ArticlePDF Available

Strength-based performance appraisal and goal setting

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Many supervisors and subordinates hate performance appraisal exercises. Moreover, the benefits of performance appraisals for organizations are questionable. To address these challenges, we participated in the development of an alternative Strength-Based Performance Appraisal (SBPA) and a goal setting process, considering ideas both from performance appraisals practitioners and from Positive Psychology scholars. SBPA emphasizes learning from success stories using the Feedforward interview [Kluger A.N. and Nir D., 2009. The feedforward interview. Human Resource Management Review 20,235–246.], reflected best self [Roberts L.M., Dutton J.E., Spreitzer C.M., Heaphy E.D., Quinn R.E. 2005. Composing the reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work organizations Academy of Management Review 30(4),712–736], finding new ways to use existing strengths (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005) and a win–win approach (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). However, SBPA does not avoid negative feedback; it constrains it for prevention-focus behaviors, where it appears to be effective in increasing motivation and performance [Van-Dijk D. & Kluger A.N. 2004. Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regulatory focus? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(1), 113–135]. Following an elaboration of the theoretical rationale of SBPA, we describe a case study of applying SBPA at SodaStream (formerly Soda-Club), coupled with an initial evaluation of its impact. We conclude with lessons learned from the first implementation, followed by a call for replications.
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Strength-based performance appraisal and goal setting
Osnat Bouskila-Yam
, Avraham N. Kluger
1
School of Business Administration, The Hebrew University-Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel
article info abstract
Many supervisors and subordinates hate performance appraisal exercises. Moreover, the
benefits of performance appraisals for organizations are questionable. To address these
challenges, we participated in the development of an alternative Strength-Based Performance
Appraisal (SBPA) and a goal setting process, considering ideas both from performance
appraisals practitioners and from Positive Psychology scholars. SBPA emphasizes learning from
success stories using the Feedforward interview [Kluger A.N. and Nir D., 2009. The feedforward
interview. Human Resource Management Review 20,235246.], reflected best self [Roberts L.M.,
Dutton J.E., Spreitzer C.M., Heaphy E.D., Quinn R.E. 2005. Composing the reflected best-self
portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work organizations Academy of
Management Review 30(4),712736], finding new ways to use existing strengths (Seligman,
Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005) and a winwin approach (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). However, SBPA
does not avoid negative feedback; it constrains it for prevention-focus behaviors, where it
appears to be effective in increasing motivation and performance [Van-Dijk D. & Kluger A.N.
2004. Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regulatory focus? Applied
Psychology: An International Revie w, 53(1), 113135]. Following an elaboration of the
theoretical rationale of SBPA, we describe a case study of applying SBPA at SodaStream
(formerly Soda-Club), coupled with an initial evaluation of its impact. We conclude with lessons
learned from the first implementation, followed by a call for replications.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Feedforward
Feedback
Performance appraisal
Positive psychology
Goal setting
1. Strength-based performance appraisal and goal setting
Human Resource (HR) managers frequently lead performance appraisals in their organization, hoping to provide a variety of
benets (e.g., improved performance, creating an opportunity for superiorsubordinate communication, data for personnel
decisions, and more, Coens & Jenkins, 2000). Yet, the putative benets of performance appraisals are questionable (Smither,
London, & Reilly, 2005). Indeed, performance appraisals could even be destructive (Coens & Jenkins, 2000). To overcome the
potential destructive elements of performance appraisal, we developed and implemented, in collaboration with HR managers, a
Strength-Based Performance Appraisal (SBPA) by capitalizing on Positive Psychology (Seligman et al., 2005). Specically,
borrowing from Positive Psychology, we applied in the SBPA the following six tools and principles: Feedforward, which is based on
Appreciative Inquiry (Kluger & Nir, 2009), reected best self (Roberts, Dutton, et al., 2005), developing strengths (Seligman et al.,
2005), happiness research (Fredrickson, 2001), a ratio of 3:1 between positive and negative (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), a win
win approach (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986), and increasing collective efcacy (Bandura, 2006). These tools and principles were
integrated into an SBPA at an Israeli multi-national corporation SodaStream. First, we describe the SodaStream challenge
pertaining to performance appraisal and review how universal that challenge is. Next, we elaborate on the principles and tools that
guided the development of the SBPA. Following this, we report on the processes of implementation, and then we describe the SBPA
process ow. Lastly, we report on an initial evaluation of managers' and employees' reactions to the process, ending with a discussion.
Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 137147
Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 54 6884198(Cellular), +972 8 8691668(Home); fax: +972 8 8691668.
E-mail addresses: osnat.yam@mail.huji.ac.il (O. Bouskila-Yam), Avraham.Kluger@huji.ac.il (A.N. Kluger).
1
Tel.: +972 2 5881009(Ofce), Tel.: +972 2 6422361(Home); fax: +972 2 5881341.
1053-4822/$ see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.001
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres
Author's personal copy
2. Performance appraisal challenge
2.1. The performance appraisal challenge at SodaStream
SodaStream is the world's largest manufacturer, distributor and marketer of home water carbonation systems, operating in
more than 30 countries worldwide. Six years prior to our involvement with SodaStream, the HR department implemented a
performance appraisals process whose goals were a) to clarify company expectations b) to provide feedback to the employees on
their performance and set expectations accordingly, and c) to identify employees' weaknesses and challenges as a basis for a
development plan. The process ow comprised the following three stages: First, the managers lled out a performance appraisal
questionnaire. Second, the subordinate lled out a self-evaluation questionnaire. Third, the manager held an evaluation meeting
with the subordinate in which they discussed three strengths, three weaknesses, goals and an action plan for the next year.
Five years after implementing the process and after personnel changes in the top management team (TMT), the HR department
sought to design a new performance appraisal process. In preparation, they established two focus groups with 24 supervisors and
subordinates. Seasoned employees and newcomers alike responded to questions regarding performance appraisal (either at
SodaStream or at their previous workplace). Among the questions were: Did you get feedback from your manager, either at
SodaStream or at your previous workplace? How did the feedback affect your work at SodaStream? Do you think it is essential to
have a performance evaluation process? What are the conditions that can make a performance evaluation process a success?
Results suggested that managers did not provide feedback to their employees at SodaStream (we don't receive feedback from our
managers). The majority of the employees described unpleasant experiences in their previous workplace regarding feedback (it
is a stressful period, the feedback meeting is a conict meeting, it was devastating; the process was a waste of time;
feedback equals criticism and it is not nice) and a minority described positive experiences (managers dare to tell me things only
during feedback meeting; I had a dialog with my manager and I understood his expectations). Most of the participants in the
two focus groups thought that it is crucial to have a performance appraisal process (without feedback, it is as if you are navigating
without a compass). They suggested that the following conditions have to be met for the process to succeed: a) positively
energize employees b) follow-up on the process c) raise employees' motivation d) make it short and simple.
Informed by the focus group results, an HR manager at SodaStream wished to implement a different performance appraisal
process, one which would not replicate the many problems identied in the focus groups. Consequently, she hired the authors,
along with a performance appraisal systems provider, as consultants to help design and implement such a process. The process
reported here was implemented with 26 managers and 64 employees for a total of 90 participants out of 700 employees in the
organization. Next, before describing the SBPA, we review the evidence with respect to problems with performance appraisal,
which shows that SodaStream is not alone in having to confront them.
2.2. The performance appraisal challenge: SodaStream is not alone
The experience in SodaStream is by no means unique. People in many organizations are dismayed by performance appraisals,
as indicated by the titles of at least three books that suggest putting an end to performance appraisals: Abolishing Performance
Appraisals (Coens & Jenkins, 2000), Catalytic Coaching: The End of the Performance Review (Markle, 2000), and Performance
Conversations: An Alternative to Appraisals ( Lee, 2006). The numerous problems with performance appraisals can be
summarized as follows: Performance appraisal does not lead to performance improvement, and performance appraisals destroy
relationships in organizations.
