**1. Introduction**

At all times, the main vector of human efforts in life is aimed at achieving and maintaining happiness as the highest experience of positive emotions. The state of happiness is experienced by a person in different ways depending on his personal characteristics and life circumstances: from getting a piece of bread that allowed him to stay alive to a complex set of characteristics: positive self-esteem, sense of control over what is happening, openness to the world and experience, optimism, positive social connections, a sense of meaning, and purpose in life [1, 2]. Due to the fact that happiness has such an incomparable value in human life, the phenomenon of happiness has been actively studied from the time of ancient philosophy to the present day, and the potential of these studies is enormous. Questions concerning the nature of happiness, its types, its connection with morality, personal development, efficiency, and self-efficacy have continued to be topical for centuries. A relatively independent topic is the integrative nature of happiness, which depends on the satisfaction a person receives in different types of activities. Thus, even Aristotle noted that different goods are necessary for human happiness; only a combination of different goods forms the basis of human happiness. Until recent decades, most people were engaged in routine, often simple, and hard physical labor, and the problem of happiness in labor did not seem relevant. The results of labor could provide the worker and his family with the benefits that could determine their experience of happiness and, consequently, awaken a person to work more, to develop his competences for a greater reward for labor. In the first third of the twentieth century, industrialization increased the requirements for personal and professional growth of the worker, his creativity aimed at improving the increasingly complex professional activity. Labor becomes for workers a relatively independent sphere of self-realization. All the necessary components of experience of happiness can be found in it: from positive selfesteem to life meanings and goals. A. Adler pointed out three major spheres of human life where a person can achieve success in order to achieve happiness. These are love, friendship, and work. In recent years, company management and researchers in the field of organizational development and human resource psychology have increasingly focused on well-being in the workplace. The use of the concept of well-being rather than happiness is understandable due to the fact that work is only a part of life and only working people, although it is certainly possible to meet people who are happy because they are happy in their work activities. Efforts are made to improve the quality of working life, and often quite costly programs are introduced. Management's efforts to improve the quality of life of employees have not only a humanitarian component, but also an economic one. Business does not just need an employee who cannot yet be replaced by a machine, but a person who voluntarily and independently, based mostly on intrinsic motivation, builds up and realizes his intellectual, creative, and social potential for the benefit of the company's development in external and internal turbulent conditions. This is facilitated by a number of changes taking place in the economy in connection with its globalization and the onset of a new technological mode of Industry 4.0.

Globalization in economic development has led to the fact that, since the works of D. Robb, G. Hamel, L. Valikangas, management considers the problem of companies' efficiency in the conceptual apparatus of viability, which consists of their successful development in the long term under the conditions of manifold turbulence. A viable organization is able to maintain competitiveness with an advantage over time. It achieves this by delivering superior performance, innovating effectively, and adapting to rapid and turbulent changes in markets and technology. Company viability has a multilevel organization, from financial, technological, organizational, and environmental to the psychological resilience of employees [3]. One of the key conditions of enterprise viability is psychological resilience of personnel, which is the ability to maintain its functions without the development of distress in the changing and uncertain conditions of internal and external environment [4, 5].

### *Subjective Well-Being at the Workplace as a Social Action: Opportunities for Management… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106595*

There are many reasons for the development of distress in employees of modern companies. The perception of threats to a company's viability is increasingly expanding. These include traditional (financial, natural, geopolitical, legal, and physical security risks) and new risks: cyberattacks, innovation, communication channel problems, intellectual property protection, dramatic shifts in consumer tastes, activation of nontraditional competitors, and more recently, pandemic and escalating political tensions. The advent of the new technological mode of Industry 4.0 leads to the formation of new threats and challenges to personnel, including high levels of unemployment, because along with the robotization and digitalization of the economy, a sharp reduction of jobs and much less creation of new ones are possible [6]. Companies are facing the need to introduce innovative production and management technologies, and this introduction is happening at a rate that often exceeds the adaptive capabilities of the employee. There is a growing need for personnel who not only have specific functional professional competences, but who are psychologically ready for technological and managerial innovations, stress-resistant, involved, developing together with the company, taking personal responsibility for continuous qualification improvement in the company, and for self-education [6–8]. Characteristics of in-demand personnel are steadily associated with a young chronological age, so the existing age stereotypes are serious factors in increasing the level of anxiety, worry, and stress among a significant part of employees, reducing their well-being in the workplace [9–11].

