Thriving at Work
Every factor researchers have brought together to explain thriving at work, combined from 1 study models into one ranked driver set — the model the priority engine reasons over.
8 drivers · 1 contributing models · Handbook entry →
§1The drivers, by consensus
Ranked by how many independent models include each driver (consensus), then pooled effect. “In N of 1” is a robustness signal — a driver in many models is one many researchers agreed matters; a driver in one is a single lead worth following.
| Driver | Consensus | Pooled r | Grade | Heterogeneity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job Satisfaction | 1 / 1 | +0.64 | A | — |
| Work Engagement | 1 / 1 | +0.64 | A | — |
| Perceived Organizational Support | 1 / 1 | +0.63 | A | — |
| Proactive Personality | 1 / 1 | +0.58 | A | — |
| Burnout | 1 / 1 | −0.53 | A | — |
| Positive Affect | 1 / 1 | +0.52 | A | — |
| Psychological Capital PsyCap | 1 / 1 | +0.47 | A | — |
| Task Performance | 1 / 1 | +0.35 | A | — |
“Pooled r” is the meta-analytic prior where one exists; drivers marked study-reported have a model but not yet a pooled prior — a concrete acquisition target. This is the value-of-information view in miniature: the priority engine can rank which driver to measure first by consensus, strength, and how much is still unknown.
§2The models it’s built from
Each contributing study model — the researcher’s theory of this outcome — with its size and grade, so the meta-model is auditable back to its sources.
| Source study | Predictors | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| doi:10.1002/job.2375 | 8 | A |