Note, however, that our review pertains to the typical performance appraisal in organizations and to the typical prevailing
practices. There are other extensive approaches to performance measurement and feedback that invest considerable effort in
identifying causes of performance success prior to constructing a feedback instrument. Such systems could yield large
performance gains exceeding one standard deviation, and these effects appear to depend on the constructive nature of the
feedback provided by the supervisor (Pritchard, Harrell, DiazGranados, & Guzman, 2008). Such an approach resembles ndings in
the domain of teaching evaluations. Specically, teaching evaluation does not appear to improve performance, unless coupled
with extensive instructor training (Marsh & Roche, 1997). Thus, we are not arguing that performance appraisals in general are not
effective, or even destructive. We do, however, argue that the typical performance appraisal, which is not accompanied by other
interventions, is ineffective and even destructive. Below, we review the quantitative evidence.
The practitioners claim regarding the typical performance appraisal, namely that performance appraisal does not deliver
performance gains, is substantiated with quantitative data. A meta-analysis of 24 longitudinal studies, which were based on a total
of 7700 employees, showed that improvement in ratings over time is generally negligible (Smither et al., 2005). Specically, the
average time between appraisals was a year, and the (negligible) improvement in rating (uncorrected but weighted d-statistics)
was 0.12 for feedback from direct reports, 0.04 for feedback from peers, 0.10 from supervisors, and 0.04 for self feedback.
Additional quantitative data raise a general question about appraisals:
The risks associated with implementing a 360-degree system can be illustrated by Watson Wyatt's 2001 Human Capital
Index (HCI). This is an ongoing study of the effects of HR practices on the stock value of more than 700 publicly traded
companies. One particular result was especially alarming. Of the companies surveyed, those that had implemented 360-
degree feedback had lower stock value! Specically, the companies that used peer reviews had 4.9% lower market value than
did similar companies that did not implement peer reviews. Furthermore, companies that implemented upward feedback,
138 O. Bouskila-Yam, A.N. Kluger / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 137147
Author's personal copy
where employees rated managers, had a 5.7% lower stock value than did similar companies that did not implement upward
feedback. Does this necessarily mean that implementing 360-degree feedback systems causes the stock price to decrease?
Based on the data collected, there is no denitive answer to this question. It could be that organizations that are not
performing well nancially decide to implement 360-degree feedback systems precisely to help improve their performance.
Nevertheless, these results highlight the importance of following best practices in implementing 360-degree feedback
systems in order to avoid any negative consequences of implementing such a system. (Aguinis, 2009, p. 194)
These nancial data are consistent with the multiple reports regarding the consequences of performance appraisals for
relationships in the organization. Among the relationship outcomes, practitioners count destruction of appraisersubordinate
relationships, fostering gamesmanship, undermining team work, and lowering morale (Coens & Jenkins, 2000; Markle, 2000).
These observations are consistent with much earlier observations of academicians who noted that presentation of negative
feedback to subordinates is an unpleasant task and one that supervisors tend to avoid (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979, p. 360). As a
result managers tend to distort negative information (Ilgen et al., 1979).
These relationship outcomes are thought to be the result of several false and untenable assumptions. One key false assumption
is that performance appraisal helps to develop those being appraised. Specically, organizations often espouse a desire to manage
according to McGregor's (1960) Theory Y The belief that workers can naturally enjoy work if given the freedom to express their
creativity and imagination. Yet, organizations typically put performance appraisal responsibility on the appraisers. This act reects
the application of Theory X The belief that workers despise work and, thus, must be controlled and coerced. Another false
assumption is the belief that individuals' behavior, and not the team's performance, largely determines organizational success. In
Peter Scholtes words: We live our lives in webs of interdependence and yet we keep telling ourselves the story that were
independent (Coens & Jenkins, 2000, p. 33). Therefore, Coens and Jenkins (2000) conclude that even though many managers are
doing their best to apply performance appraisals with a humane and considerate approach, these untenable assumptions will
repeatedly breed organizational problems. These problems can be solved only with a radical approach (including abolishing
performance appraisal) to attain the goals for which organizations currently employ performance appraisals.
Unlike the idea of abolishing performance appraisal, we sought to piggyback on a routine that is deeply ingrained in many
organizations and use the platform to work with different assumptions. That is, we sought to develop a system that is more Theory
Y in its nature, invites collaborative evaluation of the strength of the subordinate and collaborative planning in how to apply these
strengths into goal setting.
3. Tools and principles informing the design of SBPA
In negotiating our mission with TMT at SodaStream, we dened several goals for SBPA. First, SBPA should serve the
organization towards improving its performance and business result. Second, it should focus on employee's strength, yet without
neglecting problems. Third, it should reect the double meaning of appreciation: (a) valuing; the act of recognizing the best in
people or the world around us, afrming past and present strengths and potentials; to perceive those things that give life (health,
vitality, excellence) to living systems, and (b) to increase in value, (e.g., as stocks might appreciate in value). Finally, it should allow
the organization to document the process for creating organizational memory and knowledge through a web application. To
achieve these goals we applied seven tools and principles (Feedforward, reected best self, happiness research, developing
strengths, the 3:1 ratio & winwin approach) which are described next.
3.1. Feedforward
The Feedforward Interview (FFI) is a multi-purpose interview protocol designed to enhance employee performance and
improve collaboration between supervisors and subordinates (Kluger & Nir, 2009). That is, FFI may address the two key
shortcomings of the typical performance appraisal: it might build, rather than destroy, relationships in the organization while
supporting performance improvement. The FFI is a theory-based modication of the Appreciative Interview component of the
Appreciative Inquiry theory and method (Bushe & Kassam, 2005; Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987; Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2003).
Among the unique features of FFI are elicitation of a specic story regarding a full of life experience at work, a reection on the
emotions involved, an analysis of the facilitating conditions of that story, and a feedforward question comparing one's behavior or
plans to the just-discovered facilitating conditions. FFI emphasizes gleaning a detailed story from the interview (use of episodic
memory), supporting the discovery of a winwin story, actively listening to the interviewee, and triggering a discrepancy between
the internal standard for optimal conduct at work and one's behavior and plans (Kluger & Nir, 2009).
The FFI protocol (for a detailed protocol see Kluger & Nir, 2009) contains ve elements:
(1) Introduction: I am sure that during your work here you have had both negative experiences and positive experiences.
Today, I would like to focus only on your positive experiences.
(2) Story: Could you please tell me a story that happened at your work, during which you felt full of life (happy, energized),
even before the results of your actions became known?
(3) Peak: What was the peak moment of this story? What did you think at the peak moment? How did you feel at that moment
(including your physiological reactions)?
139O. Bouskila-Yam, A.N. Kluger / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 137147
Author's personal copy
(4) Conditions (learning; inquiry): What were the conditions, in you, others, and the organization (physical, temporal) that
allowed this story to happen?
(5) Feedforward question: Recall the conditions that allowed you to feel alive at work. Consider these conditions as road signs
or a beacon that shows you how to ourish at work. To what extent are your current behaviors at work or your plans for the
immediate future taking you closer to, or further away from, the conditions that allowed you to feel full of life at work?
The FFI was successfully used before a typical performance appraisal and was shown to yield new insights for the interviewing
managers and to reduce resistance to performance appraisal and to 360° feedbac k from consultants (Kluger & Nir, 2009). Moreover, in an
experimental testing in a laboratory setting, FFI was shown, in one experiment, to increase the positive mood of the interviewees and
perception of learning relative to a control group. In another experiment, FFI was shown to increase, relative to participants in a feedback
condition, (a) ideas regarding possible actions an interviewee can perform to achieve a personal goal and (e) self-efcacy (Rechter, 2010).