There is a growing awareness of the lack of focus on threats. Technological and managerial innovations, on which Industry 4.0 is based, are not a threat, although they create many risks, cause tensions, increase turbulence in the external and internal environment of companies. They are a necessary condition for increasing productivity, competitiveness, and consequently, the viability of the company. The threat is a company's lagging behind in the global innovation process.

The management of companies is far from always able to effectively solve the problem of the company's transition to a sustainable innovative format of development. This is confirmed by the data on Russia's position in the Global Innovation Index. It ranks 45th in the quality of human capital, within 29th place, and only 56th in innovation-related performance [12]. These data show that there are serious managerial barriers that prevent the strengths of companies' personnel from manifesting themselves. Russian enterprises on the average lag behind their foreign competitors in terms of labor productivity by 2–3 times [13]. Labor productivity can be increased only at the expense of growth of innovativeness of economy. Psychological resilience of the personnel in the conditions of implementation of innovations becomes especially significant factor of organizational development.

In Russia, in comparison with the countries traditionally developing in a market economy, there is a set of socio-psychological factors that increase the stressogenic nature of the ongoing innovative transformations, reducing the well-being of the personnel. A significant part of Russians is still far from fully adapting to the change in the paradigm of socioeconomic development from command-administrative to market-innovative and remains committed to the socialist principles of state protectionism. The pension reform created new contradictions between the state and the population, employers and employees, between different generations of workers. The demand for continuous professional development and personal responsibility for the development of one's professional competence is at odds with the habit of waiting for an order from above regarding the need to train new competencies in the traditions of the administrative-command model of the economy, which persists in managerial practices to the present day.

Understanding the importance of human well-being in the workplace has brought to life a new trend in human resource management—the creation of a well-being culture [14]. In the Manifesto of the World Economic Forum in Davos, it is directly noted that A company treats its people with dignity and respect. It honors diversity and strives for continuous improvements in working conditions and employee well-being [15].

The pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in company bankruptcies across businesses, increasing competition at the level of using innovative technology and attracting the best staff. The British Standards Institute (BSI) 2021 report notes that in 2020, for the first time since 2017, the viability of companies declined. There has been a realization of the need for a greater focus on people. The report indicates that prioritizing the health, safety, and well-being of employees, customers, and communities has had a positive impact on restoring organizational resilience [16].

At the same time, F. Herzberg [17] showed the specificity of supporting (hygienic) and motivating factors in labor activity. If we understand well-being as quality of working life, then it can only be a hygienic factor if it does not incorporate motivating influences. On the other hand, many people do not wish to complicate labor and expand responsibilities, which are characteristic of innovation and which, according to F. Herzberg, are the key motivating factors. Significant in understanding is the absence of expressed stress or its acceptable level for work and preservation of health. In conditions of external and internal turbulence, stress is considered to be the main factor reducing the level of psychological resilience of personnel, destroying their ability to cope with the challenges of the new technological order. The most important criterion of culture well-being is the subjective well-being (SW) of the personnel. The notion of subjective is significant in the sense that it emphasizes the possibilities of individual emotional differences in the perception and experience of the organizational and managerial contexts in which the subject of labor is located. At present, we are talking about SW in a highly turbulent environment, that is, in stressogenic conditions that are, at first glance, not compatible with SW. Resistance to innovation may weaken only if the staff for one reason or another will want to work in such conditions, and this, in turn, means that employees will experience positive feelings up to and including pleasure, rather than irritation and even fear, anticipating the next innovations.

The problem of maintaining the viability of companies and personnel is extremely relevant: in the United States and Europe, the first standards for company viability have already been created. Approaches to the prevention and reduction of stress in the workplace are being developed, including standards of stress management to its acceptable level, principles of intervention, and training of individual viability [18–21].

Personnel security is certainly important from the point of view of humanization of management and quality of working life in general, but in the context of the problem of viability of the company is not an end in itself, but only a factor that contributes to the psychological resilience of staff in the context of innovation. The following research questions become relevant:

