Content uploaded by Charles Martin-Krumm
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charles Martin-Krumm on Aug 15, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 23
Journal of Happiness Studies
An Interdisciplinary Forum on
Subjective Well-Being
ISSN 1389-4978
J Happiness Stud
DOI 10.1007/s10902-019-00095-w
Strength Use in the Workplace: A
Literature Review
Marine Miglianico, Philippe Dubreuil,
Paule Miquelon, Arnold B.Bakker &
Charles Martin-Krumm
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Nature B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Happiness Studies
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00095-w
1 3
REVIEW ARTICLE
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
MarineMiglianico1,5· PhilippeDubreuil1· PauleMiquelon1· ArnoldB.Bakker3,4·
CharlesMartin‑Krumm2,5,6,7
© Springer Nature B.V. 2019
Abstract
The objective of the present article is to review the literature on strengths use and develop-
ment in the workplace. This review (1) presents a summary of the outcomes of strengths
use in organizations, and (2) proposes a general intervention model facilitating strengths
development in the workplace. A systematic review was used to summarize the outcomes
of studies on strengths use at work, whereas a narrative review was employed to exam-
ine the main strengths development interventions available, and to propose an integrative
model. Results indicate that strengths use is associated with job satisfaction, work engage-
ment, well-being, and work performance. Furthermore, scholars and professionals use
similar intervention strategies that can be summarized in a five-step integrative model to
promote strengths development in organizations. We discuss the theoretical and practical
implications, as well as avenues for future research.
Keywords Strengths· Organizations· Intervention· Positive psychology
1 Introduction
When an organization is faced with problems associated with burnout, personnel turnover,
and absenteeism, the question of personal and professional fulfillment is paramount. The
positive psychology movement has expanded mental health knowledge beyond a focus on
alleviating illness and mental disorders. This approach is defined as “the study of the con-
ditions and processes that contribute to the flourishing or optimal functioning of people,
groups and institutions” (Gable and Haidt 2005, p. 104). It is considered the most rigorous
* Marine Miglianico
marine.miglianico@gmail.com
1 Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Canada
2 Laboratoire de Psychologie de l’École de Psychologues Praticiens de Paris, Paris, France
3 Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, TheNetherlands
4 University ofJohannesbourg, Johannesbourg, SouthAfrica
5 APEMAC – EA 4360, Université de Lorraine, Metz, France
6 IRBA, Unité de NeuroPhysiologie du Stress, Brétigny, France
7 Chart – EA 4004 – Université Paris X Nanterre, Paris, France
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
scientific approach for studying positive human experiences, and its popularity has gener-
ated much interest in the scientific community (Mongrain and Anselmo-Matthews 2012;
Seligman 2012; Seligman etal. 2005).
Positive psychology is intended to complement the traditional deficit approach. Indeed,
human beings appear to have a natural inclination to devote greater attention to the nega-
tive or dysfunctional (Sheldon and King 2001). This negativity bias has been addressed in
numerous studies, the results of which have led to the rapid implementation of new and
reliable evaluation strategies as well as effective treatments (Nathan and Gorman 1998;
Seligman 1994).
Organizations still seem to cultivate this deficit culture (Bouskila-Yam and Kluger 2011;
Roberts etal. 2005a). Most organizations seem to take employee strengths for granted and
emphasize minimizing weaknesses instead (Buckingham and Clifton 2001). Managers tend
to identify and then manage deficits by seeking to correct employees’ dysfunctional skills,
abilities, attitudes or behaviors (Luthans 2002) through training, feedback, and coaching
(Linley etal. 2009; Van Woerkom etal. 2015). While such an approach can potentially
help employees to improve skills and performance, this approach can be demoralizing and
therefore less effective than focusing on individual strengths (Hodges and Clifton 2004).
Moreover, studying deficits and dysfunctions cannot reveal the unique impact of strengths
(Buckingham and Clifton 2001). In fact, the best opportunity for individual development
lies in investing in people’s strengths, not in managing their weaknesses (Linley etal.
2009; Roberts etal. 2005b). In other words, minimizing weaknesses can prevent failure but
cannot inspire excellence.
In recent years, strengths have been the subject of much research (Hodges and Clifton
2004; Linley 2008; Roberts etal. 2005b), and many experts have called for the develop-
ment of valid interventions that can be applied in the field (Proctor etal. 2011; Proyer
etal. 2015; Quinlan etal. 2012). Considering the ever increasing volume of research con-
ducted in this area and the demand for empirically validated guidelines for conducting
strengths development interventions, it seems important to review the current knowledge
on strengths use and development in organizational environments in order to shed light on
existing data in a more structured and critical way.
Previous work has been conducted in this regard by Quinlan et al. (2012) and more
recently by Ghielen etal. (2017). Quinlan etal. (2012) first reviewed eight strengths inter-
ventions studies using experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Results indicated sig-
nificant increases in different measures of well-being in all intervention studies. Ghielen
etal. (2017) extended the latter work by conducting a review of strengths interventions
studies published between 2012 and 2017. Eighteen (quasi-) experimental studies were
identified through a systematic literature search. Results showed that strengths interven-
tions performed in a wide variety of contexts had positive effects on a broad range of out-
comes, including well-being (e.g., positive affect, life satisfaction, depression), job out-
comes (e.g., work performance, work engagement), personal growth initiative and group
outcomes (e.g., information sharing, class cohesion).
Our review extends previous work by Quinlan etal. (2012) and Ghielen etal. (2017)
in three significant ways. First, we concentrated our review solely on studies conducted
in the workplace, as it is an area in which strengths application is particularly active and
highly relevant. Second, whereas both previous reviews focus on intervention studies, we
also included correlational studies in order to provide a thorough and comprehensive por-
trait of the scientific knowledge available. Third, we investigated various strengths devel-
opment strategies used in the workplace in order to provide additional insights on the opti-
mal design of strengths interventions and propose an integrative model for applied settings.
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
The objective of the present article is therefore to review the literature on strengths use and
development in the workplace. This literature review is intended to (1) provide a summary of
the outcomes of strengths use in organizations, and (2) propose an integrative model based
on the main intervention steps found in the literature regarding strengths development in the
workplace. To this end, the three principal strengths approaches and their associated measure-
ment instruments will first be described, followed by the methodology employed in order to
meet our dual objective. Then, results related to the use of strengths in the workplace will be
presented and discussed. Likewise, the intervention steps necessary to successfully foster the
development of employee strengths in organizations will be described and discussed. As a
final analysis, a general discussion will follow, in which we will review our main findings and
comment our study.
2 Studying andDeveloping Strengths
Strengths is an important topic of study for several reasons. First, strengths fluctuate and can
develop continuously over the course of a lifetime (Biswas-Diener 2006; Park etal. 2006).
For example, in the United States, hope, teamwork or enthusiasm seem to be more common
among youth than adults, while appreciation of beauty, authenticity, leadership or openness
seem to be more common among adults (Park etal. 2006). Cultural institutions that encour-
age strengths and virtues have also been identified in many different cultures (Biswas-Diener
2006). This suggests that strengths development is advantageous within evolution, and could
thus be expected to be part of successful societal functioning.
Second, to the individual who holds them, strengths appear so natural as to seem self-evi-
dent (Buckingham and Clifton 2001). Interfering with values and actions, strengths are often
simply seen as “the right thing to do” by the person, a habit more than a singular behavior.
Some researchers suggest that these behavioral patterns may be anchored in neural networks,
which would explain the ease with which they are used by the person, and the sense of authen-
ticity and energy resulting from their use (Buckingham and Clifton 2001; Linley 2008). For
this reason, strengths can also be ignored or discredited (Biswas-Diener etal. 2011; Bucking-
ham and Clifton 2001). The individual may then miss out on a great opportunity for personal
development.
Third, better understanding strengths seems to be highly beneficial not only for individu-
als, but also for organizations, since exercising them has a positive impact on employee well-
being and performance (Dubreuil etal. 2016; Harzer and Ruch 2016; Littman-Ovadia etal.
2017). Employees who are actively encouraged to use their strengths at work handle their
workload more effectively and show lower levels of absenteeism (Van Woerkom etal. 2016a),
while experiencing higher levels of vitality, flow, passion and engagement at work (Dubreuil
etal. 2014; Forest etal. 2012; Lavy and Littman-Ovadia 2017; Van Woerkom etal. 2015).
As a result, organizations that rely on employees’ strengths see productivity, sales, and profit
increase (Hodges and Asplund 2010), while at the same time increasing employee satisfaction,
pleasure, commitment, and meaning (Harzer and Ruch 2012, 2013).
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
3 Strengths intheScientic Literature
An extensive look at the scientific literature shows that the strengths movement has been
developed over time by three main schools of thought, which mutually influenced each
other and therefore propose comparable, but slightly different definitions, classifications,
and measurement instruments to characterize strengths. As the concept of strengths is
based on different streams of research, integrating these three visions makes it possible to
develop a better understanding of the field and approach the concept in a broader and more
comprehensive perspective.
The Gallup Institute developed a first school of thought. Clifton and his colleagues
(Buckingham and Clifton 2001) have studied excellence in a wide variety of sectors for
several decades. They identified 34 talents that constitute the foundation of exceptional
performance. Each combination of talents is unique to the individual, and reflects his/
her field of excellence and path of development. According to these authors, a strength is
defined as “a constant near perfect performance in an activity” (Buckingham and Clifton,
p. 25), and has three components: talent, knowledge, and skills (Clifton and Harter 2003).
Talent is defined as a “naturally recurring pattern of thought, feeling or behavior”. The
key to strength development lies in the identification of talents, and refinement of these by
developing knowledge (facts and experiences) and skills (steps of an activity) (Asplund
etal. 2014).
Clifton and his team identified hundreds of talent themes, which they refined into 34
major ones (Buckingham and Clifton 2001; Clifton etal. 2002). The StrengthsFinder was
built for individuals to identify their own key talents via an electronic questionnaire (Buck-
ingham and Clifton 2001). A revised version, the StrengthsFinder 2.0, was developed later
(Rath 2007). It is comprised of 177 pairs of items representing potential self-descriptors
(e.g., “I get to know people individually”; “I accept many types of people”). The respond-
ent must choose on a five-point scale the statement that best describes him or her, and indi-
cate the extent to which it describes him or her (i.e., 1-“Strongly describes me [Option A]”,
3-Neutral, 5-“Strongly describes me [Option B]”). The participant is given 20s to respond
before the system moves on to the next pair of items. Reliability studies conducted on mul-
tiple samples (n = 2219; 46,902; 250,000) indicate that Cronbach’s alpha estimates vary
between .52 and .78 for the 34 strengths themes and test–retest correlations range between
.53 and .80 for a 6-months period. Factor analyses reported suggest a four-factor structure
comprised of the main themes of executing, influencing, relationship building, and strate-
gic thinking, although complete results of these analyses are not provided (Asplund etal.
2014).
Inspired by the early work of Clifton and his colleagues, Peterson and Seligman (2004)
developed a second school of thought. Their seminal handbook Character Strengths and
Virtues: A Handbook and Classification (Peterson and Seligman 2004) describes and clas-
sifies the strengths and virtues that enable human beings to flourish (Seligman etal. 2005).
To establish this classification, the authors studied philosophical, religious, and psycho-
logical writings from around the world (Dahlsgaard etal. 2005) to draw out elements that
are valued universally, regardless of culture or historic period.
Peterson and Seligman (2004) define character strengths as the core psychological
ingredients that define moral virtues (see Table1). They are neither secondary nor epi-
phenomenal to what is negative in human beings, but rather are singular entities. They are
both relatively stable and malleable in the individual (Biswas-Diener etal. 2011; Peter-
son and Seligman 2004). Their occurrence depends on context, individual values, personal
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
Table 1 Strengths classifications
StrengthsFinder talents
Achiever Connectedness Harmony Relator
Activator Consistency Ideation Responsibility
Adaptability Context Includer Restorative
Analytical Deliberative Individualization Self-assurance
Arranger Developer Input Significance
Belief Discipline Intellection Strategic
Command Empathy Learner Woo
Communication Focus Maximizer
Competition Futuristic Positivity
VIA strengths
Virtues Associated strengths
Wisdom 1. Creativity
2. Curiosity
3. Judgment
4. Love of Learning
5. Perspective
Courage 1. Bravery
2. Honesty
3. Perseverance
4. Zest
Humanity 1. Kindness
2. Love
3. Social Intelligence
Justice 1. Fairness
2. Leadership
3. Teamwork
Temperance 1. Forgiveness
2. Humility
3. Prudence
4. Self-regulation
Transcendence 1. Appreciation of
beauty and excel-
lence
2. Gratitude
3. Hope
4. Humor
5. Spirituality
Strengths profile strengths
Action Curiosity Incubator Prevention
Adaptable Detail Innovation Pride
Adherence Drive Judgment Rapport builder
Adventure Emotional awareness Legacy Relationship deepener
Authenticity Empathic Listener Resilience
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
interests, and the presence of other strengths. Ten criteria define character strengths (Peter-
son and Seligman 2004): (1) They contribute to the development of oneself and others;
(2) They are morally valued; (3) Their use does not diminish others; (4) Their opposite
is negative; (5) They manifest at cognitive, emotional and behavioral levels; (6) They are
distinct from other positive traits; (7) They are embodied in consensual paragons; (8) They
are found in prodigies; (9) They may be absent in some people; (10) They are desired and
cultivated by different cultures. To be included in this classification, a strength must meet
most of these criteria. However, each criterion taken individually is not a necessary or
sufficient condition for the strength to be included. On this basis, Seligman and Peterson
determined 24 character strengths, which were then theoretically grouped by content into
six main virtues: wisdom, justice, courage, temperance, humanity, and transcendence (see
Table1).
To assess character strengths, the Values In Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS)
was developed by Peterson and Seligman (2004). It consists of 240 items measuring
the respondent’s endorsement of different character strengths (e.g., “I never quit a task
before it is done”) on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1-“very much unlike me” to
5-“very much like me”. This measurement instrument ranks the participants’ strengths,
and allows the identification of his or her five “signature strengths,” which are con-
sidered to best reflect his or her character (Peterson and Seligman 2004). A series of
research studies recently led to updated versions of the VIA-IS (McGrath 2017). The
VIA-120 and VIA-72 are shortened versions of the VIA-IS, which were obtained by
respectively taking the five and three items from each scale demonstrating the highest
item-total correlations. Reliability studies conducted on the VIA-IS indicate Cronbach’s
alpha estimates ranging from .75 to .90, while the shortened scales present estimates
ranging from .67 to .90 (VIA-120) and .60 to .87 (VIA-72). The VIA-IS-R, a revised
measure of the VIA, is a 192-item instrument including positively and negatively keyed
items. Shorter versions, called VIA-IS-M and VIA-IS-P, are 96-items versions using
four items for each strength scale selected on the basis of corrected item-total correla-
tions. The VIA-IS-M includes positively and negatively keyed items, while the VIA-IS-
P only includes positively keyed items. Reliability studies conducted on the VIA-IS-R
indicate Cronbach’s alpha estimates ranging from .76 to .91, while shortened scales pre-
sent estimates ranging from .62 to .85 (VIA-IS-M) and .62 to .87 (VIA-IS-P). Additional
instruments, namely the Global Assessment of Character Strengths (72 items [long
Table 1 (continued)
Strengths profile strengths
Bounceback Enabler Mission Resolver
Catalyst Equality Moral compass Self-awareness
Centered Esteem builder Narrator Self-belief
Change agent Explainer Optimism Service
Compassion Feedback Organizer Spotlight
Competitive Gratitude Persistence Strategic awareness
Connector Growth Personal responsibility Time optimizer
Counterpoint Humility Personalisation Unconditionality
Courage Humor Persuasion Work Ethic
Creativity Improver Planner Writer
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
version] and 24 items [short version]), the Signature Strengths Survey, and the Overuse,
Underuse and Optimal-Use have also been developed by the VIA Institute on Charac-
ter for specific uses. Although Peterson and Seligman’s conceptualization of strengths
contains six virtues, early factor analysis suggested only four to five factors that partly
overlapped with their model (Littman-Ovadia and Lavy 2012; McGrath 2014; Peterson
etal. 2008; Ruch etal. 2010). Moreover, recent studies conducted on very large datasets
measuring character strengths (n = 1,082,230) suggest that three main virtues emerge
from this classification: caring, inquisitiveness, and self-control (McGrath etal. 2018).
Nevertheless, other scholars also argue that studying intercorrelations between strengths
might not be the best way to arrive at virtues, claiming that the VIA classification was
never intended as a factor-analytic model, and may be examined through other means
such as expert judgements of strengths and virtues (Ruch and Proyer 2015).
A third school of thought was developed at the Center of Applied Positive Psychology
(CAPP) founded by Alex Linley. This approach defines strengths as a “pre-existing capac-
ity for a particular way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is authentic and energizing to
the user, and enables optimal functioning, development and performance” (Linley 2008,
p. 9). Five fundamental principles underlie this perspective: (1) The strengths approach
focuses on what works in the human being; (2) Strengths are a part of human nature, every-
one possesses some; (3) The individual’s area of greatest potential for development lies in
his/her strengths; (4) Success is attained by fixing weaknesses only when making the most
of strengths as well; (5) Focusing on the individual’s strengths is the smallest thing to do to
make the biggest difference. The ability to draw upon strengths depends on the individual’s
strengths knowledge and use, and is linked to their social environment, values and inter-
ests. Therefore, strengths have great potential for development.
Linley and Harrington (2006) offer a less restrictive assessment of strengths. This per-
spective acknowledges that defining strengths through inclusion and exclusion criteria may
indeed provide a framework, but considers this very structure to potentially be restrictive.
Individuals exhibit strengths daily, and evidence of individual strengths can be collected as
data (Linley 2008). For example, feeling energized in an activity, feeling a sense of authen-
ticity, learning new information quickly, losing track of time or regularly meeting success
in an activity are signs of the presence of a strength. Linley etal. (2010a, b) also developed
the Realise2, now called the Strengths Profile, which evaluates 60 strengths across three
dimensions: energy, performance, and frequency of use. It is comprised of 180 statements
representing each of the 60 strengths (e.g., “Building rapport with people quickly and eas-
ily”; “Competing against others”; “Supporting others to grow and develop their abilities”)
which are measured according to the three dimensions of energy, performance, and use
on specific seven-point Likert-type scales (e.g., “how do you feel when…” from 1-“very
drained” to 7-“very energized”; “how successful are you at…” from 1-“very unsuccessful”
to 7-“very successful”; “how often do you find yourself…” from 1-“extremely rarely” to
7-“extremely often”). The Strengths Profile report provides results by classifying the attrib-
utes in four distinct categories: realised strengths, unrealised strengths, learned behaviors,
and weaknesses. Available data indicates adequate psychometric qualities, including inter-
nal consistency and test–retest reliability (Linley and Dovey 2015). In a pilot study testing
over 100 working adults, Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .68 to .90. In a sample of
132 individuals, test–retest reliability over a 1-week period was calculated for each ele-
ment (performance, use and energy) for each of the 60 strengths, and correlations ranged
between r = .63 and r = .80. Although no studies on factorial structure are available for this
instrument, strengths were clustered on a conceptual basis under five categories labeled
Being, Communicating, Motivating, Relating and Thinking.
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
In sum, three main schools of thought have developed models for conceptualizing,
assessing, and applying strengths in the workplace. While these movements are to some
extent distinct in the way they define and provide classifications of strengths, important
similarities remain as they mutually influenced each other. Indeed, most experts acknowl-
edge that strengths are naturally present within individuals, tend to generate energy, and
drive performance. Furthermore, strengths are considered as positive attributes that are sta-
ble, but not fixed and can be developed with conscious effort. Therefore, as numerous stud-
ies have been conducted on this subject in recent years, especially in the workplace, provid-
ing a thorough portrait of the scientific knowledge available seems imperative in order to
capture the actual understanding in the field and guide future research and application.
4 Method
As mentioned above, this article has a twofold purpose: (1) to provide a summary of the
outcomes of strengths use in organizations, and (2) to present the main intervention steps
found in the literature regarding strengths development in the workplace, and propose an
integrative model. To meet the first objective, a systematic review was conducted and the
available scientific literature was thoroughly examined. To meet the second objective, a
narrative literature review was conducted and the main intervention models found in arti-
cles, book chapters and professional books were reviewed.
The systematic review was conducted using different databases. First, peer-reviewed
articles were searched through the PsychINFO and PsychARTICLES databases and
by using the Google Scholar search engine. Keywords searched included: strengths,
work, organization, job, and workplace. This preliminary step identified 136 articles via
PsychINFO and PsychARTICLES and 462 articles via Google Scholar. The initial search
targeted articles that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) published in a peer-reviewed
journal; (b) written in English; (c) published after 1998, when the field of positive psychol-
ogy was established; (d) used a quantitative approach. Exclusion criteria were articles that
(a) focused on strengths possession or endorsement; (b) focused on a single strength (e.g.,
gratitude, optimism); (c) involved unemployed participants (e.g., students, job seekers, vol-
untary work); (d) used a qualitative approach; and (e) narrative literature reviews, thesis,
case reports or conference presentations. Twenty-five articles were selected and are listed
in the table below (see Table2).
To meet the second objective, a narrative literature review was carried out. First, all
scientific articles that presented one or more interventions in strength development at work
were consulted. Second, key books and chapters on strength development at work that fall
into one of the three schools of thought mentioned above, either in terms of the definition
of strengths or one of the classifications, were consulted and thoroughly examined.
5 Results andDiscussion—Consequences ofStrengths Use
First, results of the systematic review of the literature on strengths use at work will be pre-
sented. To this end, the 27 studies selected according to our criteria will be described and
discussed.
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
Table 2 Results of the systematic review of the outcomes of strengths use in organizational settings
References Design Sample Medium Variables Results
1 Botha and Mostert (2014) Cross-sectional 401 South African employ-
ees
Online + Manual Job resources
Perceived organizational
support for strengths use
Proactive behavior towards
strengths use
Work engagement
Perceived organizational sup-
port for strengths use and
proactive behavior towards
strengths use are positively
associated with work
engagement
2 Cable etal. (2013) (study 1) Quasi-experimental 605 Indian employees In person Turnover
Customer satisfaction
Best-self intervention
increases customer
satisfaction and decreases
employee turnover
3 Cable etal. (2015) (studies
2–3)
Study 2: experimental Study 2: 75 full-time Amer-
ican employed adults
In person Study 2: emotions
Vagal tone
Arousal under stress
Immunity
Creative problem solving
Study 2: best-self interven-
tion improves positive emo-
tions, vagal tone, immune
system, creative problem
solving and buffers negative
arousal under stress
Study 3: quasi-experi-
mental
Study 3: 1 393 American
employees
In person Study 3: psychological
contract narratives
Burnout
Intentions to quit
Study 3: best-self interven-
tion reduces transactional
narratives, employee burn-
out and intentions to quit
4 Dubreuil etal. (2014) Cross-sectional 404 Canadian employees Online Strengths use
Work performance
Harmonious passion
Subjective vitality
Concentration
Association between
strengths use and work
performance
Effect mediated by harmoni-
ous passion, subjective
vitality and concentration
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
Table 2 (continued)
References Design Sample Medium Variables Results
5 Dubreuil etal. (2016) Pre-post 78 Canadian employees In person Strengths knowledge
Strengths use
Satisfaction with life
Work performance
Harmonious passion
Subjective vitality
Concentration
Character strengths interven-
tion at work increases
strengths use and satisfac-
tion with life
6 Els etal. (2016) Cross-sectional 213 South African employ-
ees
In person Perceived organizational
support for strengths use
Leader-member exchange
Work engagement
Perceived organizational sup-
port for strengths use has a
positive relationship with
leader-member exchange
and work engagement
Leader-member exchange
mediates the relation-
ship between perceived
organizational support for
strengths use and work
engagement
7 Forest etal. (2012) Quasi-experimental 186 Canadian students
(employed)
Online Strengths use
Harmonious passion
Subjective vitality
Satisfaction with life
Psychological well-being
Character strengths interven-
tion increases strengths use,
harmonious passion, sub-
jective vitality, satisfaction
with life and psychological
well-being
8 Harzer and Ruch (2012) Cross-sectional 111 German-speaking
employees
Online Character strengths applica-
tion
Positive experiences at
work
Calling
Number of applied signature
strengths is associated with
calling
Positive experiences mediates
the relation between num-
ber of applied signature
strengths and calling
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
Table 2 (continued)
References Design Sample Medium Variables Results
9 Harzer and Ruch (2013) Cross-sectional 1111 German-speaking
employees
Online Character strengths applica-
tion
Positive experiences at
work
Number of applied signature
strengths is associated
with positive experiences
at work
10 Harzer and Ruch (2014) Cross-sectional 416 German-speaking
employees
Online Character strengths use
Task performance
Contextual performance
Number of signature
strengths used is related
to task and contextual
performance
11 Harzer and Ruch (2016) Experimental 152 German-speaking
employees
Online Calling
Satisfaction with life
Signature strengths interven-
tion increased perception
of work as calling and life
satisfaction
12 Kaiser and Overfield (2011) Cross-sectional 110 managers In person Leader behavior
Strengthsfinder profile
Association between
strengths and overused
leadership behavior
13 Kong and Ho (2016) Cross-sectional 194 American employees Online Strengths use
Leader autonomy support
Intrinsic motivation
Independent self-construal
Task performance
Organizational citizenship
behaviors
Strengths use is associated
with task performance and
organizational citizenship
behaviors
Leader autonomy support
and intrinsic motivation are
associated with strengths
use
Strengths use mediates the
relation between intrinsic
motivation, task perfor-
mance and organizational
citizenship behaviors
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
Table 2 (continued)
References Design Sample Medium Variables Results
14 Lavy and Littman-Ovadia
(2017)
Cross-sectional 1095 international employ-
ees
Online Strengths use
Work productivity
Organizational citizenship
behaviors
Job satisfaction
Work engagement
Positive emotions
Strengths use associated with
work productivity, organi-
zational citizenship behav-
iors and job satisfaction
Associations mediated by
positive emotions and work
engagement
15 Lavy etal. (2017) Diary study 120 international employees Online Daily strengths use
Perceived supervisor sup-
port
Perceived colleague support
Supervisor support predicts
increases in strengths use
16 Lee etal. (2016) Study 1: experimental Study 1: 246 American
employees
In person Study 1: team creative
performance
Study 1: best-self interven-
tion improves team creative
performance
Study 2: experimental Study 2: 123 American
employees
Online Study 2: team information
exchange
Feelings of social worth
Study 2: best-self interven-
tion increases information
exchange and feelings of
social worth in teams
17 Littman-Ovadia etal.
(2017)
Cross-sectional 1031 international employ-
ees
Online Signature strengths use
Happiness strengths use
Lowest strengths use
Work meaning
Work engagement
Job satisfaction
Work Performance
Organizational citizenship
behaviors
Counterproductive work
behaviors
Positive Affect
Signature, happiness and
lowest strengths use are
associated with work mean-
ing, work engagement, job
satisfaction, work perfor-
mance, organizational citi-
zenship behaviors, positive
affect and counterproduc-
tive work behaviors.
These relations are differently
mediated by positive affect
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
Table 2 (continued)
References Design Sample Medium Variables Results
18 Littman-Ovadia and Steger
(2010) (study 2)
Cross-sectional 102 Israeli women In person Strengths deployment
Satisfaction with work
Well-being
Meaning in work
Strengths deployment associ-
ated with satisfaction with
work, well-being and mean-
ing in work
19 Meyers and Van Woerkom
(2017)
Quasi-experimental 116 Dutch employees In person Positive affect
Psychological capital
Satisfaction with life
Work engagement
Burnout
Strengths intervention creates
short-term increases in
employee positive affect
and short- and long-term
increases in psychological
capital
20 Mphahlele etal. (2018) Longitudinal 376 South African employ-
ees
Online Perceived organizational
support for strengths use
Perceived organizational
support for deficit cor-
rection
Work engagement
Perceived organizational sup-
port for strengths use and
perceived organizational
support for deficit correc-
tion are related to work
engagement
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
Table 2 (continued)
References Design Sample Medium Variables Results
21 Stander etal. (2014) Cross-sectional 218 South-African employ-
ees
In person Perceived organizational
support for strengths use
Proactive behavior towards
strengths use
Work engagement
Productivity
Perceived organizational sup-
port for strengths use and
proactive behavior towards
strengths use are significant
predictors of work engage-
ment
Proactive behavior towards
strengths use is a significant
predictor of productivity
Work engagement medi-
ates the relation between
perceived organizational
support for strengths use/
proactive behavior towards
strengths use and produc-
tivity
22 Van Wingerden and Van
der Stoep (2018)
Cross-sectional 459 employees Online Meaningful work
Strengths use
Work engagement
In-role performance
Meaningful work is related
to in-role performance
through strengths use and
work engagement
23 Van Woerkom etal. (2016) Cross-sectional 832 Dutch employees Online Perceived organizational
support for strengths use
Workload
Emotional job demands
Absenteeism
Perceived organizational
support for strengths use
reduces absenteeism in
employees who experi-
ence both high workload
and high emotional job
demands
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
Table 2 (continued)
References Design Sample Medium Variables Results
24 Van Woerkom and Meyers
(2015)
Cross-sectional 442 Dutch and Belgian
employees
Online Strengths-based psycho-
logical climate
Positive affect
Task performance
Innovativeness
Organizational citizenship
behaviors
Strengths-based psycho-
logical climate is related
to task performance and
organizational citizenship
behaviors
Positive affects mediates the
relation between Strengths-
based psychological cli-
mate, task performance and
organizational citizenship
behaviors
25 Van Woerkom and Meyers
(2019)
Quasi-experimental 84 Dutch education profes-
sionals
Online Personal growth initiative
General self-efficacy
Strengths awareness
Strengths use
Strengths intervention has
a direct effect on general
self-efficacy and an indirect
effect on personal growth
initiative
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
Table 2 (continued)
References Design Sample Medium Variables Results
26 Van Woerkom etal. (2016)
(study 3)
Cross-sectional 133 Dutch researchers,
clinical scientists, engi-
neers, and support staff
Online Perceived organizational
support for strengths use
Perceived organizational
support for deficit cor-
rection
Perceived organizational
support (general)
Strengths use behavior
Deficit correction behavior
Proactive personality
Personal initiative
Job Performance (supervi-
sor-rated; self-rated)
Perceived organizational sup-
port for strengths use corre-
lates with supervisor-rated
and self-rated performance
Strengths use behavior corre-
lates with supervisor-rated
and self-rated performance
Perceived organizational
support for strengths use
and strengths use behavior
correlate positively with
job performance rat-
ings, whereas perceived
organizational support
for deficit correction and
deficit correction behavior
do not correlate with job
performance ratings
27 Van Woerkom etal. (2015) Diary study 65 Dutch civil engineers Online Organizational strengths
use support
Weekly strengths use
Weekly occupational self-
efficacy
Weekly work engagement
Weekly proactive behavior
Organizational strengths use
support is associated with
weekly strengths use
Weekly strengths use is
associated with weekly
proactive behavior, directly
and indirectly through
occupational self-efficacy
and work engagement
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
5.1 Results
The results of the 27 studies included are presented in Table2. Overall, strengths use and
development seems to be positively associated with work performance and job satisfaction.
Indeed, results indicate that when employees identify, use, and develop their strengths at
work, they tend to perform better and are more proactive in the workplace (Cable etal.
2013; Dubreuil etal. 2014; Harzer and Ruch 2014; Van Wingerden and Van der Stoep
2018; Van Woerkom etal. 2015), demonstrating more helping behaviors and less coun-
terproductive ones (Kong and Ho 2016; Lavy and Littman-Ovadia 2017; Littman-Ovadia
etal. 2017), finding more creative solutions to problems (Lee etal. 2016) as well as adapt-
ing to change better (Dubreuil etal. 2014). Additionally, results suggest that these relations
are often mediated by positive emotions and engagement (Lavy and Littman-Ovadia 2017;
Littman-Ovadia etal. 2017; Van Woerkom and Meyers 2015). In contrast, over- or under-
utilization of strengths seems counterproductive and detrimental to performance (Harzer
and Ruch 2012; Kaiser and Overfield 2011).
Results also indicate that strengths use and development tends to be associated with
increased satisfaction and well-being at work. Strengths use is generally associated to a
sense of meaning at work (Harzer and Ruch 2013; Littman-Ovadia etal. 2017; Littman-
Ovadia and Steger 2010), and some studies suggest that strengths identification and devel-
opment could encourage work to be perceived as a vocation (Harzer and Ruch 2016). In
addition, strengths use in the workplace is also generally related to positive experiences,
such as satisfaction, pleasure, and commitment (Harzer and Ruch 2013), as well as to posi-
tive emotions such as joy, pride or enthusiasm (Cable etal. 2015; Littman-Ovadia etal.