3.2. Reected best self feedback (RBSF)
The RBSF (Roberts, Dutton et al., 2005; Roberts, Spreitzer, et al., 2005) is based on a strengths-based approach (Buckingham &
Clifton, 2001) that suggests that real excellence is a function of uniqueness. People excel when they understand their unique
patterns of strengths and learn how to broaden and expand these strengths and talents. Most personal development processes in
organizations, are based on a decit model (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). According to this decit model a person's
area of weakness is their greatest area of opportunity. Roberts, Spreitzer, et al. (2005) argue that this decit model might diminish
people's chances of making their greatest contribution, performing at their best or achieving the sense of well-being that arises
from an integrated sense of you at your best. As opposed to the decit model, the strength-based approach to personal
development assumes that progress toward excellence is not a function of improving on weaknesses, but is a function of building
on one's strengths (Roberts, Spreitzer, et al., 2005). According to the strength-based approach, weaknesses should not be ignored,
but managed by nding someone else to do the tasks one does poorly, or by developing weakness to an acceptable level of
performance. Parenthetically, we think people can cope with weakness (see the 3:1 principle below). Based on this orientation,
Roberts, Spreitzer, et al. (2005) designed the RBSF exercise. The exercise comprises three steps: request RBSF, analyze it, and build
on it. Specically, the rst step is the request for feedback on you at your best from 10 to 20 signicant people (best-self
stories). The second step is analyzing the best-self stories to compose the reected best-self portrait. Finally, participants build on
the previous steps to identify goals and develop action plans.
3.3. Happiness research
The happy/productive link thesis has fascinated organizations and researchers for decades (Kluger & Tikochinsky, 2001
). This
fascination led to massive research of the relationship between happiness, hope, optimism, resilience, well-being and success
across multiple life domains, including marriage, friendship, income, work performance, and health. Meta analytic results suggest
that happy people are healthier, more sociable, and perform more creatively than unhappy people, and that the causal direction
runs both ways such that the happy/productive link exists not only because success makes people happy, but also because positive
affect engenders success (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). Whereas positive mood or happiness might not be a panacea for all
performance issues (there might be tasks for which negative mood make people more accurate), at the very least positive mood
appear to make people more creative and more open, show less job withdrawal behaviors, earn higher income and display more
organizational citizenship behavior (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). For example, the median correlation between positive affect and
various work outcomes is 0.29 for cross-sectional studies (K= 19; N=34,794), and the median correlation between experimental
induction of positive mood and creativity is 0.30 (K=34; N =2707). In parallel with these empirical ndings, some of the links
between positive mood and performance are explicated by the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001). According to
broaden-and-build theory, positive emotions signal safety and ourishing, which allows investing in playful behavior that in turn
assists one to discover new behavioral repertoires. Therefore, in SBPA there is an emphasis on generating positive mood, but with
no neglect of issues that might trigger negative emotions to some degree (see the 3:1 ratio principle below).
3.4. Developing strengths
An empirical investigation of several methods designed to increase happiness and decrease depression (Seligman et al., 2005)
suggested that two one-week exercises were especially effective in increasing happiness and reducing depression even up to six
months after the exercise. These exercises were (a) writing down three good things that happened each day and why they
happened, and (b) nding each day a new way to use one's signature strengths (strengths identied by answering a web-based
strength survey). These results were found largely among individuals who spontaneously persisted in performing their assigned
exercise after the one-week of experimental intervention.
3.5. The 3:1 principle
In devising this principle, we were informed by optimal ratio of positive and negative emotions (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005),
by the theory that positive experiences increase willingness to accept negative but useful feedback (Trope & Neter, 1994; Trope &
140 O. Bouskila-Yam, A.N. Kluger / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 137147
Author's personal copy
Pomerantz, 1998) and by self-regulation theory (Higgins, 1997) and research about feedback sign effectiveness (Van-Dijk &
Kluger, 2004; Van Dijk & Kluger, 2010). Specically, happy people do not only experience positive emotions. In fact, happy people
tend to have an average ratio of 3:1 (more accurately a mean of 2.9:1) of positive to negative emotions (Fredrickson & Losada,
2005). A mathematical theory applied to this ratio suggests that with ratios greater than 11:1, the system might disintegrate
(Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). Some small amount of negative emotions appears to support human ourishing. Second, it was
shown that people who were rst exposed to positive mood induction were more capable and willing to learn about their own
negative aspects (Trope & Neter, 1994; Trope & Pomerantz, 1998). A similar idea is supported by research on self-control and ego
depletion, which suggests that to be able to perform an aversive behavior (e.g., process negative feedback), we might need to nd a
way to replenish resources beforehand (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007). This might be made possible by being exposed to a 3:1
principle.
Finally, positive feedback seems capable of increasing performance that is driven by the promotion regulatory focus, while
depressing performance driven by the prevention regulatory focus (Van Dijk & Kluger, 2010). Specically, Van Dijk and Kluger,
applying the t principle (Higgins, 2000) of self-regulation theory (Higgins, 1997), rstly demonstrated that some tasks (e.g., tasks
requiring creativity), are perceived as promotion tasks, whereas other tasks, (e.g., those requiring vigilance and attention to
details), are perceived as prevention tasks. Second, as expected, they showed that, relative to negative feedback, positive feedback
increased self-reported motivation (Study 1) and actual performance (Study 2) among people working on promotion tasks.
Negative feedback, however, increased motivation and performance among individuals working on prevention tasks, relative to
positive feedback. This suggested that the 3:1 principle should not be blindly applied, rather the bulk of the positive intervention
should be directed to promotion behaviors such as creativity, initiative, creating new products and markets, etc., whereas the
negative feedback should be directed at prevention behaviors such as adhering to safety rules, orderliness, and punctuality.
In advocating the 3:1 principle, we recommend considering negative feedback for prevention behaviors. This is a departure
from recent practices of Appreciative Inquiry and other techniques informed by Positive Psychology. In so doing, we take a
balanced view that considers the perils of ignoring the negative aspects of performance (for a book review see Hayes, 2009) and
the dangers of using the positive as a manipulation (Fineman, 2006).
3.6. Winwin approach
Several models in the eld of negotiation suggest that people in conict have two independent foci of concern: oneself and the
other (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, 1974). Negotiators who are only concerned with their own benets might seek
a winlose solution, whereas negotiators who are only concerned with the welfare of the other might agree to a losewin solution.
The eld of negotiation highly recommends the effortful search for a creative winwin solution that demonstrates full dual
concern (both for oneself and for the other). This principle was applied in SBPA in two ways. First, the principle of winwin is
embedded in FFI in that it seeks stories in which both the process and the outcome were benecial for the storyteller (for further
details, see Kluger & Nir, 2009). Second, the winwin principle was embedded in the SBPA in the goal setting procedure.
Specically, managers were instructed to design goals for their subordinates that would simultaneously address their unit
business goals (the interests of the company and the supervisor) and enable expression of subordinates' strengths in a manner
that would promote the subordinates' well-being. They were also encouraged to seek such win
win ideas from their subordinates.
For example, a subordinate who is an engineer and who indicated that he enjoys imposing order on chaotic processes in the
corporation suggested that one of his goals for the next half year would be to create a cross-functional team composed of
marketing and product design personnel that would take responsibility, with him being responsible for production, so as to
coordinate currently chaotic processes that lead to miscommunication. If this activity would be deemed to address a business
need, it would be a winwin goal setting because both the natural skills that the engineer enjoys using and the business needs
could be realized.
