Abstract Well-being seems to have many positive effects. We hypothesize here that the demonstration of well-being, as perceived in everyday life in the professional setting, meets the main criteria defining a social norm and, thus, a normative status may be assigned to it. A norm is mainly characterized by the fact that 1) it has a positive social value, and 2) the evaluated individuals are aware of this positive value. Four groups of employees responded to a well-being questionnaire, each group being faced with one of the paradigms usually employed to demonstrate this value assignment and its awareness. The participants in the first group (30 hierarchical managers), when confronted with the legislator's paradigm, were asked to indicate whether they appreciated (or not) a subordinate showing the behaviors proposed in the questionnaire; the employees without hierarchical responsibility (3 groups of 30 participants) were confronted with the self-presentation paradigm under 1) neutral order (group 1), that is, having to indicate with complete sincerity whether they were used to adopting (or not) the described behaviors; 2) super-normative order (group 2), responding in such a way as to be, in their opinion, appreciated by their superior; 3) counter-normative order (group 3), that is, responding in such a way as to be frowned upon by their superior. Our hypothesis was validated: hierarchical managers expect their subordinates to show well-being and employees are aware of this expectation, showing well-being both spontaneously and to give a good impression.

Resumen El bienestar parece tener numerosos efectos positivos. Establecemos aquí la hipótesis de que la manifestación del bienestar percibido en la vida de todos los días, dentro del ámbito laboral, responde a los principales criterios que definen una norma social, pudiendo atribuírsele entonces un estatus normativo. Una norma se caracteriza esencialmente: 1) por ser socialmente valorizada y 2) porque los individuos evaluados son conscientes de tal valorización. Cuatro grupos de empleados han respondido a un cuestionario de bienestar. Cada grupo fue confrontado a uno de los paradigmas habitualmente utilizados para demostrar esta valorización y toma de conciencia. Los participantes del primer grupo (30 cuadros jerárquicos) fueron confrontados al paradigma del legislador, debiendo indicar si apreciaban (o no) que un empleado adoptara los comportamientos propuestos por el cuestionario; los empleados sin responsabilidad jerárquica (3 grupos de 30 participantes) fueron confrontados al paradigma de la auto-presentación bajo consigna: 1) neutra (grupo 1), debiendo indicar con total sinceridad si ellos estaban acostumbrados (o no) a adoptar los comportamientos descriptos; 2) sobre-normativa (grupo 2), respondiendo de manera de ser, según ellos, apreciados por su superior; y contra-normativa, esto es, respondiendo de manera de ser mal vistos por su superior. Nuestra hipótesis ha resultado validada: los cuadros jerárquicos esperan de sus subordinados que manifiesten bienestar y los empleados son conscientes de esta expectativa, manifestando su bienestar tanto espontáneamente como para dar una buena imagen.

Three modes of salary distribution have been advanced by distributive justice theoreticians: equality, equity, and need. This study is part of a broader research whose first part has already been published. In that first part 480 employees from Buenos Aires , Argentina, were asked to advise their managers on the amount of a premium to be distributed among their subordinates, considering, with regard to equity, the performance of these subordinates, their degree of adherence to certain discriminatory orders, and the reasons of this adherence/rebellion. These subordinates were characterized by their performance and one of them was defined as obedient (or disobedient) and as being in financial need (or not). The results showed that the most productive employees received the largest premiums, rebellious ones were penalized, and obedient ones were rewarded in an identical manner. The second part, which is discussed here and is based on the same sample, examined the advisors' responses to 3 complementary questions about the importance ascribed to performance, need, and obedience. Factorial ANOVAs show that advisors are rarely aware of these criteria, especially performance and economic need.

En la justicia distributiva se establecen 3 criterios para el reparto salarial: igualdad, equidad y necesidad. El estudio forma parte de una investigación mayor, cuya primera parte fue publicada. En ella se pedía a 480 empleados de Buenos Aires, Argentina, que aconsejaran a sus managers respecto del monto de una prima a repartir entre sus subordinados, considerando, para la equidad, el desempeño y la adhesión a determinadas órdenes discriminatorias y las razones de tal obediencia/rebeldía. Los empleados eran presentados según sus resultados y uno de ellos era individualizado por ser (o no) obediente y por tener (o no) necesidades económicas. Los resultados mostraron que los empleados más productivos eran los que recibían primas más altas, los empleados rebeldes eran penalizados y los obedientes eran recompensados de manera idéntica. La segunda parte, que es abordada aquí sobre la misma muestra, consistió en examinar las respuestas de los asesores a 3 preguntas complementarias sobre la importancia otorgada al desempeño, necesidad y obediencia. Los análisis de varianza factoriales muestran que los asesores raramente son conscientes de tales criterios, especialmente del desempeño y de la necesidad económica.