2017), which in turn may have a positive impact on well-being (Meyers and Van Woerkom
2017). Strengths identification, use, and development in the workplace also tends to pro-
mote work engagement (Cable etal. 2015; Littman-Ovadia et al. 2017; Van Wingerden
and Van der Stoep 2018; Van Woerkom etal. 2015), psychological well-being (Forest etal.
2012), and life satisfaction (Dubreuil etal. 2016).
In a broader perspective, our review also indicated that organizational support for
strengths use appears to have an important impact on different work outcomes. As such,
a strengths-based psychological climate seems to be associated with a greater reliance
on personal strengths (Stander etal. 2014; Van Woerkom etal. 2016a), especially when
managers promote employees’ autonomy (Kong and Ho 2016). Such an environment can
positively affect work engagement (Botha and Mostert 2014; Mphahlele etal. 2018) and
encourage positive interactions between coworkers (Lee etal. 2016), leaders, and subordi-
nates (Els etal. 2016). Organizational support for strengths use is also positively associated
with in-role and extra-role performance (Van Woerkom and Meyers 2015; Van Woerkom
etal. 2016b), as well as with lower absenteeism, especially when employees are confronted
with high workload and emotional demands (Van Woerkom etal. 2016a).
6 Discussion
The results of this systematic review tend to corroborate the fundamental claim that
strengths use and development are closely linked to work performance and well-being
(Buckingham and Clifton 2001; Linley and Harrington 2006; Peterson and Seligman 2004;
Roberts etal. 2005b). Furthermore, they also support major theoretical models proposing
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
that strengths use produces its effects on performance and well-being mainly through
heightened feelings of vitality, authenticity, and competence (Linley 2008; Peterson and
Seligman 2004; Hodges and Clifton 2004). Indeed, it seems that people who regularly
use their strengths at work are more engaged and absorbed in their tasks (Dubreuil etal.
2014; Harzer and Ruch 2012, 2013; Lavy and Littman-Ovadia 2017; Littman-Ovadia etal.
2017), and tend to feel more effective and intrinsically motivated at work (Clifton and Har-
ter 2003; Dubreuil etal. 2014; Kong and Ho 2016; Harzer and Ruch 2014; Van Woerkom
etal. 2015).
Interestingly, these positive states seem to be necessary for proactive behaviors to per-
sist (Fritz and Sonnentag 2007), and make it possible to exceed job requirements (Frese
etal. 1997). This phenomenon can be linked to Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden-and-build
theory, which stipulates that positive emotions broaden people’s modes of thinking and
action, which in turn build their personal and social resources and allow them to better
adapt to change, display proactive behaviors and succeed in a variety of situations. In a
similar way, self-determination theory proponents would argue that strengths use, through
enhanced feelings of competency, autonomy, and relatedness, tends to foster intrinsic
motivation at work (Gagné and Deci 2005; Linley etal. 2010a, b; Ryan and Deci 2000),
which in turn leads to higher levels of well-being (Gagné etal. 2015) and performance
(Cerasoli etal. 2014). The use and development of strengths can also be seen as promot-
ing a growth mindset, which is described by Dweck as seeing intelligence as “a malle-
able quantity that can be increased with effort and learning” (Dweck etal. 2014, p. 5).
This incremental conception of intelligence implies believing in the individual’s learning
abilities (Dweck 2006). On the one hand, for the individual believing in his/her capaci-
ties, progress involves efforts. On the other hand, for the supervisor, it implies to believe in
the person’s capacity of progress, and that he/she will send feedback, encouragement and
seek solutions to help the person gain ground. A growth mindset is positively linked to a
healthier attitude toward practice and learning, hunger for feedback, a greater ability to deal
with setbacks, and improved performance over time (Blackwell etal. 2007; Dweck etal.
2014). Thus, by emphasizing a growth-mindset through strengths development, individuals
can build resilience and long-term achievement (Dweck 2010). Without a doubt, working
on strengths is about identifying these resources and learning to make the most of them
in consideration with situational demands. Moreover, strengths use can be positioned in
Job Demands–Resources theory (Bakker and Demerouti 2017) as one of the behaviors that
mediates the feedback-loop from work engagement to job and personal resources. Accord-
ingly, employees who are engaged in their work are motivated to stay engaged. One of
the ways to realize this sustained work engagement is by proactively using one’s character
strengths because using strengths facilitates personal resources like optimism and self-effi-
cacy (Bakker and Van Woerkom 2017). Another possibility is to engage in job crafting (i.e.
proactively optimizing one’s job demands and resources; Tims etal. 2016) so as to make
strengths use more likely (Kooij etal. 2017). Thus, strengths use also has a positive influ-
ence on job resources, and may play a crucial role in the motivational gain cycle proposed
by JD-R theory.
These findings also echo studies conducted on strengths use and development in other
settings. In academic contexts, previous research has shown that relying on personal
strengths tends to improve students’ well-being and academic performance, as well as
effectiveness, autonomy and motivation (Madden et al. 2011; Waters 2011; Weber etal.
2016). Similarly, clinical findings show that well-being and optimal human functioning can
be promoted through strengths use (Rashid 2009; Rashid and Anjum 2008; Rashid etal.
2017; Seligman etal. 2006). Rashid (2015) argues that positive psychotherapies, and more
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
specifically strengths-focused ones, tend to decrease depression and increase life satisfac-
tion, hope and good social functioning, as well as well-being.
7 Results andDiscussion—Strengths Interventions
Having reviewed findings on the outcomes of strengths use at work, the various interven-
tions used to develop strengths in the workplace will be presented and discussed, and an
integrative model will be proposed.
7.1 Results
The main intervention models used in organizational contexts draw upon a variety of
methods for identifying, using and developing individual strengths. For example, Harzer
and Ruch (2016) recently developed an online intervention protocol which was applied
and tested against a placebo control condition. Participants first identified their four high-
est character strengths (using the VIA-Survey), and were requested to reflect on how they
used them in their daily activities and tasks. They were then asked to use their four main
strengths in new and different ways at work for 4weeks, and were encouraged to do so by
developing “if–then” plans. After 1month, results indicated an increase in calling and life
satisfaction. These results were maintained up to 6months afterwards. In a similar way,
Forest etal. (2012) also developed an intervention in which they asked employees to iden-
tify their main character strengths (using the VIA-Survey), to describe themselves (on a
printed form) when they are at their best at work, and then to use two of their strengths at
work in a new way over the course of 2weeks. At the end of this period, participants were
asked to indicate which strengths they used, and to think about the positive consequences
of using these strengths in their current job. Two months later, the results showed improved
strengths use, as well as increases in well-being and harmonious passion.
In their field study conducted with a sample of 116 Dutch employees, Meyers and Van
Woerkom (2017) described three stages in their experimental protocol: (1) identification of
strengths; (2) development of strengths; and (3) strengths use. Participants were first asked
to identify their three dominant strengths using specially developed character strengths
cards and guiding questions. Then, they took part in a half-day training program that was
facilitated by professionals and designed to help them develop and use their strengths at
work. Each participant then had to choose a partner who would check on their progress
regarding their strengths use and development. Results showed a short-term increase in
employee positive affect, which returned to baseline 1month after the intervention, as well
as a short-term increase in psychological capital (self-efficacy, optimism, hope, resilience),
which was maintained over the 1-month follow-up period.
In their general model of strengths development, Clifton and Harter (2003) suggest
three steps that differ slightly from those mentioned above: (1) identification, (2) inte-
gration, and (3) changed behaviors. The distinctive feature of this model is that accord-
ing to these authors, any strength intervention must include an integration step, which
can vary from a few hours to a few weeks, in order to help the individual acknowledge
this new information about him- or herself, gain a deeper awareness of his/her strengths
and integrate it into his/her view of self before planning strengths development and use.
Based on this approach, Dubreuil etal. (2016) proposed a three-step intervention pro-
gram (identification, integration, action) which was applied in the workplace using a
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
sample of 78 participants. In this study, participants were first asked to identify their
strengths using the VIA-Survey. The researcher then facilitated a 3-h, on-site training
period. In the first part of the training, participants were asked to discuss their strengths
and how they contribute to their past and present success (integration). In the second
part of the training, participants were asked to plan with their peers, through specific
questions, how they could make better use of their strengths in their current work
(action). Three months after the intervention, results indicated a significant increase in
strengths use compared to baseline. However, as there was no control group in this par-
ticular study, a possible placebo effect cannot be ruled out.
In a similar fashion and building on their previous work, Van Woerkom and Mey-
ers (2019) recently conducted a second field experiment with a sample of 84 educa-
tion professionals. Their study involved a quasi-experimental design with 1-month pre-
test and 1-month post-test measures of general self-efficacy, personal growth initiative,
strengths awareness and strengths use. The intervention protocol consisted of two spe-
cific workshops separated by a 4-week interval. Prior to the first workshop, participants
were asked to complete the Strengthsfinder assessment. The first workshop was focused
on a further discovery of personal strengths (using open-ended questions and discussion
approaches) and on the development of a personal plan regarding strengths use in the
workplace. Participants were asked to share their plans with their colleagues in order to
increase commitment. The second workshop, conducted 4weeks later, was specifically
aimed at following up and building on initial engagements. After sharing and discussing
about the implementation of personal plans, participants were introduced to the concept
of jobcrafting and asked, following a short task analysis exercise, to develop a second
personal plan in which they would try to align part of their jobs with their strengths.
Results indicated that the intervention had a direct effect on general self-efficacy and an
indirect effect on personal growth initiative. Furthermore, results revealed that partici-
pants with low to medium initial levels of general self-efficacy benefited the most from
the intervention.
Adopting a different approach, the Reflected Best Self is a specific strengths devel-
opment exercise which was established by a group of researchers to openly identify and
develop strengths based on feedback received from peers (Roberts et al. 2005b). This
description of oneself when one is at one’s best is based on colleagues’ and relatives’ feed-
back, which the subject collects and thoroughly analyzes. The person then produces a spe-
cific synthesis of his/her main strengths, and develops an action plan to optimize their use
in connection with professional objectives. This exercise is particularly useful in coaching,
where the individual has the necessary time, energy, and personal commitment to devote to
this deep reflection (Roberts etal. 2005b).
Finally, Linley (2008) also describes general intervention steps to develop leaders’
strengths use. Leaders can put the following seven elements into practice: (1) knowing and
accepting their own strengths and weaknesses; (2) knowing their team members’ strengths
and weaknesses and respecting them whatever they may be; (3) allocating tasks to the per-
son with the most appropriate strengths; (4) giving positive feedback; (5) genuinely and
appropriately disclosing weaknesses to enable acceptance and progress; (6) calibrating
strengths correctly according to the situation and according to the “golden mean” principle
(the right strength, to the right amount, in the right situation); (7) recognizing his/her role
as an organizational climate engineer.
Hence, a range of different approaches to strengths development exists. Whether on an
individual, group or organizational level, strengths-based interventions can be an opportu-
nity to develop potential in an innovative way.
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
7.2 Additional Considerations
Currently, most research mainly focuses on the presence and possession of strengths rather
than their use and development (Wood etal. 2011). However, instead of seeing strengths as
isolated and stable personality traits, it is important that practitioners view them as evolv-
ing characteristics that must be carefully brought to attention and then correctly developed
(Biswas-Diener etal. 2011). While mere strengths identification without further develop-
ment may only have short-term effects on the individuals (Dubreuil et al. 2016; Meyers
etal. 2015; Seligman etal. 2005), we also know that overusing or underusing a strength
can be detrimental to performance (Kaplan and Kaiser 2009). Therefore, adequate train-
ing, continuous support and feed-back in strengths development are key points that must be
considered in any program (Kaplan and Kaiser 2009; Linley 2008; Linley and Harrington
2006).
Several intervention strategies are possible (Quinlan etal. 2012). For an intervention
to be effective, it must be designed with care. Activities must be engaging, relevant and
meaningful, while supporting behavior, habits and rituals that promote the continued use
of strengths after the intervention (Dubreuil etal. 2016; Meyers etal. 2015). Moreover, the
attitude of the person conducting the intervention seems to impact the consequences of the
intervention (Cox 2006). Practitioners showing high adherence to strengths-based practices
seem to produce better results. Creating a culture of risk taking, emphasizing challenge and
not success, giving a sense of progress, and underlining efforts rather than results seems
essential to build a growth mindset that leads to success (Dweck 2010).
8 Discussion
Considering the interventions and protocols put forward by various researchers and practi-
tioners in the field, a five-step summary and integrative model to promote strengths devel-
opment in organizational environments is proposed (Fig.1).
The first step is to educate the participant about the strengths approach and the proposed
intervention (1). This phase is critical for the employee to be able to appreciate the value
of the approach, to understand the steps involved in the process, and to be actively and
genuinely involved in the intervention (Clifton and Harter 2003). The approach’s origins,
advantages and limitations, as well as the overall process, must therefore be presented, and
all questions must be answered (Dubreuil and Forest 2017). This step helps reduce negativ-
ity bias, the natural tendency of humans to give more attention to negative than positive
information (Ito etal. 1998), and fully engage participants in the intervention from the
start.
The second step is to identify the person’s strengths (2). As discussed earlier, this can
be accomplished through a psychometric instrument (e.g., StrengthsFinder, VIA-Survey,
(1) Preparaon
andcommitment
•The strengths
approach, what
it is, how it
works
(2) Idenficaon
•Psychometric
assessment
•Open
(3) Integraon
•Integraon in
one's view of self
(4) Acon
•Plan
•Change
(5) Evaluaon
•Effects
•Gains
Fig. 1 Integrative model of strengths development in organizational environments
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
StrengthProfile), or in a less restrictive way by observing oneself (e.g., identifying activi-
ties that involve performance, energy, authenticity and flow; Biswas-Diener et al. 2011;
Linley 2008; Linley and Burns 2010), or by collecting feedback from peers (Roberts etal.
2005b). Different methods can be used according to the particular demands of the situa-
tion, and the resources available. Although each method can provide very useful informa-
tion on its own, a combination of different methods (e.g., psychometric instrument and
feedback from peers) can yield a more accurate and complete picture of an individual’s
strengths (see Dubreuil and Forest 2017, for a thorough discussion of these methods).
The third step is the integration of strengths in the individual’s identity (3). This step is
particularly important for ensuring the quality of the overall process, as it allows the indi-
vidual to take the necessary time to fully grasp and assimilate this new information, better
understand the reasons for his/her actions and observe his/her behavior in light of personal
strengths. This new conceptualization of self can then be integrated into the identity before
planning the next steps (Clifton and Harter 2003). It can be facilitated by appropriation
exercises, such as specific questions linking strengths to previous successes (Dubreuil etal.
2016), feedback analysis (Roberts etal. 2005b), and self-portrayal exercises (Forest etal.
2012), in order to help the individual gain a deeper awareness of his/her strengths. A cer-
tain period of time, which may vary from one individual to another, is therefore necessary.
The fourth step is action (4), which consists of two sub-stages. First, the person decides
the specific changes he/she wants to put in place to make better use of his/her personal
strengths. The individual then implements the intended transformations. To help workers
move from theory to action, strengths must be invested in specific individual, group, or
organizational goals and initiatives (e.g., personal objectives, team projects, new tasks and
responsibilities, complementary partnerships, etc.), and their application must be mon-
itored or closely followed by managers, peers or coaches, who can provide support and
encourage progress (Linley 2008). In the long term, it is important that the person always
remain careful to avoid the overuse of strengths, and rather aims to use the right strength,
to the right amount, and at the right time (Biswas-Diener etal. 2011; Kaplan and Kaiser
2009; Kaiser and Overfield 2011).
Finally, the fifth step is evaluation (5). At the end of the intervention, results can be
evaluated subjectively through the individual’s appreciation of the progress made (in terms
of strengths awareness and use, goal achievement, overall well-being, etc.), or objectively
through changes in various variables that were measured prior to the intervention: well-
being, job satisfaction, motivation, work engagement, or job performance. A measure of
the impact of the intervention can then make it possible to ensure the effectiveness of the
procedure and allow for readjustment if necessary.
9 General Discussion
The present study aimed to provide a literature review on strengths use and development
in the workplace. The outcomes of strengths use in an organizational context were first
summarized, a narrative literature review of the main strengths interventions was con-
ducted, and an integrative model for strengths development was proposed. As we have
seen, strengths use in the workplace is associated to various employee well-being and
work performance outcomes. Additionally, strengths development studies and intervention
models use similar methods, which can be integrated into a general model encompassing
five overarching steps. These findings and propositions can be very useful for researchers
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
and professionals, as they indicate that strengths use and development in the workplace
has the potential to foster well-being as well as performance, a need that is expressed in
organizations worldwide. Researchers are therefore invited to refine and develop the actual
knowledge in the field, while professionals are encouraged to identify, use, and optimize
employee strengths in organizations, through improved human resources management
practices.
