–18], psychiatry [19–21], economics [22–24], and management [25–27]. Each discipline's different theoretical, conceptual, and methodological approaches to systematically examining happiness, its antecedents, nuances, consequences, and its ongoing pervasiveness account for its conceptual richness rather than its weakness.

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

The concept of happiness is thus amenable to be understood from different theoretical standpoints, none of which has been able to set or claim any moral, ethical, or disciplinary superiority over any other. For instance, some argue that since the study of happiness necessarily draws together considerations of meaning, values, and affect, it strikes a chord at the very heart of the anthropological endeavor. What is more, anthropologists have long recognized that people are generally happiest in those moments when they feel most connected to others [5], suggesting that happiness cannot be thought of as absolute and independent value but as intersubjective and relational. Consequently, happiness is not just one thing; it is polysemic and multifaceted. It means different things in different places, societies, and cultural contexts. As such, there may be no unambiguously single pursuit of happiness but, rather, multiple "pursuits of happiness" [8].

In this contribution, we seek to shed light on a more particular debate, which is especially relevant for organizational scholars: how does (individual) happiness connects to value creation and organizational toughness, and *vice versa*. Organizational scholars are particularly interested in multilevel phenomena happening within and across organizations. Organization studies can be seen as an interdisciplinary academic domain interested in contextualized individual and collective activity and how this relates to organizations, organizing, and management. Relying heavily in insights from major social-sciences disciplines, organization studies look at organizations and organizing as psychological, social, economic, cultural, political, historical, and philosophical phenomena. As organizational scholars, we are particularly interested in investigating topics that are endemic to organizations (e.g., strategy, structure, management, resources, policies, or procedures) and how these aspects affect individual and group behavior, relationships, beliefs, feelings, performance, and outcomes [28, 29].

In this context, economic value creation lies at the heart of modern human societies' quest for survival. It is through value creation that many human needs and desires are satisfied. Economic value is found in any product that fulfills those needs and wants. In this chapter, a product is conceived as a vehicle for representing any good, service, idea, experience, or information that, having economic value, can be traded in specialized markets. A product is something of value to at least two parties, and, as such, it can be sought and offered by people, groups, or organizations. As we will elaborate further, in addition to economic value, a product may also have social, ecological, and psychological value.

The third construct presented in this chapter is organizational toughness [30]. It has been proposed as a high-order concept that includes other related constructs such as organizational plasticity and strength. Organizational toughness points to the corporate ability to accommodate and adapt to social and natural forces. Thus, a fundamental question arises as to how the happiness of individuals, the creation of value, and organizational toughness can mutually impact each other, eventually contributing to a happier society.

This chapter is organized as follows. First, we provide a brief historical, conceptual overview of happiness from the standpoint of organization studies. Second, we sketch out a theory of value that acknowledges non-fungible or intangible properties, or conditions, which seems particularly suited for discussing how happiness resonates in or through organizational life, creating value. Then, we present the concept of organizational toughness, discussing its connections, tensions, similarities, and differences with close allies, such as plasticity or resilience. Finally, we present a model suggesting the conceptual relationship between the three constructs and their

possible constitutive nature. We conclude by shedding light on future avenues for research regarding this triplet.