3.7. Positive organizational core and collective efcacy
The last principle that guided us is that the SBPA should confer organizational benets. At the organizational level, we thought
to create a shared mental model of the causes of current success of the organization. This idea is consistent both with practitioners'
and researchers' ideas about the importance of intervening at the organizational level. Specically, in Appreciative Inquiry an
effort is being made to discover the positive core of the organizations (Ludema, Whitney, Mohr, & Grifn, 2003). Raising awareness
of organization-wide strengths and building the organization's capacity and resilience is also consistent with the concept of
collective efcacy (for a review see Bandura, 2006). Thus, the aggregated results of SBPA should be shared not only with TMT, but,
at least, with all involved in the SBPA process.
4. SBPA processes of implementation
Informed by the above theoretical considerations, we developed the SBPA process to address SodaStream's concerns. The SBPA
contains the following six stages: 1) The supervisorsupervisee meeting, which includes success stories told by the subordinate
using the FFI (Kluger & Nir, 2009), and enthusiasm stories that are told by the supervisor about the subordinate using the reected
best self (Roberts, Dutton, et al., 2005); 2) Filling out questionnaires by both the subordinate and the supervisor, and preparation
of reports to be used by the supervisor; 3) A second supervisorsupervisee meeting, involving a strength-based evaluation
141O. Bouskila-Yam, A.N. Kluger / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 137147
Author's personal copy
discussion where the supervisor and subordinate nd new ways to use existing strengths, and agreement on goals using the win
win approach; 4) Creating an organizational map of strengths; 5)Staging a party to celebrate the process and the strengths; 6)
Implementing a follow-up process. Below, we trace the development of the SBPA and describe its process ow in detail.
4.1. Building partnerships
The SBPA process in SodaStream was made possible thanks to the TMT partnership. After the HR team became enthusiastic
about the idea of implementing the SBPA process, we proceeded to earn TMT engagement and partnership, as they are the main
change agents. The authors and the HR team held FFI with the CEO and other TMT members in a one-day session. The reactions
were mainly positive. The positive features of the SBPA, according to the TMT, are: (a) A focus on the positive, which they wanted
to enhance at SodaStream; (b) A revolutionary approach to management as a whole that focuses on building from strength and on
believing that cynicism can be overcome; (c) Energizing employees to be at their best for their own benet and for the benetof
the company as a whole.
Nevertheless, the TMT had some concerns that they requested us to address in the nal product to be presented for their
approval. Their concerns were: (a) The process requires management and listening skills that are not possessed by all supervisors;
(b) Filling out a questionnaire after FFI has the potential to ruin the positive spirit created by FFI; (c) The process might be too long;
(d) Managers and employees might learn to cynically invent stories.
We modied our proposed SBPA. First, we offered training to all managers and subordinates who eventually participated in the
process. This addressed the need to train managers in listening and interviewing skills. Moreover, observing others become open
and honest about their own desires and aspirations for happiness in the workplace reduced cynicism of all involved. Second, we
separated the process into two meetings with the supervisor, where the rst meeting was dedicated only to stories and creating a
good atmosphere. Finally, we consulted with the managers over several drafts to determine the best way to create a user-friendly
questionnaire. These modications were approved by the TMT.
4.2. SBPA process ow
The SBPA process consists of six main steps, as follows:
1) The rst step is the rst supervisorsubordinate meeting, which comprises two parts. In the rst part, the supervisor uses the
FFI protocol to interview the subordinate about their best experience in the workplace (even if it was at a previous workplace).
After the interview, the subordinate is asked to write down the conditions that allow him/her to be at his/her best. In the
second part of this rst meeting, the manager provides a RBSF, that is, the manager is asked to tell the subordinate a short story
regarding an aspect of work that made the manager appreciate, feel enthusiastic about and be impressed with the subordinate.
Specically, managers were instructed to Recall a specic event in which you were enthusiastic about your employee. Recall
details such as: What happened? What specically impressed you? etc. Next, the managers were instructed to say to their
subordinate: I'm going to tell you about an event in which I was especially enthusiastic about you/your work. I would like to
ask you to listen to the event and allow yourself to enjoy it without playing down your contribution. Moreover, managers were
instructed to emphasize the most signicant part of the story.
2) The second step entails lling out a web-questionnaire (Appendix A). The subordinate is the rst to ll out the questionnaire,
starting with keypunching the facilitating conditions found in the FFI. Once these conditions are keypunched, the supervisor
gets an alert from the system and can answer the supervisor version of the questionnaire. The supervisor is also asked to
document briey the stories reported in the rst meeting (the FFI and RBSF stories). Both subordinate and supervisor
questionnaires focus on the conditions that allow the subordinate to ourish in the workplace. The subordinate and the
supervisor evaluate how crucial was each of the conditions for facilitating the story told in the FFI, and how prevalent are these
same conditions at present. Following FFI related questions, additional closed-ended questions regarding 12 desired
SodaStream values, such as courage in business, are assessed both by the subordinate and the supervisor on two scales: To
what degree were each of these values expressed in the FFI and in the RBSF stories? and To what degree are each of these
values currently expressed in your work?. Both subordinates and supervisors are requested to review discrepancies between
how strengths were expressed in the stories and how they are expressed at work. They are asked to consider strengths that
existed in the stories but are currently missing from their work, and to suggest means to regain those strengths in their work.
They are also asked to consider the strengths that are emphasized in the stories, and to think of novel ways of applying them at
work. In addition, they are asked to consider a single behavior that must be avoided in the future.
3) The third step is the strength-based evaluation discussion and agreement on goals. In this step, the supervisor receives an
integrated report from the web system and prepares for the second meeting with the subordinate. In this meeting, the
supervisor holds a discussion with the subordinate designed to expand the expression of the subordinate's strengths in the
workplace. In preparation for this meeting, we offered another round of training on strengths, dealing with how to develop
strengths and how to develop a winwin approach to goal setting. Specically, we rst suggested that managers nd at least
three ways to increase the strengths of their subordinates. We explained the logic of RBSF (Roberts, Dutton, et al., 2005)
according to which, people act in the world on the basis of their self perceptions and thus, the more expansive and positive the
self perception (construct) of the subordinates, the more they will believe that they could and should do at work. Thus, we
emphasized both the personal benet for the subordinate in terms of well-being, and the business benet in terms of improved
142 O. Bouskila-Yam, A.N. Kluger / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 137147
Author's personal copy
performance. One way to increase strengths is to consider how, with joint managersubordinate responsibility, to recreate the
work conditions that the subordinate needs to ourish, to nd one or more ways of using an existing strength in a novel way
(Seligman et al., 2005), and by correcting the subordinate's poor self-perception when the supervisor notices much better
expression of values or conditions than the subordinate is aware of. For example, if the subordinate reported that s/he does not
show creativity, yet the supervisor sees that s/he does in fact do so quite frequently, we recommended that the supervisor tell
the subordinate about an event or situation in which the subordinate expressed creativity to a much greater degree than s/he
reported. Finally, in cases where the supervisor saw that the subordinate made exaggerated claims of strengths, the supervisor
was recommended to support these claims by recalling an example, no matter how rare and minor, in which the strength was
expressed. For example, a subordinate who overrated his/her management skills could be told: I saw how well you organized
a farewell party. I would like to consider with you how we can expand this skill to other activities here. Second, we offered
managers the 3:1 principle, whereby after discussing at least three strengths, they could address one weakness. In this way, we
maintained the focus on strengths without neglecting the problems or prevention goals.
4) The fourth step is creating an organizational picture of its positive core, based on the comprehensive information gathered from
the web-based questionnaires. The main purpose of the picture is to highlight the organizations' strengths as well as one area
for improvement. Building collective efcacy in the organization is a similar process to that of enhancing the individual's
strengths. It involves: (a) Expanding utilization of the organization's strengths in new ways; (b) Identifying existing strengths
that are not recognized by most members of the organization; (c) Reinstating strengths that are currently not in use. The
picture of the organization is presented rst to the TMT and then to all subordinates and supervisors as part of the next step in
the feedforward party.
5) The fth step is the feedforward party, which is a celebration of the best stories in the organization. In this step, HR invited the
some 120 subordinates/supervisors (including newcomers) and their spouses to an evening dinner party. Prior to the event,
the HR manager asked the SBPA participants to send in their most touching stories. During the party, stories from FFI and RBSF
were shared in a celebration of all that is positive about SodaStream.
6) The sixth and nal step will occur after six months. The supervisor will hold a follow-up discussion with the subordinate to
assess the status of goal implementation and the degree to which the subordinate's strengths are being better expressed at
work. Note that at the time of writing this report, only the rst ve steps were completed.
5. SBPA: An initial evaluation
Two interns (undergraduate students) interviewed 50 subordinates, asking the following open-ended questions: To what
degree did the SBPA: (a) Increase your awareness of the conditions that allow you to ourish at work? (b) Improve your feeling at
work? (c) Direct you toward improving your performance?. The interns then sorted the responses into several categories and
reported the percentages of subordinates whose answers matched the categories. (Note: Given that responses were open-ended
and could include more than one category, the sum of the percentages could exceed 100%). In addition, we solicited TMT reactions
to both the SBPA process and to the organizational picture of a positive core (Step 4 above).
5.1. The impact of SBPA on the subordinates
The most common responses to the questions regarding the impact of SBPA on the subordinates were: a) Having quality time
with supervisors and receiving a positive evaluation (37%); b) Focusing on strengths (19%); c) Benetting from goal setting and
learning from experience (16%); d) Better matching of competencies to assigned tasks (5%). Nineteen percent responded that it
was too early to evaluate the process.
In addition to questions regarding the impact of SBPA, the interns asked about the satisfaction of the subordinates from using
the web-based questionnaire. The majority found it to be user-friendly, as the most frequent response was that it was appropriate
(31%), helped to focus (17%) or helped to deepen understanding (17%), whereas a minority thought it created an overload (15%) or
even became an interference (8%).
5.2. The impact of SBPA on the organization
The most common responses to the questions regarding the impact of SBPA on the organization were: a) Increased the level of
empowerment, motivation and performance (49%); b) Established an infrastructure for setting expectations and goals (19%); c)
Improved communication that allows better understanding of the subordinates' needs (12%); d) Focusing on the positive
improved the organizational culture (9%); e) Improved collaboration (7%). Only a small minority of subordinates thought that
SBPA had no effect (7%).
Although the subordinates found SBPA useful, both personally and organizationally, the supervisors reported informally to the
HR department that they found it hard to use the web-based questionnaire. The work with the web-based questionnaire burdened
supervisors because they had to enter the system for their own evaluation as a subordinate as well as for each of their
subordinates. Therefore, the HR department will seek in the future ways to streamline the questionnaire while still being able to
accrue the benets of documentation and creation of an organization-wide view of strengths.
143O. Bouskila-Yam, A.N. Kluger / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 137147
Author's personal copy
5.3. TMT reactions to SBPA and to the organizational picture of a positive core
In a meeting with TMT, we solicited their reactions to both the SBPA and to the aggregated map of strengths at SodaStream.
TMT noticed that SBPA puts a demand on their time as it requires of them not only to meet each subordinate but also to spend a
signicant amount of time in preparing for these meetings (some of which have more than 10 subordinates). At the same time,
TMT indicated that SBPA had many benets, among which two were especially signicant: (a) SBPA contributed to building
relationships with their subordinates, a task that is crucial for their future business success, but one that without SPBA would have
been somewhat neglected; and (b) SBPA raised employees' levels of motivation and energy. Consequently, as some TMT members
indicated, the atmosphere in the corridor has changed since the SBPA process, and a positive shift in motivation and energy was
felt.
When we presented the TMT the aggregated data regarding their organization-wide strengths, we highlighted several areas of
strengths, one strength was apparent in the stories (feedforward and appreciation from the supervisor) but currently less
expressed at work, including strengths which were rated very high both as prevalent in the stories and prevalent in current
practices, and one strength that appeared relatively weak both in the stories and in its current expression at work (see the
Appendix for content areas that we considered). TMT immediately recognized the areas of strengths as reecting their own
organizational culture. At the same time, TMT members were dismayed with their weakest area of strength. They have recognized
that the weakest area of strength as being the strategic issue they must face internally to achieve their ambitious business goals.
Therefore, they have committed to a new round of SBPA to be dedicated to exploring when and how they best expressed their
weakest strength.
In summary, most employees found that SBPA had a positive impact both personally and for their organization. They were
engaged during the training process and felt that the current process is better than the previous one. Supervisors and TMT found
the process demanding of their time but crucial for building relationships and increasing motivation and rich in strategic
implications.
6. Discussion
6.1. Commitment of TMT
One key factor in enabling the adoption of SBPA was TMT commitment. This commitment was secured by inviting TMT to
experience rsthand the benet that they might accrue from being interviewed by FFI and from hearing appreciation stories from
others. That is, rather than trying to convince TMT to change the nature of performance appraisals and to acknowledge the benets
of SBPA, we had them feel what it might be like to be involved with SBPA. Specically, we taught FFI in a TMT meeting and had all
experience it. Next, one of the authors interviewed all key decision makers in the company, including the CEO. In a second TMT
meeting, we had each member tell each other member a short story about an occasion when they were impressed by the other.
These experiences were somewhat strange at rst, but uplifting for most participants. This converted some key TMT players from
being skeptics to being advocates for the change.
6.2. Are the managers capable of implementing this process?
Both HR and TMT questioned whether the typical supervisor is sufciently skilled in interviewing with FFI. Obviously, there are
signicant individual differences in terms of skill and experience. Hence, our position is that even if only half the workforce
benets from a good SBPA process, the company as a whole will benet from it. Having said that, in reality, we saw that the
skepticism about the supervisors' abilities failed to take into account their personal strengths. One supervisor, who HR had thought
would not be cooperative, decided to celebrate the rst supervisorsubordinate meeting by inviting each subordinate to meet with
her for the interview during work hours in a coffee shop. While this may be less than ideal for the FFI interview, it created a positive
buzz in the organization, and several colleagues were quick to adopt the same idea. Another supervisor, who was very skeptical
and even antagonistic during training, eventually interviewed his staff. This culminated in one of his subordinates leaving his ofce
trembling and crying in disbelief, saying that it is the rst time in three years that this supervisor ever asked her anything about
herself. Thus, our view is that while it is true that indeed some supervisors are ineffective at conducting SBPA (just as many do a
poor job at performance appraisal or avoid it altogether), SBPA is still a much more user-friendly process for the supervisor.
Moreover, the skills and personal strengths of many supervisors are underestimated. Once they experience a benet to their own
work life, many supervisors are capable of offering the benet to their subordinates.
6.3. Voluntary basis
From the outset, we suggested, and HR and TMT agreed, that SBPA might not suit all employees, and some might strongly resist
it in one way or another. Therefore, we proposed that SBPA will not be mandatory and that supervisors or subordinates who do not
cooperate will be allowed to opt out. This was meant to send a message that SBPA can be truly benecial to participants and that
we believe that most will want to participate voluntarily. In practice, most employees (81 out of 90) participated in the process.
However, we discovered that although the rst managersubordinate session was welcomed, the web-based questionnaire and
the second managersubordinate session were perceived by supervisors to be too time-consuming. To encourage managers to
144 O. Bouskila-Yam, A.N. Kluger / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 137147
Author's personal copy
complete the process, HR distributed little hourglasses as a reminder and placed posters in the corridors. In retrospect, it seems
that streamlining the documentation process is highly desirable.