9.1 Limitations
Some limitations regarding our review of strength use and development in organizations
must be underlined. First, as this is a recent approach, there is still a great need for further
theory and research in the area before one can propose any definitive conclusions. The
number of studies on strengths use in organizational settings is still modest, our review
of the literature presenting only 27 studies on the outcomes of strengths use at work. In
addition, these studies mainly focus on European and North American populations, which
constitute a cultural bias that must be taken into consideration in the generalization of the
results to other continents.
The second limitation relates to the use of self-assessment measures for all variables
in most studies, which may inflate the relationships between variables due to common-
variance bias (Podsakoff etal. 2012). Furthermore, as many studies used self-reported
measures of work performance (with a few exceptions, e.g. Harzer and Ruch 2012, 2014;
Kaiser and Overfield 2011; Kong and Ho 2016; Van Woerkom etal. 2016b), results are
also prone to social desirability bias and must be interpreted with caution. Along the same
lines, it must also be acknowledged that the current lack of evidence regarding the validity
of major strengths classifications instruments constitutes an important problem in this field.
In fact, results of complete and thorough factor analyses are only available for one instru-
ment, namely the VIA Survey.
Finally, although several studies included in our review used longitudinal designs,
which increases the grip on causality, an important limitation is that most studies employed
a cross-sectional design. Moreover, only experimental research—for example in the form
of interventions in which individuals learn to identify and use their strengths—can estab-
lish causal relations between the variables.
9.2 Future Research Directions
Research should continue investigating the effects of strengths use in the workplace, but
also turn its attention towards the development of strength interventions, as well as the con-
ditions that foster and enable strengths use. Since studies to date have been mainly cross-
sectional, it first seems imperative to further study the outcomes of strengths use and devel-
opment over time. Longitudinal studies, especially experimental field studies, would yield
more accurate conclusions about the expected outcomes of strengths use, such as well-
being, performance, and work engagement, as well as about effective strengths develop-
ment interventions. In this regard, structured processes such as Intervention Mapping could
be utilized to support the development of interventions. This model provides a rigorous
framework and protocol guiding the development of theory and evidence-based interven-
tions through specifically designed steps (Bartholomew etal. 1998; Kok etal. 2004). The
antecedents and conditions necessary for strengths use and development (such as auton-
omy, supervisor support and job design) would also need to be further explored in order
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
to expand our knowledge beyond the mere outcomes of strengths. Finally, future research
should strive to use objective measures of work performance (e.g., supervisor-rated, per-
formance data, etc.) in order to minimize any bias relating to this particular variable.
10 Conclusion
Focusing on strengths presents a rare opportunity to work with people in a way that
enhances their sense of identity and personal worth, while improving their well-being and
their performance (Linley and Harrington 2006). The different types of interventions devel-
oped to promote these qualities may offer public and private sector organizations a signifi-
cant advantage. Indeed, today’s organizations need highly engaged employees, who take
initiatives to perform in this uncertain economic environment, in which ever increasing
competition and technological innovation are the norm (Bakker and Van Woerkom 2017;
Bakker and Schaufeli 2008; Rosa 2013). Could strengths be a key to this new puzzle?
References
Asplund, J., Agrawal, S., Hodges, T., Harter, J., & Lopez, S. J. (2014). The Clifton StrengthsFinder® 2.0
technical report: Development and validation. Washington, DC: Gallup.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourish-
ing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 147–154.
Bakker, A. B., & Van Woerkom, M. (2017). Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of occupa-
tional health. Canadian Psychology. https ://doi.org/10.1037/cap00 00120 .
Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., & Kok, G. (1998). Intervention mapping: A process for developing the-
ory and evidence-based health education programs. Health Education & Behavior, 25(5), 545–563.
Biswas-Diener, R. (2006). From the equator to the North Pole: A study of character strengths. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 7(3), 293–310.
Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength
development and intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(2), 106–118.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict
achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Develop-
ment, 78(1), 246–263.
Botha, C., & Mostert, K. (2014). A structural model of job resources, organizational and individual
strengths use and work engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1–11. https ://doi.
org/10.4102/sajip .v40i1 .1135.
Bouskila-Yam, O., & Kluger, A. N. (2011). Strength-based performance appraisal and goal setting. Human
Resource Management Review, 21(2), 137–147.
Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. New York, NY: Free Press.
Cable, D., Lee, J. J., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2015). How best-self activation influences emotions, physiol-
ogy and employment relationships. Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper, (16-029).
Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013). Breaking them in or eliciting their best? Reframing sociali-
zation around newcomers’ authentic self-expression. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1), 1–36.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly
predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008.
Clifton, D. O., Anderson, C. E., & Schreiner, L. A. (2002). StrengthsQuest. Washington, DC: The Gal-
lup Organization. Retrived from https ://pdfs.seman ticsc holar .org/a600/58e7d 3d9ed f77c3 f14e5 ac7f0
27b4e 7dffe b.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2017.
Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Investing in Strengths. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn
(Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 111–121). San Fran-
cisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
Cox, K. F. (2006). Investigating the impact of strength-based assessment on youth with emotional or behav-
ioral disorders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(3), 278–292.
Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human
strengths across culture and history. Review of General Psychology, 9(3), 203.
Dubreuil, P., & Forest, J. (2017). “Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your
life”: A strengths-based leadership approach to optimal functioning at work. In K. Kelloway, K.
Nielsen, & J. Jimoff (Eds.), Leading to occupational health and safety (pp. 281–306). Chichester:
Wiley-Duckworth.
Dubreuil, P., Forest, J., & Courcy, F. (2014). From strengths use to work performance: The role of har-
monious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(4),
335–349.
Dubreuil, P., Forest, J., Gillet, N., Fernet, C., Thibault-Landry, A., Crevier-Braud, L., etal. (2016). Facilitat-
ing well-being and performance through the development of strengths at work: Results from an inter-
vention program. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 1(1–3), 1–19.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Dweck, C. S. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 16–20.
Dweck, C. S., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2014). Academic tenacity: Mindsets and skills that promote
long-term learning. Retrieved from Stanford Graduate School of Education website: https ://ed.stanf
ord.edu/sites /defau lt/files /manua l/dweck -walto n-cohen -2014.pdf. Accessed 4 Aug 2018.
Els, C., Viljoen, J., de Beer, L., & Brand-Labuschagne, L. (2016). The mediating effect of leader-mem-
ber exchange between strengths use and work engagement. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(1),
22–28.
Forest, J., Mageau, G. A., Crevier-Braud, L., Bergeron, É., Dubreuil, P., & Lavigne, G. L. (2012). Harmoni-
ous passion as an explanation of the relation between signature strengths’ use and well-being at work:
Test of an intervention program. Human Relations, 65(9), 1233–1252.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build
theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Opera-
tionalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 70(2), 139–161.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressors and
positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management, 1(35), 94–111.
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology,
9(2), 103–110.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., etal. (2015).
The multidimensional work motivation scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine coun-
tries. European Journal Of Work And Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 178–196.
Ghielen, S. T. S., van Woerkom, M., & Christina Meyers, M. (2017). Promoting positive outcomes through
strengths interventions: A literature review. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(6), 573–585.
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2012). When the job is a calling: The role of applying one’s signature strengths at
work. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(5), 362–371.
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature character strengths and positive experiences at
work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 965–983.
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2014). The role of character strengths for task performance, job dedication, inter-
personal facilitation, and organizational support. Human Performance, 27(3), 183–205.
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2016). Your strengths are calling: Preliminary results of a web-based strengths
intervention to increase calling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(6), 2237–2256.
Hodges, T. D., & Asplund, J. (2010). Strengths development in the workplace. In A. Linley, S. Harrington,
& N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 213–220). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hodges, T. D., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strength-based development in practice. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph
(Eds.), International handbook of positive psychology: From research to application (pp. 256–268).
New Jersey: Wiley and Sons.
Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heav-
ily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(4), 887.
Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2011). Strengths, strengths overused, and lopsided leadership. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63(2), 89–109.
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. (2009). Stop overdoing your strengths. Harvard Business Review, 87(2),
100–103.
Kok, G., Schaalma, H., Ruiter, R. A. C., Van Empelen, P., & Brug, J. (2004). Intervention mapping:
Protocol for applying health psychology theory to prevention programmes. Journal of Health Psy-
chology, 9, 85–98.
