Access to this full-text is provided by Taylor & Francis.
Content available from Cogent Business & Managment
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE
Coaching leadership as a link between individual-
and team-level strength use at work
Liisa Mäkelä
1
, Hilpi Kangas
2
*, Eveliina Korkiakangas
2
and Jaana Laitinen
2
Abstract: This qualitative study delves into the interplay between coaching lea-
dership and the utilization of strengths at both individual and team levels. Despite
the acknowledged significance of this interplay, there is a scarcity of empirical
qualitative research in this domain. Thus, this study aimed to address this gap by
examining the prevalence and effectiveness of coaching leadership practices and
strength use. Through a qualitative research approach, data from 17 supervisors
and 23 employees within elderly care units were analyzed using template analysis.
The outcomes of this study underscore the pivotal role of leadership in facilitating
the application of strengths within the workplace, highlighting the interconnected-
ness of individual and team-level strength utilization. The findings of this study
reveal that leadership plays a pivotal role in enabling and facilitating strength use at
work, and that individual- and team-level strength use are linked. Leaders need to
personally know their team members at the individual level, empower teams to
work autonomously, and create a safe, open atmosphere for diversity at the team
level. Adopting qualitative methodology, the study comprehends how coaching
leadership facilitates strength utilization. This nuanced approach contributes to
literature, enhancing our understanding of leadership’s role in optimizing strengths
in a professional context.
Subjects: Introductory Work/Organizational Psychology; Leadership; Executive Coaching;
Work Motivation
Keywords: leadership; coaching leadership; strength use; health care; elderly care
1. Introduction
Every individual has strengths, i.e., “specific individual characteristics, traits, and abilities that, when
employed, are energizing and allow a person to perform at his or her personal best” (van Woerkom
et al., 2016, p. 960). In the context of working life, being able to recognize, utilize and develop one’s
strengths has been related to several positive outcomes, for instance, work engagement and well-
being (Harzer & Ruch, 2013; Keenan & Mostert, 2013; Meyers et al., 2019), reduced stress and
burnout (Meyers et al., 2019; Wood et al., 2011), and good self- and manager-rated job perfor-
mance (van Woerkom et al., 2016). It has also been shown to be beneficial for the team-based
quality of care in nursing homes (Buljac-Samardžić et al., 2018).
Organizational support of strength use at work is essential (Els et al., 2018; van Woerkom et al.,
2022) and has been identified as an especially important job resource in the context of high job
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 1 of 18
Received: 29 August 2023
Accepted: 06 December 2023
*Corresponding author: Hilpi Kangas,
Finnish Institute of Occupational
Health, P.O. Box 40, FI-00032
Työterveyslaitos, Finland
E-mail: hilpi.kangas@ttl.fi
Reviewing editor:
Pablo Ruiz, Universidad de Castilla-
La Mancha, Spain
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu-
tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on
which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in
a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
demands (van Woerkom et al., 2016). The health care sector, in particular the elderly care sector,
has been described as overdemanding (Audenaert et al., 2020). Therefore, studying how the
organization supports strength use in this challenging context is important, because organizations
that help their employees understand, utilize and develop their unique strengths, are likely to have
committed, motivated, and competent personnel (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018).
Earlier literature has identified leaders as organizational agents who support individuals’
strength use at work (Ding & Chu, 2020; Ding & Yu, 2021; van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015).
Coaching leadership refers to supervisory work that identifies and exploits an employee’s potential,
develops their abilities, and helps them learn, with the aim of promoting the performance of both
the employee and the organization as a whole (Bond & Seneque, 2013; Ellinger et al., 2008;
Tanskanen et al., 2018; Viitala, 2004), thus providing a suitable framework for studying organiza-
tional support of strength use at work.
Most previous studies of organizational support of strength use at work have represented the
quantitative research tradition and utilized survey data and statistical analysis methods. Strength
use at work has mainly been approached at the individual level, but recently it has been suggested
that the team context plays an important role in how strengths are used at work (van Woerkom
et al., 2022). Furthermore, the theoretical model presented by van Woerkom and her colleagues
(van Woerkom et al., 2022) suggests that the organizational climate is a crucial factor in the multi-
level process (individual and team) in terms of strength use at work, and leaders play a key role in
nurturing and developing the organizational climate (Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016; van Woerkom &
Meyers, 2015). It has also been suggested that leaders should employ strength-based practices
not only among their individual subordinates but also in teams (Yuan et al., 2019). However, to the
best of our knowledge, no empirical research has been conducted on how leadership supports
strength use at work on the individual and team level.
Our aim is to fill this gap in the literature. Due to the novelty of the phenomena, we relied on the
qualitative research tradition and utilized data on 17 supervisors and 23 employees working in
elderly care units. Our work was guided by the Conservation of resources (COR) theory, which is
based on the argument that having and gaining resources (i.e., leader support of strength use)
leads to positive spirals and outcomes, whereas a lack or loss of resources tends to make people
compensate for the gap by seeking other resources. If this is not successful, negative outcomes
will follow (Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll et al., 2018).
Our contribution is threefold: First, our study contributes to the strength use literature by
focusing on our participants’ perceptions of how leadership and strength use at work are
related; second, it reveals how coaching leadership at the individual and team level promotes
strength use at work; third, as it was conducted in a high-demand sector with a labor shortage,
specifically elderly care organizations, it adds to the knowledge on organizational support of
strength use at work in a challenging work environment.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Conservation of resources theory
COR theory is based on the idea that individuals attempt to acquire, maintain, protect, and foster
things they value, i.e., resources (Hobfoll, 2001). It is a suitable theory for the context of work and
organizations (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Resources can be objects or material goods (e.g., salary),
energy (e.g., time), personal characteristics (e.g., personal strengths or skills) or conditions (e.g.,
having a coaching leader). Resources are salient for an individual’s well-being, and if one loses or is
under threat of losing some resources, the importance of other obtained resources increases.
Having fewer resources makes people more vulnerable to resource loss than those with greater
resources. This negative process is called a loss spiral (Demerouti et al., 2004; Hobfoll, 2001) and
leads to negative outcomes such as reduced well-being at work or decreased commitment to the
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 2 of 18
organization. It has also been shown that the more resources available, the greater are the
opportunities to acquire new resources (Hobfoll, 2001). This kind of positive process is known as
a resource caravan (Hobfoll, 2002) or a gain spiral (Hakanen et al., 2011; Hobfoll, 2001) and is likely
to be linked to positive outcomes such as higher performance and commitment.
In the context of work in the public elderly care sector in Finland, in which this study was
conducted, issues related to resources are salient. In Finnish elderly care, the practical nurse
mainly assists and administers daily care to the elderly; registered nurses in turn are responsible
for organizing care and carrying out demanding nursing tasks. Registered nurses are often also
team leaders. Head nurses in charge of one or several elderly care units allocate tasks and make
decisions on, for example, work shifts (Sulander et al., 2016). Labor shortage is typical in elderly
care organizations. The majority of employees (nurse assistants/nurse aides, practical nurses,
registered nurses) receive relatively low pay (Sulander et al., 2016) and often do shift work
(FIOH, 2022). All these challenges relate to societal level systems and policies and lead to fewer
resources being available at work. Therefore, the resources within an organization and those of
each individual working there should be utilized and supported in order to compensate for possible
shortages of other resources and initiate resource caravan processes, which are important for
individual well-being and positive organizational outcomes. In this study, we focus on coaching
leadership as a possible condition resource that is essential for activating and utilizing strength use
at work, which in turn represents a personal-level resource in organizations.
2.2. Organizational support of strength use at work
Strength use at work stems from the positive psychology literature and is based on the idea that
all individuals have certain behavioral, cognitive and affective capacities that energize them and
enable optimal functioning (Linley, 2008; see for a review; Miglianico et al., 2020). Strengths are
considered stable but not fixed, and they develop naturally over the life course but also as a result
of conscious effort (Biswas-Diener, 2006; Park et al., 2021).
In the context of work and organizations, a deeper understanding of strength use at work is
beneficial, as using strengths at work has been linked to positive well-being outcomes among
individuals, such as personal growth, less stress, greater self-esteem, vitality, and positive affect
(van Woerkom & Meyers, 2019; Wood et al., 2011). Moreover, if strength use at work is supported and
encouraged in an organization, positive outcomes seem to follow. For instance, employees who are
encouraged to use their strengths at work cope better with their workload and are less often absent
(van Woerkom et al., 2016). Organizational support of strength use has also been linked to higher
levels of vitality, flow, passion, engagement in work (Dubreuil et al., 2016; Forest et al., 2012; Lavy &
Littman-Ovadia, 2017; Van Woerkom et al., 2015, for a review see; Miglianico et al., 2020), better
performance (Harzer & Rush, 2014), and lower intention to quit (Els et al., 2018). Thus, organizational
support of strength use at work is essential (Els et al., 2018; van Woerkom et al., 2022) and has been
identified as an especially important job resource in the context of high job demands (van Woerkom
et al., 2016). Therefore, it is also likely to be relevant in the elderly care sector.
Organizations can promote strength use in several ways; for instance, by providing the oppor-
tunity for collaboration between colleagues whose skills complement each other, or by designing
and allocating tasks on the basis of employees’ individual strengths (Linley & Harrington, 2006).
Strength use can also be supported by different human resource management processes in
organizations: Recruitment and employee selection can ensure a fit between employee strengths
and job role, and the focus of performance management and development discussions can be on
strengths rather than deficits (Els et al., 2018). In addition, interventions and training programs
that help employees identify, develop, and use their strengths are also one way in which organiza-
tions can support strength use at work (Meyers & Van Woerkom, 2017).
The earlier literature has identified leaders as key organizational actors in the promotion of
employees’ strength use at work (Ding & Chu, 2020; Ding & Yu, 2021; van Woerkom & Meyers,
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 3 of 18
2015). One stream in leadership research that strongly acknowledges the support of employees’
strengths as the core of supervisory work is coaching leadership (Batson & Yoder, 2012; Ellinger
et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2022). Therefore, coaching leadership and how it can contribute to
strength use at work is our next focus.
2.3. Coaching leadership as a conditional resource for strength use at work on the individual
and team level
Coaching leadership refers to supervisory work that identifies and exploits an employee’s potential,
develops their abilities, and helps them learn. It aims to promote the performance of both the
subordinate and the organization as a whole (Bond & Seneque, 2013; Ellinger et al., 2008;
Tanskanen et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2019).
Coaching leadership is a combination of cognition, attitudes and behavior; coaching leaders
respect their employees’ skills and knowledge and consider them capable and able to develop
(McCarthy & Milner, 2013). Coaching leaders influence their subordinate’s feelings and atti-
tudes at work by encouragement, guidance, facilitation, and inspiration (Ellinger, 2013; Heslin
et al., 2006; Yuan et al., 2019). They also enable their employees to take an independent and
responsible work role (Rapp-Ricciardi et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2022) and their leadership
behavior is based on asking for rather than providing readymade solutions and answers;
they are good listeners and have analytical skills (Ellinger, 2013). Therefore, coaching leaders
are able to identify the needs of their subordinates and encourage them to find their strengths
and utilize them at work (Batson & Yoder, 2012; Ellinger et al., 2003).
The previous literature has reported that coaching leadership facilitates employees’ personal
learning (Park et al., 2021) and openness to change (Yuan et al., 2019). Coaching leadership has
also shown to strengthen employees’ voice behavior, i.e., employees’ willingness to offer their
opinions on how to improve their organization (Wang et al., 2017; Yuan et al., 2019) and their
constructive deviance, defined as “employees” voluntary behavior that violates significant norms
with the aim of improving the well-being of an organization, its members or both” (Cui et al., 2022).
Coaching leadership has also been positively related to employees’ perceptions of the fairness of
performance evaluations (Dello Russo et al., 2017), objective and subjective career success (Peng
et al., 2019), and work performance (Tanskanen et al., 2018).
In light of the above, it seems that coaching leadership has the potential to be a source of
organizational support of strength use at work as it has been linked to several positive
outcomes that have similar elements to strength use at work. For instance, it is likely that
starting to use one’s strengths at work is a process of change and learning, which coaching
leadership seems to promote. In addition, team support of strength use at work has been
linked to employees’ willingness to improve organizational practices (Buljac-Samardžić et al.,
2018), and similar outcomes have been associated with coaching leadership, such as voice
behavior and constructive deviance. Coaching leadership can also be assumed to be a possible
source of support of strength use because of its similar outcomes related to well-being and
performance.
Based on COR theory, and on the literature on strength use at work and coaching leadership, we
suggest that coaching leadership has the potential to be an essential work resource and a source
of organizational support of strength use. Thus, in line with the basis of COR theory, a coaching
leader may improve strength use at work at both the individual and team level. However, although
we too see coaching leadership as an ideal resource for strength use at work, we admit that in real
work life, not every leader coaches their employees and teams. Therefore, we also suggest that if
this resource is missing at work, and coaching leadership is lacking or deficient, employees and
teams begin to utilize other compensatory resources.
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 4 of 18
3. Methodology
3.1. Data and methods
This qualitative data was based on 40 semi-structured theme interviews conducted in four health
care organizations as part of a larger study conducted in Finland in 2021. Qualitative interview
studies have been identified as a rigorous and valuable method for understanding the intricate
nuances of leadership dynamics, offering insights into the subjective experiences, perceptions,
and behaviors of both leaders and followers within organizational contexts (Bryman, 2004; Cadge
et al., 2021; Pemsar & Rousi, 2023). The interviewees received information about the study project
from their own organization. They enrolled voluntarily for the interviews via a Webropol survey.
Two researchers selected the interviewees, taking into account their diversity in terms of, for
example, type of work unit, occupation, and work experience. These individual theme interviews
were conducted via Teams because of COVID-19 restrictions, by three researchers. Each
researcher conducted the interview alone, but before beginning, they discussed the themes
with each other in order to ensure a common understanding. The interviews were recorded
and transcribed. Their length varied between 45 and 58 minutes and the transcriptions between
14 and 27 pages (Calibri 12, spacing 1.15). Table 1 presents the participants’ sociodemographic
characteristics. The ethics committee of (anonymous) granted ethical approval of the study (12/
2020).
3.2. Data analysis
The data analysis used the template analysis method, which is a qualitative analysis method and
a particular style of thematic analysis (King, 2012) that has been widely used in organizational and
management studies (King et al., 2018; Radcliffe et al., 2023) as well as in other contexts, such as
nursing studies (Doyle et al., 2020; Fernández-Castillo et al., 2021). The analysis was conducted
with the help of Atlas.ti 9 software. Template analysis uses rather strong hierarchical coding and is
highly structured, but at the same time it is flexible and useful in different cases (Brooks et al.,
2015).
Table 1. Participants’ sociodemographic characteristics (n = 40)
Profession (licensed) practical nurse 16
registered nurse 6
supervisor 14
line manager 3
other 1
Type of work unit home care services 15
long-term care facility 13
institutional services (hospital
ward)
11
home care, assisted living facilities 1
Gender female 39
male 1
Work experience (years) under one year 1
1–4 years 5
5–9 years 5
10–15 years 7
16–20 years 5
more than 20 years 16
unknown 1
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 5 of 18
At the beginning of the data analysis, the researchers familiarized themselves with the interview
data. Then, they created a preliminary coding template by reflecting the themes that were
relevant or interesting to explore. The process of creating the template involved reviewing the
data and identifying key themes. After the themes were identified, they were organized into
a hierarchical structure, with the broad and more abstract themes at the top and the more specific
sub-themes underneath. These themes formed the basis of the coding template.
After the coding template was created, the researchers applied it to the data by systematically
coding each segment of text that corresponded to one of the categories in the coding template.
The coding process involved assigning a code or label to each segment of text, indicating which
category it belonged to. At this stage the template was modified to match the data (Brooks et al.,
2015). After all the data had been coded, the researchers analyzed them by examining patterns
and relationships within and across the categories. This allowed them to identify the key themes
that emerged from the data presented in the Table 2.
4. Findings
It became clear that to enable strength use, supervisors need to use coaching leadership with each
of their followers individually as well as collectively within their team, presented in the Figure 1. If
coaching leadership is lacking or exists on only an individual level, strength use is possible, but
largely dependent on the individuals’ own initiative and personal-level skills, such as self-
leadership. If team-level coordination is inadequate or not based on official nominations, sub-
stitute leadership or emergent leadership may also exist. In this case, perceptions of commitment
may seem more fragmented, and experiences of unfairness may emerge. Subordinates who
worked with a supervisor who was using coaching and thus supporting their strength use were
more committed to their organization and often less thought about changing their job than their
counterparts whose supervisors did not use coaching leadership.
Next, we dissect the use of coaching leadership skills in more detail on both the individual and
team level.
5. Coaching leadership and strength use on the individual level
The findings suggest that one of the most important factors in the process of identifying individual
strengths and enabling their use that we identified in our interviewees’ narratives was the leader’s
knowledge of each of their subordinates’ personal characteristics. Through being interested and
individual consideration, the leader got to know their subordinates and was able to identify
individual strengths. In day-to-day leadership, the leader could use many strategies to obtain
this knowledge of their subordinates.
The leader’s interest was a focal element in identifying their subordinates’ individual strengths.
The leaders used multiple methods to get to know their subordinates. It became clear that daily
leadership, which meant showing interest in day-to-day situations through regular encounters,
was essential. One important interaction routine was giving feedback, asking questions, and
engaging in discussions about work. One leader described how they had regularly created oppor-
tunities to meet their subordinates individually and how through feedback, they had strengthened
their competence and strength use.
Yes, and really [the manager should] be interested in things and in their employees, (. . .)
They don’t need to point their finger at us, and say that you have to behave now, but just
generally discuss things with us, everyone should be valued and so on, because these things
are not always so simple either. Employee (nr 7).
On an individual level, supervisor support of strength use was perceived to be directed more
towards the individual and their professional and personal growth. The strengths were often tied
to the employees’ competence and perceived meaningfulness. On the individual level, the
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 6 of 18
subordinates described strength identification and use as empowering and increasing work well-
being. A focal viewpoint in being interested in and knowing the people was knowing their work. If
the leader was familiar with the work and the particular work task, and their nature, they were
better able to also identify which strengths were meaningful on an individual and/or team level.
Table 2. Template analysis
Coaching leadership and strength use on the individual level
1. Interest of the leader
1.1. Importance of leader’s personal knowledge of subordinate
1.1.1. Creating opportunities to get to know employees
1.1.2. Daily leadership
1.2. Individual strengths tied to personal growth
1.3. Negative consequences of leader’s lack of interest in subordinates
1.3.1. Limited opportunities to use strengths
1.3.2. Reflection of low trust in subordinates
1.3.3. Professional self-esteem and perception of poor competence and strengths
2. Individual consideration
2.1. Identification and support of new strengths
2.1.1. Remodeling of work tasks
2.1.2. Consent of work group to individually modified tasks
2.2. Proactive role of leader in enabling strength use
2.2.1. Suggestions for possible professional development routes
2.2.2. Importance of providing autonomy and building trust
2.2.3. Providing training opportunities
3. Identification of each employee’s strengths
3.1. Accessibility of leader for open dialogue with subordinates
3.1.1. Engaging in dialogue about professional possibilities and interests
3.1.2. Importance of being seen as open and reliable
Coaching leadership and strength use on the team level
1. Knowledge of each employee’s strengths
1.1. From team-level identification to team-level use
1.1.1. Fair distribution of opportunities to use strengths
1.2. Diversity in strength use
1.2.1 Diversity creates tension?
1.2.2. Enabling the strength use of new employees
1.3. Creating a psychologically safe environment
1.3.1. Supporting a culture of strength use and openness
1.3.2. Subordinates can create their own methods for team-level strength use
1.3.3. Strong individuals take charge behind the leader’s back.
2. Coordination of formal share of tasks
2.1. Each team member should be able to use their strength in some area of their work
2.2. Allocating team-level tasks on the basis of individual strengths
2.3. Perception of team members’ strengths
3. Support of shared coordination of individuals’ strength use at team level
3.1. Recognizing team members’ professionalism
3.2. Providing team-level autonomy for strength use
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 7 of 18
(. . .) but it’s really improved a lot, because the patients at this unit vary enormously and
generally in these cases that we have here, new things arise every week, either new care
procedures or other new things, I mean I’ve seen that I’ve learnt so much here (. . .) in my
performance appraisal with my manager it also came up, exactly this, that now that I’m getting
these areas of responsibility then I can freely look for suitable training courses and register for
them and go to them, my manager is very positive about training, they have that kind of
attitude, to maintain it, or like, take part in it, support the maintenance of our professional skills.
Employee (nr 13).
On the negative side, if the leader was not, for some reason, keen on or active in getting to know
their subordinates, many subordinates interpreted this as a lack of interest. In these situations, the
subordinates also felt that their opportunities to use their strengths were limited, mainly as the
leader did not recognize them. Moreover, the inability to recognize one’s subordinate’s strength
often reflected low trust in their decisions or information. This could influence the subordinates’
professional self-esteem and perception of their own competence and strengths.
(. . .) when they ask and I tell them how it is, they say, well it can be checked, like, whether
it’s been different before. Then I’m sort of on my hind legs somehow, it irritates me, that
I mean, feel free to look, this is how we’ve done it here, and I don’t believe that they’re
suddenly like, wrong. That’s what it comes from (. . .) Really, when that soon-to-be ex care
director, well I talked to them, they called me to ask how I was and I said to them then,
I know I can do it, that’s not the issue somehow, but I still feel (that my skills are not
trusted). It’s kind of crept in now. Employee (nr 15).
Individual consideration was perceived in situations in which the work of a subordinate had to, for
various reasons, be remodeled; for example, if the subordinate was unable to continue their usual
tasks due to health-related issues. In many such instances, the leader was able to identify and
support the use of the individual’s new strengths. An important element here was the work group’s
consent to individually modify the tasks. Team-level strength use was also activated, as the
individually modified tasks could be carried out on the team level.
Yes, so it was tailored to suit me . . . (. . .) my own supervisor suggested, when the occupa-
tional health physician said they wouldn’t let me go back to shift work anymore.(. . .) Then
I asked my supervisor if it’s possible for me to do only day work. Then they said that this is
something we need, would you like to try doing this, discharging people and sending them
Coaching leadership, individual
level
interest
individual consideration
identification of each employees’
strengths
Coaching leadership, team
level
knowledge of each
employees’ strengths
coordination of formal
share of the tasks
support of shared
coordination of individuals’
strength use
Figure 1. Coaching leadership
on individual and team levels.
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 8 of 18
home, that this could be tailored. (. . .) I thought I’d be a bit privileged, but quite quickly
I could see it in my colleagues, what was the benefit of someone phoning relatives and
discharging them. So, it kind of turned, that I . . . Or then it encouraged me, that I’m an
important person here after all. Employee (nr 24).
The leader’s role in enabling strength use was not only to allow it; in some instances, the leader
was more proactive in making suggestions about the possible routes the subordinates could take
professionally. There was a notion of recognizing subordinates’ important roles and possibilities.
However, it was also important that, despite enabling strength use and creating an atmosphere of
opportunities to use different strengths, the leader also gave the subordinates autonomy to further
develop the tasks in which they used their strengths. It was also imperative to build trust and allow
autonomy. Moreover, the supportive and enabling role of the leader seemed to be focal when the
subordinate sought to develop their strengths through training opportunities.
Interviewer 1: So what brings you joy in your current work at the moment?
Speaker 1: (. . .)And the supervisor’s really good. And their attitude towards their employees
and this support of studying and self-development, mainting professional skills, it’s a really
good incentive for this work comminuty then. Employee (nr 19).
Speaker 1 [00:03:40]: (. . .)But then the reason why I’m in this organization in particular,
that’s another story of course. I believe that in this organization, the work has opportunities,
development opportunities. I have a say in things, I’m trusted and I’m given the chance to
do the things that are important to me, on quite a broad scale, and I can progress with these
things. (. . .) Supervisor (nr 42).
In the process of identifying each employees’ strengths, the leader’s accessibility was perceived as
essential. As noted earlier, it was important that the leader used proactive tactics and was generally
keen to get to know the team and identify their strengths. However, it seems that the process was bi-
directional: Acknowledging the strengths on an individual level often also required activity on the part
of the subordinate. Through a closer leader—follower relationship, the parties could engage in open
dialogue about the employee’s professional possibilities and interests. Within this domain, the leader’s
accessibility, openness, and reliability were perceived as important.
Well, I mean this supervisor we have now is perhaps one of the best we’ve ever had. That
they tell us things that concern us straight away, which has been fantastic, so, good. And
then above all, that if we have something, that we have to ask something, for instance, then
we can just call or send a message, and get through to them when we need help. Or if we
can’t get hold of them straight away, then they always reply to the message or call when
they are able to. So really, it’s been, like, really personally important to me that if I need
something I can send them a message, I prefer sending messages because I don’t want,
I don’t know if they have a meeting or something, so that I don’t disturb them then. And
then they can answer the message as soon as they have a moment to do so. Employee
(nr 40).
To conclude, the findings emphasize the importance of leaders possessing knowledge of their
subordinates’ personal characteristics and aspirations for identifying and enabling the use of their
individual strengths. It seems that by adapting coaching tactics, being active and interested in the
employees and their development and growth, the leaders inspired the employees and made them
recognize their own strengths. The process of identifying strengths requires activeness on the part
of both the leader and the subordinate, and the leader must be accessible and open to enable
honest dialogue about professional opportunities and interests.
6. Coaching leadership and strength use on the team level
On the team level of recognizing and supporting strength use, it became clear that the process
began by identifying each subordinate’s individual strengths. If the leader was unable to distin-
guish the strengths of the individuals, they were less likely to use these strengths on the team
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 9 of 18
level. Moreover, if the leader recognized and enabled the strength use of only a few individuals, this
seemed to lead to feelings of unfairness among the work team. Therefore, by considering and
identifying the individual’s characteristics, the leader was also able to formulate opportunities for
strength use at the team level. As identifying and enabling individual-level strength use was highly
person oriented, strength use at the team level was connected more to professional and work-
related elements. For example, the leader coordinated the allocation of tasks and responsibilities
to distribute work effectively. However, it was also important that they recognized and facilitated
the process of subordinates’ shared strength use within the team.
One important element, in addition to recognizing individual strengths, was identifying and
employing strengths through diversity. This was firmly based on knowing each employee’s
strengths. Many interviewees, both leaders and subordinates, raised the issue of strengths of
employees of different ages. Many recognized that often, these groups’ strengths differed. It was
considered important to first recognize that these differences could cause tensions, and then to
identify how these differences could be turned into something positive.
(. . .) the atmosphere is really good here and we help each other and support each other,
there are no stupid questions, even though we’ve worked together for ages.(. . .)This way
I feel that the supervisors’ role in this, that how they support the team’s cooperation, is that
I also have time as a supervisor to listen to them and chat to them, that’s something I don’t
want to give up, even if it means having many things on my plate, the fact that the
employee is heard. Supervisor (nr 8).
openness and trust, that we think about things together and try to cope together and what
I find important too, is this age management, we have employees from over four decades
here, from the very young to those just about to retire. At the moment we have many
working here who have already retired, and we’re grateful to them, that they still have the
energy to work. Then thinking about being able to get on with each age group and what their
attitude to work is and their expectations of work are. I feel that this is sometimes mentally
very tiring, but then it’s also so rewarding. Supervisor (nr 8).