6.4. SBPA as a practical management tool applying insights from positive psychology
Positive Psychology has become a strong trend in academia in the past decade, and its relevance to management is explored by
many management scholars (e.g., the Positive Organizational Scholarship group convened by researchers at Michigan University).
Our SBPA takes advantage of these conceptual and empirical developments, and offers a practical tool that is based on Appreciative
Inquiry (Bushe & Kassam, 2005) and FFI (Kluger & Nir, 2009), RBSF (Roberts, Dutton, et al., 2005), exercising existing strengths,
broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), the 3:1 principle (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), a winwin approach (Pruitt &
Rubin, 1986), and collective efcacy (Bandura, 2006).
6.5. FFI
The FFI (Kluger & Nir, 2009) was offered as a tool to be used prior to performance appraisal, or as a replacement for
performance appraisal. It can also serve as a tool for conducting selection interviews, assessing customer satisfaction, team
building and strategy development. This case study demonstrates that FFI can become part of an organizational routine and can be
embedded with other tools to develop an HR package. Likewise, FFI may be embedded in other HR practices, for example, in
existing selection processes to provide an insight into the applicant's inner motivations, abilities and skills.
6.6. Goal setting
SBPA is coupled with goal setting, which is one of the most potent tools available to managers (Locke & Latham, 1990). Yet
recently, a debate has been raging as some scholars have suggested that goal setting might backre by narrowing focus to neglect
non-goal areas, distort risk preferences, lead to unethical behavior, inhibit learning, corrode organizational culture, and reduce
intrinsic motivation (Ordonez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009). Although Locke and Latham have shown that the
problem is not in the goal setting per se, but in poor management (Locke & Latham, 2009), our SBPA shows the possibility of
addressing the concerns raised by Ordonez et al. (2009). The SBPA design is based on a winwin principle that seeks to nd out
what makes people ourish while attaining business goals. This is likely to bring about an expansion of the focus in the
organization, and cause managers to consider the well-being of subordinates while fullling their own responsibilities. In this way,
SBPA can promote more ethical behavior, create a more open organizational culture, and increase intrinsic motivation. Thus, it
seems that SBPA may benet from the known effectiveness of goal setting, while building a context that can be especially useful
both from the point of view of the individual employee and from that of the organization and its stakeholders.
6.7. Replication
The SBPA has received only preliminary evaluation, and it might not be suited to every organization. Therefore, we recommend
that the adoption of SBPA should be planned with HR and TMT, accompanied by a pre-planned evaluation of its outcomes, and
should implement lessons learned from previously conducted processes. Specically, what appears to be crucial in the successful
implementation of SBPA is the securing of TMT support through an invitation to experience rsthand the benets of various tools
adopted from Positive Psychology (e.g., FFI and RBSF). In addition, careful attention should be paid to balancing the organizational
need for documentation with the supervisor need for time. Finally, once several organizations adopt SBPA, its impact on hard
measures, such as reduction in voluntary turnover, increase in attendance and performance should be assessed.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, we reviewed the risks of typical performance appraisal both for quality of organizational relationships and for
performance. We proposed a theory-driven SBPA, which is based both on FFI and on the appreciation of the subordinate, as a
means of building relationships in organizations and promoting performance. We presented the application of SBPA in
SodaStream, and described how initial evaluation of its impact suggests that it helps build relationships and has the potential to
contribute to performance. We conclude with a call for replication and further evaluation of the potential of SBPA to overcome the
pitfalls of the traditional performance appraisal exercise.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the Recanati Fund at the School of Business Administration to the second author.
We wish to thank Ronit Sarig of SodaStream, Naftali Leder of LotemSystems, and all the employees of SodaStream and of
LotemSystem who co-developed with us the SBPA and gave a chance to bold ideas. We also thank Ayala Benjamin and Ayelet
Cohen who interviewed SodaStream employees.
145O. Bouskila-Yam, A.N. Kluger / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 137147
Author's personal copy
Appendix A. The Strength-Based Performance Appraisal (SBPA) questionnaire
The following questionnaire is administered to both subordinates and supervisors. The subordinate rst keypunches the
conditions discovered in the FFI in Part 1. Once the subordinate sends the information to the web, the supervisor receives the
questionnaire with the subordinate's responses. Most questions in the questionnaire are identical for both supervisor and
subordinates. Questions unique to supervisors are noted below.
Part 1: The feedforward questionnaire
1. In the rst column below, describe the conditions that facilitated your story.
2. Rate the contribution of each of these conditions to the success in your story using a scale ranging from 5 to 10,
where 10 means crucial and essential contribution and 5 means important, but not crucial.
3. Rate the degree to which each of these conditions currently exists in your work on a scale from 0 to 10,
where 10 means the condition fully exists and 0 means the condition is currently not existent.
Circle the condition in which you nd the most signicant gap between the degree of contribution to my story and the degree
of existence at my work. What can you do to reduce this gap?
Answer the following questions: (a) What will prevent you from reducing the gap? (b) How will you overcome this obstacle?
(c) In light of (b), what should you actually do to bring back the condition that helped you to be at your best?
Part2: Strengths assessment
In light of the two stories tha t were told in the meeting with the manager (your story and the story your manager told you), please
rate the following strengths on two scales: The degree to which this strength is currently expressed in your work (1 to 7 scale ranging
from not relevant to extraordinary), and the degree to which the strength was expressed in your story (1 to 5 scale, ranging from not
relevant to very much). [Note:The on-screen layout was similar to the layout used in the feedforward questionnaire (see above)].
Strengths
1. Suggests original ideas to promote the domains in which s/he is involved
2. Is open to accept others' ideas
3. Shows an open-minded attitude towards changing reality or complex situations
4. Dares to initiate changes and proceed with challenges while taking calculated risks
5. Executes tasks in the domains for which s/he is responsible despite difculties and obstacles
6. Recruits others to do things using the power of his/her personality
7. Helps others actively when recognizes a need for it
8. Is attentive to others' needs and desires, and promotes winwin situations
9. Communicates with others with transparency
10. Compliments others naturally and sincerely
11. Gives feedback that helps others to give the best from themselves
12. Learns from errors and applies the learning so as not to repeat the errors.
13. Predicts outcomes of behavior and acts accordingly
Part 3: Summary
Answer the following questions:
How can you express your best strength in a new way for your own benets and for the organization's benet?
Write down one behavior that you should avoid or be careful of in the future? (Managers: write one area for improvement)
Write any additional comments.
146 O. Bouskila-Yam, A.N. Kluger / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 137147
Author's personal copy
Part 4 goal setting for next year
Write your goals (in a table) for next year. For each goal, indicate what measurement will be used to assess its achievement, the
deadline, and the weight of this goal as a percentage of your total effort.
References
Aguinis, H. (2009). Performance management, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164180.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351355.
Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. New York: Free Press.
Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational?: A meta-case analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(2), 161181.
Coens, T., & Jenkins, M. (2000). Abolishing performance appraisals: Why they backre and what to do instead. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In W. Pasmore, & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organization change and
development (pp. 129169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 270291.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3),
218226.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human ourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678686.
Hayes, T. L. (2009). The perils of accentuating the positive. Personnel Psychology, 62(3), 642646.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 12801300.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from t. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217 1230.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349371.
Kluger, A. N., & Nir, D. (2009). The feedforward interview. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 235246.
Kluger, A. N., & Tikochinsky, J. (2001). The error of accepting the theoretical null hypothesis: The rise, fall and resurrection of common sense hypotheses in
psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 408423.
Lee, C. D. (2006). Performance conversations: An alternative to appraisals. Tucson, AZ: Wheatmark.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2009). Has goal setting gone wild, or have its attackers abandoned good scholarship? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1),
1723.
Ludema, J. D., Whitney, D., Mohr, B. J., & Grifn, T. J. (2003). The Appreciative Inquiry Summit: A practitioner's guide for leading large-group change. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benets of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803855.
Markle, G. L. (2000). Catalytic coaching: The end of the performance review. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Book.
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American
Psychologist, 52(11), 11871197.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ordonez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 23(1), 616.
Pritchard, R. D., Harrell, M. M., DiazGranados, D., & Guzman, M. J. (2008). The productivity measurement and enhancement system: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(3), 540567.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement, 1st ed. New York: Random House.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368376.
Rechter, E. (2010). Emotional and cognitive reaction to feedforward intervention. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology.
Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, C. M., Heaphy, E. D., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Composing the reected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming
extraordinary in work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 712
736.
Roberts, L. M., Spreitzer, G., Dutton, J., Quinn, R., Heaphy, E., & Barker, B. (2005). How to play to your strenghts.Harvard Business Review, 83(1) 74-+.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 514.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5),
410421.
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of
empirical ndings. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 3366.
Thomas, K. W. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conict mode instrument. Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.
Trope, Y., & Neter, E. (1994). Reconciling competing motives in self-evaluation The role of self-control in feedback seeking. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66(4), 646657.
Trope, Y., & Pomerantz, E. M. (1998). Resolving conicts among self-evaluative motives: Positive experiences as a resource for overcoming defensiveness.
Motivation and Emotion, 22(1), 53 72.
Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regulatory focus? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(1),
113135.
Van Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (in press). Task Type as a Moderator of Positive/Negative Feedback Effects on Motivation and Performance: A Regulatory Focus Perspective.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/job.725
Whitney, D. K., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003). The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change, 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
147O. Bouskila-Yam, A.N. Kluger / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 137147
... In general, it is important to familiarize leaders with the concept of strengths: What are strengths, how do you recognize them, and what is the use of playing to your strengths? Although specific tools exist to assess employees' unique strengths, such as the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA; Peterson & Seligman, 2004), feedforward interviews (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, 2011), and reflected best self-exercises (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005;Roberts et al., 2005), there are also more informal ways to observe strengths in employees, for example, by pinpointing situations in which an employee seems energized, engaged, and shows rapid learning curves and a pattern of successful performance (Linley et al., 2007). ...
... Teaching leaders how to discover their own and their employees' strengths and how to distribute tasks within a team in such a way that each team member can make the best use of their strengths will help leaders to develop a strengths-based focus that contributes to a resilient and engaged workforce. Another way to cultivate a strengths-based approach in organizations is by incorporating a strengths focus in performance and assessment interviews (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, 2011;van Woerkom & De Bruijn, 2016). Focusing the performance review on successful aspects of employee performance, enables employees to understand their distinctive strengths and how to expand these strengths and talents in the future (Kluger & Nir, 2010;Roberts et al., 2005), and helps in avoiding the Pavlovian reflex to translate weaknesses into development goals (van Woerkom & Kroon, 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Modern careers are enacted in turbulent and stressful environments and workers face increasing uncertainty in navigating their careers. Therefore, it is essential to support workers in coping with stress by enhancing their resilience. We propose that strengths-based leaders help their workers to find their own unique pathway to developing resilience by building upon their pre-existing strengths. In turn, we propose that resilience allows workers to transform the support and opportunities provided by their strengths-based leader into the active state of work engagement. We conducted a two-wave time-lagged survey among a representative sample of 1,095 Dutch employees. Results of our structural equation modelling indicated that T1 strengths-based leadership was positively related to T2 employee work engagement and that T2 employee resilience mediated the relationship between strengths-based leadership (T1) and employee work engagement (T2). We conclude that strengths-based leadership might be a tool to develop a resilient and engaged workforce and make suggestions for developing strengths-based leadership.
... This inward focus often happens when the evaluatees feel negatively evaluated. In contrast, if feedback is perceived as developmental rather than evaluative, it is more likely to capture the evaluatees' attention towards improvement (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, 2011). Given people's limited capacity to process information (Evans, 2008) and the tendency for negative information to dominate our attention (Baumeister et al., 2001) (Aguinis & Pierce, 2008). ...
... Positive feedback and recognition have long been recognised as powerful drivers of employee engagement, performance, and satisfaction. A predominance of positive feedback in PM not only increases engagement, it also augments motivation, strengthens self-efficacy, and encourages growth, job satisfaction and a positive work culture (Bouskila-Yam and Kluger, 2011). ...
Article
Purpose This conceptual work examines how, in times of post-COVID-19 paradigm shift, the employee performance management (PM) process can help multinational corporations (MNCs) strengthen their talent management and, at the same time, meet their future needs. Design/methodology/approach We take a conceptual approach and present our perspective on what we see as the most critical trends shaping PM and talent management. Contingency theory and Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity (VUCA) theory provide a sound theoretical framework for understanding and responding to the complex and rapidly changing business context post-COVID-19. Findings Drawing on these theories, we create a framework providing a means of understanding why and how MNCs can maintain talent and, at the same time, develop new talent through the PM process. Practical implications Importantly, our study emphasizes the critical role that project management and talent management techniques play for both practitioners and scholars. In order to gain and sustain a competitive edge in the ever-changing VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity) landscape, these processes necessitate ongoing reassessment and adaptation. As Plato eloquently stated, “Our Need Will Be the Real Creator,” encapsulating our vision for the proactive and dynamic nature of effective project management and talent management practices. Originality/value The study establishes the benefits of an agile and flexible PM approach to help develop talent and pave the way for future research in this increasingly critical area
... Studies have linked specific supervisor characteristics such as supervisor general support [50], autonomy support [51], and supervisors' appreciation and encouragement of employees' strengths [52,53] with increased strengths use. In a similar vein, an inclusive climate in which different strengths are acknowledged and appreciated, and flexibility in task construction and assignment also seemed to encourage employees' use of their strengths at work [6,10]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The present research builds on the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development and on research demonstrating the contribution of perceived organizational support for strengths use (POSSU) to the quality of employees’ work life. Specifically, we focus on teachers, whose training and development in schools often aim to narrow competence gaps and correct deficits. We propose that focusing on the development of their strengths may more positively impact their engagement, satisfaction, and sense of meaning at work. A total of 47 school principals (30 women; Mage = 48.37, SD = 7.31) and 235 of their teachers (197 women; Mage = 40.73, SD = 7.78) reported perceptions of their schools’ organizational support for strengths use (POSSU), and of their school support for deficit correction (POSDC). In addition, teachers completed measures of their strengths use, sense of meaning at work, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Teachers’ POSSU was associated (more strongly than POSDC) with teachers’ strength use and positive work-related well-being. Teachers’ strengths use mediated the associations of POSSU with the other variables. Principals’ POSSU was not associated with teachers’ POSSU or with teachers’ strengths use, but was associated with teachers’ sense of meaning and satisfaction at work. The findings highlight the potential benefits of a strengths-supporting school culture to teachers’ work-life quality.
Article
The accomplishment of objectives within the context of employee performance in private sector organizations offers valuable perspectives for the advancement of Goal-Setting Theory. The researchers observed that private banking experienced a decline in employee performance during the pandemic. This study aims to address the existing research gap concerning the factors influencing employee performance. Additionally, the innovative findings from this research contribute to the understanding of a model designed to enhance employee task performance, thereby enriching the theoretical framework of goal-setting motivation integrated into a new business support platform for sustainable operations. Consequently, the research methodology was implemented according to a validated strategy, employing data analysis that encompassed all latent variables and their respective dimensions. The overall findings significantly advance the body of knowledge related to Goal Setting Theory (GST), facilitating a synthesis aimed at improving employee task performance.
Article
Although the attention for neurodiversity in human resource management (HRM) is growing, neurodivergent individuals are still primarily supported from a deficit‐oriented paradigm, which points towards individuals' deviation from neurotypical norms. Following the HRM process model, our study explored to what extent a strengths‐based HRM approach to the identification, use, and development of strengths of neurodivergent groups is intended, implemented, and perceived in organizations. Thirty participants were interviewed, including HRM professionals ( n = 15), supervisors of neurodivergent employees ( n = 4), and neurodivergent employees ( n = 11). Our findings show that there is significant potential in embracing the strengths‐based approach to promote neurodiversity‐inclusion, for instance with the use of job crafting practices or (awareness) training to promote strengths use. Still, the acknowledgement of neurodivergent individuals' strengths in the workplace depends on the integration of the strengths‐based approach into a supportive framework of HR practices related to strengths identification, use, and development. Here, particular attention should be dedicated to strengths development for neurodivergent employees (e.g., optimally balancing strengths use). By adopting the strengths‐based HRM approach to neurodiversity as a means of challenging the ableist norms of organizations, we add to the HRM literature by contributing to the discussion on how both research and organizations can optimally support an increasingly diverse workforce by focusing on individual strengths.
Article
Full-text available
Feedback is a vital human resource development (HRD) practice, extensively researched and used to regulate employee behavior and performance. However, despite a century of research and immense significance and use, we still do not fully know why some accept feedback while others reject it. Critics blame both providers and recipients, as well as feedback message format, for this failure. In this study, I investigated whether the focus of the supervisory feedback (negative vs. negative and facilitative) could enhance employees' responses to feedback (e.g., acceptance and use). I also examined whether employees' mindset (i.e., fixed vs. growth) would moderate these relationships. I proposed that employee coaching (i.e., negative and facilitative) would be more accepted than negative feedback alone. In addition, I expected a positive moderating role of the growth mindset between supervisory feedback and employees' responses. To test these assumptions, I conducted a laboratory experimental vignette study (N = 69). In line with propositions, employee coaching had a larger effect on the employees' responses to feedback (e.g., feedback acceptance; M = 4.95, SD = 1.24) than negative feedback alone (M = 4.08, SD = 1.35). In addition, simple slope results showed that employee coaching was significantly higher than negative feedback for growth mindset (i.e., +1 SD). Finally, path analysis revealed that the interaction between negative feedback, employee coaching, and mindset yielded the strongest positive effect on employees' responses to feedback. Overall, findings add to and endorse calls for more future‐focused HRD practices during feedback interventions. In addition, for effective feedback, this study calls for HRD practitioners to account for all critical factors involved in feedback exchanges, from provider to recipient and feedback message.
Article
Purpose Although strengths use support (SUS) has been shown to facilitate employee strengths use and work engagement, little is known about how senior managers’ SUS affects middle managers’ SUS. The purpose of the present research was to examine the trickle-down effect of SUS from superiors on SUS for subordinates. Design/methodology/approach A two-wave questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data from middle managers ( n = 228) at a global manufacturing firm in Japan. Findings The results of structural equation modeling indicated that (1) SUS from superiors indirectly promoted SUS for subordinates mediated through middle managers’ strength use, and (2) SUS from superiors indirectly promoted SUS for subordinates mediated through middle managers’ strength use, and subsequently through their work engagement. Research limitations/implications As the respondents were middle-level managers at a manufacturing firm in Japan and were all Japanese nationals, indigenous culture and traditional work mentality may have affected the results. Practical implications To create a supportive learning culture in an organization, human resource (HR) managers need to encourage senior-level managers to provide SUS for middle managers through HR systems such as training, appraisal, and survey feedback. Originality/value This study may be the first to clarify how SUS from superiors is linked to SUS for subordinates by identifying the mediating effects of strength use and work engagement, based on the Job-Demand Resources model, the Social Cognitive theory, and the trickle-down effect.
Article
Full-text available
When psychologists test a commonsense (CS) hypothesis and obtain no support, they tend to erroneously conclude that the CS belief is wrong. In many such cases it appears, after many years, that the CS hypothesis was valid after all. It is argued that this error of accepting the "theoretical" null hypothesis reflects confusion between the operationalized hypothesis and the theory or generalization that it is designed to test. That is, on the basis of reliable null data one can accept the operationalized null hypothesis (e.g., "A measure of attitude x is not correlated with a measure of behavior y"). In contrast, one cannot generalize from the findings and accept the abstract or theoretical null (e.g., "We know that attitudes do not predict behavior"). The practice of accepting the theoretical null hypothesis hampers research and reduces the trust of the public in psychological research.
Article
Full-text available
Executive Overview: Goal setting is one of the most replicated and influential paradigms in the management literature. Hundreds of studies conducted in numerous countries and contexts have consistently demonstrated that setting specific, challenging goals can powerfully drive behavior and boost performance. Advocates of goal setting have had a substantial impact on research, management education, and management practice. In this article, we argue that the beneficial effects of goal setting have been overstated and that systematic harm caused by goal setting has been largely ignored. We identify specific side effects associated with goal setting, including a narrow focus that neglects nongoal areas, distorted risk preferences, a rise in unethical behavior, inhibited learning, corrosion of organizational culture, and reduced intrinsic motivation. Rather than dispensing goal setting as a benign, over-the-counter treatment for motivation, managers and scholars need to conceptualize goal setting as a prescription-strength medication that requires careful dosing, consideration of harmful side effects, and close supervision. We offer a warning label to accompany the practice of setting goals.
Article
Full-text available
This chapter presents a conceptual refiguration of action-research based on a "sociorationalist" view of science. The position that is developed can be summarized as follows: For action-research to reach its potential as a vehicle for social innovation it needs to begin advancing theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best means human beings have for affecting change in a postindustrial world; that the discipline's steadfast commitment to a problem-solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to conventional forms of action-research; and finally, that through our assumptions and choice of method we largely create the world we later discover.
Article
Full-text available
We present a theory of how individuals compose their reflected best-self portrait, which we define as a changing self-knowledge structure about who one is at one's best. We posit that people compose their reflected best-self portrait through social experiences that draw on intrapsychic and interpersonal resources. By weaving to- gether microlevel theories of personal change and macrolevel theories of human resource development, our theory reveals an important means by which work orga- nizations affect people's capacity to realize their potential.
Book
Discover where the real success in business can be found. What makes some businesses more successful than others? The answer: people. Organizations with motivated, talented employees that offer outstanding customer service are more likely to pull ahead of the competition. Performance Management is the first text to emphasize this key competitive advantage, showing students that success in today’s globalized business world can be found, not in technology and products, but in an organization’s people. The third edition includes updated and current information, and features over forty new cases. - See more at: http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/Performance-Management-3E/9780132556385.page#sthash.9N5MS8Il.dpuf
Article
In this article, the author describes a new theoretical perspective on positive emotions and situates this new perspective within the emerging field of positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory posits that experiences of positive emotions broaden people's momentary thought-action repertoires, which in turn serves to build their enduring personal resources, ranging from physical and intellectual resources to social and psychological resources. Preliminary empirical evidence supporting the broaden-and-build theory is reviewed, and open empirical questions that remain to be tested are identified. The theory and findings suggest that the capacity to experience positive emotions may be a fundamental human strength central to the study of human flourishing.
Article
This article presents an agentic theory of human development, adaptation, and change. The evolutionary emergence of advanced symbolizing capacity enabled humans to transcend the dictates of their immediate environment and made them unique in their power to shape their life circumstances and the courses their lives take. In this conception, people are contributors to their life circumstances, not just products of them. Social cognitive theory rejects a duality between human agency and social structure. People create social systems, and these systems, in turn, organize and influence people's lives. This article discusses the core properties of human agency, the different forms it takes, its ontological and epistemological status, its development and role in causal structures, its growing primacy in the coevolution process, and its influential exercise at individual and collective levels across diverse spheres of life and cultural systems. © 2006 Association for Psychological Science.