Kong, D. T., & Ho, V. T. (2016). A self-determination perspective of strengths use at work: Examining
its determinant and performance implications. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(1), 15–25.
Kooij, D. T. A. M., Van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2017). Job
crafting towards strengths and interests: The effects of a job crafting intervention on person–job fit
and the role of age. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 971–981.
Lavy, S., & Littman-Ovadia, H. (2017). My better self using strengths at work and work productiv-
ity, organizational citizenship behavior, and satisfaction. Journal of Career Development, 44(2),
95–109.
Lavy, S., Littman-Ovadia, H., & Boiman-Meshita, M. (2017). The wind beneath my wings: Effects of
social support on daily use of character strengths at work. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(4),
703–714.
Lee, J. J., Gino, F., Cable, D., & Staats, B. R. (2016). Preparing the self for team entry: How relational affir-
mation improves team performance. Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper, (16-111).
Linley, A., & Dovey, H. (2015). Technical manual and statistical properties for Realise2. Coventry:
Centre of Applied Positive Psychology.
Linley, A., Willars, J., Biswas-Deiner, R., Garcea, N., & Stairs, M. (2010a). The strengths book: Be confi-
dent, be successful and enjoy better relationships by realising the best of you. Coventry: Capp Press.
Linley, P. A. (2008). Average to A+. Coventry: CAPP Press.
Linley, P. A., & Burns, G. W. (2010). Strengthspotting: Finding and developing client resources in the
management of intense anger. In Happiness, healing, enhancement: Your casebook collection for
applying positive psychology in therapy (pp. 1–14). Wiley.
Linley, P. A., & Harrington, S. (2006). Strengths coaching: A potential-guided approach to coaching
psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 37–46.
Linley, P. A., Nielsen, K. M., Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010b). Using signature strengths in
pursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and well-being, and implications for
coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1), 6–15.
Linley, P. A., Woolston, L., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009). Strengths coaching with leaders. International
Coaching Psychology Review, 4(1), 37–48.
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Lavy, S. (2012). Character strengths in Israel. European Journal of Psychologi-
cal Assessment, 28, 41–50.
Littman-Ovadia, H., Lavy, S., & Boiman-Meshita, M. (2017). When theory and research collide: Exam-
ining correlates of signature strengths use at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(2), 527–548.
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Steger, M. (2010). Character strengths and well-being among volunteers and
employees: Toward an integrative model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(6), 419–430.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of organiza-
tional behavior, 23(6), 695–706.
Madden, W., Green, S., & Grant, A. M. (2011). A pilot study evaluating strengths-based coaching for
primary school students: Enhancing engagement and hope. International Coaching Psychology
Review, 6(1), 71–83.
McGrath, R. E. (2014). Scale-and item-level factor analyses on the VIA Inventory of Strengths. Assess-
ment, 21(1), 4–14.
McGrath, R. E. (2017). Technical report: The VIA assessment suite for adults: Development and initial
evaluation. Cincinnati, OH: VIA Institute on Character.
McGrath, R. E., Greenberg, M. J., & Hall-Simmonds, A. (2018). Scarecrow, Tin Woodsman, and Cow-
ardly Lion: The three-factor model of virtue. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(4), 373–392.
Meyers, M. C., & Van Woerkom, M. (2017). Effects of a strengths intervention on general and work-related
well-being: The mediating role of positive affect. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(3), 671–689.
Meyers, M. C., Van Woerkom, M., de Reuver, R. S. M., Bakk, Z., & Oberski, D. L. (2015). Enhancing
psychological capital and personal growth initiative: Working on strengths or deficiencies. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 62(1), 50–62.
Mongrain, M., & Anselmo-Matthews, T. (2012). Do positive psychology exercises work? A replication
of Seligman etal. (2005). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 382–389.
Mphahlele, P., Els, C., De Beer, L. T., & Mostert, K. (2018). Investigating strengths and deficits to
increase work engagement: A longitudinal study in the mining industry. SA Journal of Human
Resource Management, 16, 1–16. https ://doi.org/10.4102/sajhr m.v16i0 .900.
Author's personal copy
Strength Use intheWorkplace: ALiterature Review
1 3
Nathan, P. E., & Gorman, J. M. (1998). Treatments that work–and what convinces us they do. In P. Nathan
& J. Gorman (Eds.), A guide to treatments that work (pp. 3–25). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US
states. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 118–129.
Peterson, C., Park, N., Pole, N., D’Andrea, W., & Seligman, M. E. (2008). Strengths of character and post-
traumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21, 214–217.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Proctor, C., Tsukayama, E., Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Eades, J. F., & Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths gym:
The impact of a character strengths-based intervention on the life satisfaction and well-being of ado-
lescents. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(5), 377–388.
Proyer, R. T., Gander, F., Wellenzohn, S., & Ruch, W. (2015). Strengths-based positive psychology inter-
ventions: A randomized placebo-controlled online trial on long-term effects for a signature strengths-
vs. a lesser strengths-intervention. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 456.
Quinlan, D., Swain, N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2012). Character strengths interventions: Building on
what we know for improved outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(6), 1145–1163.
Rashid, T. (2009). Positive interventions in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(5),
461–466.
Rashid, T. (2015). Positive psychotherapy: A strength-based approach. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
10(1), 25–40.
Rashid, T., & Anjum, A. (2008). Positive psychotherapy for young adults and children. In J. Z. Abela, B. L.
Hankin, J. Z. Abela, & B. L. Hankin (Eds.), Handbook of depression in children and adolescents (pp.
250–287). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rashid, T., Howes, R. N., & Louden, R. (2017). Positive psychotherapy: A wellbeing approach to recovery.
In M. Slade, L. Oades, A. Jarden, M. Slade, L. Oades, & A. Jarden (Eds.), Wellbeing, recovery and
mental health (pp. 111–132). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rath, T. (2007). StrengthsFinder 2.0. New York, NY: Gallup Press.
Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E. D., & Quinn, R. E. (2005a). Composing the
reflected 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. (2005b). How to play to your
strengths. Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 74–80.
Rosa, E. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2015). Mapping strengths into virtues: The relation of the 24 VIA-strengths to
six ubiquitous virtues. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 460.
Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2010). Values in action
inventory of strengths (VIA-IS). Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 138–149.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Seligman, M. E. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York,
NY: Simon and Schuster.
Seligman, M. E., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61(8),
774.
Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical
validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1994). What you can change and what you can’t: The guide to successful self-improve-
ment. New York, NY: Knopf.
Sheldon, K. M., & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is necessary. American Psychologist, 56(3),
216–217.
Stander, F. W., Mostert, K., & de Beer, L. T. (2014). Organisational and individual strengths use as predic-
tors of engagement and productivity. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 24(5), 403–409.
Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person–job fit and
meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 44–53.
Van Wingerden, J., & Van der Stoep, J. (2018). The motivational potential of meaningful work: Relation-
ships with strengths use, work engagement, and performance. PLoS ONE, 13(6), e0197599. https ://
doi.org/10.1371/journ al.pone.01975 99.
Author's personal copy
M.Miglianico et al.
1 3
Van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A. B., & Nishii, L. H. (2016a). Accumulative job demands and support for
strength use: Fine-tuning the JD-R model using COR theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1),
141–150.
Van Woerkom, M., & Meyers, M. C. (2015). My strengths count! Human Resource Management, 54(1),
81–103.
Van Woerkom, M., & Meyers, M. C. (2019). Strengthening personal growth: The effects of a strengths
intervention on personal growth initiative. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
92(1), 98–121.
Van Woerkom, M., Mostert, K., Els, C., Bakker, A. B., de Beer, L., & Rothmann, S., Jr. (2016b). Strengths
use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 960–975. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13594
32X.2016.11930 10.
Van Woerkom, M., Oerlemans, W., & Bakker, A. B. (2015). Strengths use and work engagement: A weekly
diary study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(3), 384–397.
Waters, L. (2011). A review of school-based positive psychology interventions. The Australian Educational
and Developmental Psychologist, 28(2), 75–90.
Weber, M., Wagner, L., & Ruch, W. (2016). Positive feelings at school: On the relationships between stu-
dents’ character strengths, school-related affect, and school functioning. Journal of Happiness Stud-
ies, 17(1), 341–355.
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., & Hurling, R. (2011). Using personal and psycho-
logical strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development
of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 15–19.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Author's personal copy
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Happiness Studies
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