Therefore, when the leader portrayed behaviors that supported the development of strengths, it
created positive outcomes on both individual and team levels. When it came to individual strength
use for the benefit of the team, it was important that the leader also portrayed support and
encouragement. For example, in the case of new employees, it was important not only to
recognize the strengths of the individual, but also to facilitate and support the opportunity to
use these strengths as an essential contributor to the team. Moreover, it was typical for
a reasonable number of on-call staff to only work for short periods of time in a team and the
perceptions of these employees were rather mixed. Overall, the identification and effective use of
strengths on the team level required intentional, planned actions on the part of the leader. It
seems that there was a lot of potential in having diverse work team, but if the leader was not able
to support the team-level identification and use of each employee’s strengths, some of this
potential could be lost; for example, the utilization of networks acquired when doing on-call
work in different organizations.
Interviewer 1: Yes, sure. So, if you think about the employees, younger employees and then
maybe employees who are already more experienced in this field, then can you say what
kind of skills we need more of in elderly work?
Speaker 1: In a way, what these older employers, what they have learnt to do and are used
to doing, it’s fine. It’s kind of, somehow, really comprehensive and sort of . . . They do more
than they should, perhaps. It’s good, but then of course we don’t have enough time. And
then the good thing about young people is that they more or less, for example, if it says
what they have to do, then they do exactly that. It’s really good to have both, both kinds of
carers there. Supervisor (nr 45).
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 10 of 18
The important element in team-level support of strength use was creating a psychologically safe
environment (Climate). It also became clear that the leader should act openly and transparently
when distributing tasks and coordinating individuals’ strength use on the team level. Moreover, it
seems that leaders’ coaching behaviors could be linked to team-level goals and shared responsi-
bility for these goals:
Speaker 2 [00:23:12]: (. . .)I’m good at listening and easily approachable, and positivity (. . .) my
strengths are these interactive skills and being with people and (. . .) I like coaching groups (. . .)
you have to have goals (. . .) we work towards the goals together. Supervisor (nr 8).
If the team-level atmosphere did not support common strength use and openness, some strong
individuals might steer their direction behind the leader’s back. In these situations, it seemed the
subordinates bypassed the leader and formulated their own methods for team-level strength use.
In these teams, strength use was self-regulated and autonomous, and in some cases strengths
could be used unfairly.
The teams had multiple tasks and roles to fulfil. Many subordinates felt that one important
element of team-level work was that through individual strengths, the leader coordinated the
formal distribution of tasks. This meant that through team-level consideration, each team
member was able to use their strength in some area of their work.
Speaker 1 [00:31:42]: yes. So, what if you think about finding the area of responsibility for
each one, how does that process take place?
Speaker 2 [00:31:58]: Well, it’s a bit, maybe it’s been divided according to what they’re
interested in. What each one likes(. . .) It’s like for everyone, what they like. (. . .) Sort of, what
feels most like your own thing. (. . .) It’s like these areas of responsibility are distributed
according to what people are interested in. No-one has had to do work that, or had an area
of responsibility that’s not their own thing. Employee (nr. 30).
I mainly mean, whatever each person wants, that it’s their own strengths until now it’s gone
a bit according to everyone’s own strengths. And you might take one or two with whom to
do it and then at other times it might be the whole gang, so it varies. And of course, how our
clients are feeling, we can’t force anyone to come there, and that decides a lot, but now
we’re planning to do a sort of rough, preliminary weekly or monthly plan, that, for example,
Wednesday could be a singing day, or Tuesday an exercise day, so that, their close ones
would know too, that on Wednesdays we always do a certain thing at a certain time, and we
could make these stimulation activities visible to outsiders too. Supervisor (nr 1).
On the team level, it was essential that the leader had a good overall idea of the team and their
individual strengths to provide support for the shared coordination of individuals’ strength use.
One leader described this as making individual competences and strengths visible through shared
team meetings and discussions:
First of all, the fact that we understand each other’s work, it all starts from that. (. . .) So, this is
just an example, the basics, where we’ve started from and begun to unravel it, like, hey my task
in this team is to do this and my area of responsibility is this and my area of responsibility means
these things here. We’re in the middle of updating our areas of responsibility along with our
performance appraisals, so the purpose is also to present our own areas of responsibility and
think together what this means in our area of responsibility and of course then developing our
skills within our areas of responsibility. (. . .) Supervisor. (nr 8).
It was also important that the leaders were aware that the team members were the best
professionals for the tasks and jobs. The role of the leader was seen as that of a facilitator or
enabler of best practices for organizing work, and as empowering the design of work and people’s
roles to best promote team-level functioning. This created team-level autonomy for employees to
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 11 of 18
best fit their strength use to their work. In an ideal situation, the leader would enable strength use
and team-level coordination of use, empowering the team to make adjustments and innovate in
team-level decisions.
But in our community, for example, innovativeness and development and somehow, that . . .
And what we talked about – that in a way people have learnt to trust themselves and dare
to do things, they don’t always ask me as I kind of . . . That somehow, they take responsibility
in a different way; they dare to and they’ve gotten courage to develop their own jobs. It
really shows, and I think it also shows in their work well-being, that our sickness absences
have really decreased a lot since I started here and I feel that for the first six months it was
just substitutes . . . Supervisor (nr 43).
It seems that this kind of leader support was also connected to individual-level motivation and
well-being. On the team level, the cooperation and shared goal of developing team-level work
according to the strengths of the team was important. Some subordinates also described the
process as motivating. When the employees were able to use their strengths to develop their work,
it gave them a feeling of meaningfulness and of having a voice.
Speaker 1: [creates enjoyment at work] Of course, at least always when you, like, succeed at
something. Or if you get to develop something, for instance. It’s not just developing for the
sake of developing, but if we notice that something needs to be done somewhere, and then
especially if you get to think about things with a group that’s really eager and really come up
with something and then get to try it out (. . .) Supervisor (nr 45).
To conclude, strength use on the individual level and team level are indeed linked, and the role of
the leader is focal. If the leader was able to recognize and utilize strength use on an individual
level, it also led to better functioning and equal team-level actions. The key to team-level use of
individuals’ strengths is linked to work climate and acceptance of diversity. On the team level, the
use of different strengths should be seen as increasing the functionality of teams and the well-
being of employees.
7. Discussion
The aim of this study was to determine whether leadership supports strength use at work at both
individual and team levels. This study makes a valuable contribution to the field of strength use at
work by confirming the multilevel nature of the phenomena (van Woerkom et al., 2022). We
contribute to the leadership literature and highlight how leaders’ coaching practices are essential
conditional resources (Hobfoll et al., 2018) in organizational support of strength use at work at the
individual and team level (Bond & Seneque, 2013; Yuan et al., 2019).
Our findings reveal that considering individual team members’ characteristics and personal
knowledge was crucial for leaders to effectively empower each employee to use their strengths
for both their own individual good and that of their team. Thus, coaching leadership practices have
the potential to support a positive resource accumulation process in a team (Hobfoll, 2001; Hobfoll
et al., 2018): first, by promoting each team members’ personal resources (e.g., identifying indivi-
dual strengths and developing skills) and second, by creating a work environment–– a conditional
resource––in which the personal resources of several people are coordinated to complement each
other. Consistent with the recent literature on strength use at work (van Woerkom et al., 2022),
highlighting the importance of team context for strengths use at work, we found a positive team
climate and a sense of belongingness among team members is needed when strengths use at
work is successful in individual and in team level. Moreover, it has been suggested that coordina-
tion of strengths use is needed (van Woerkom et al., 2022), especially when the moving from
individual level of strengths use to team level strengths use at work, and our findings are providing
evidence supporting that claim. Also, in line with earlier studies (Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016; van
Woerkom & Meyers, 2015), our study showed that leaders play a pivotal role in workplace climate
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 12 of 18
and its development. Through a positive work climate, the leader can effectively encourage their
team to utilize their strengths for the collective benefit.
However, according to COR theory, a lack or loss of resources is more severe than gaining them
(Demerouti et al., 2004; Hobfoll, 2001). Therefore, it is worth mentioning that, according to our
interviewees, if the leader did not use coaching for strength use at work at all, or was perceived as
using it with only some of their team members, this had negative consequences. Perceptions of
inequality and conflicts in roles (e.g., someone else using power unofficially) were mentioned. That
is not surprising; whereas a possibility to utilize one’s strengths at work has found to be related to
several positive outcomes, for instance reduced stress and burnout (Meyers et al., 2018; Wood
et al., 2011), lack of that possibility is likely to lead to negative outcomes. However, earlier
literature has not yet taken account the role of social comparison between team members
concerning different possibilities for team members for strength use at work, and that is a novel
viewpoint that our findings revealed. In addition, earlier literature is showing evidence that super-
visors organizational agents who support individuals’ strength use at work (Ding & Chu, 2020; Ding
& Yu, 2021; van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015) and we add to that knowledge by highlighting the
negative effects that may follow if the leader is not taking agency or oversees the importance of
coordination of strengths use at work (van Woerkom et al., 2022) equally among team members.
Although collegial team support for strength use has been found to be an important element in,
for example, employees’ willingness to improve organizational practices (Buljac-Samardžić et al.,
2018), it seems that the leader’s role is crucial in this process. For instance, if supervisor coaching
in strength use at work was missing or inadequate, team members often failed to recognize the
value of each team member’s individual strengths. This often resulted in missed opportunities for
cooperation and optimally sharing tasks and decreased commitment and increased intentions to
leave the organization. Labor shortage is typical in elderly care organizations and the work itself is
demanding (Audenaert et al., 2020; FIOH 2022; Sulander et al. 2016). Earlier literature (van
Woerkom et al., 2016) has pointed out that organizational support of strength use at work is
essential (Els et al., 2018; van Woerkom et al., 2022) as an especially important job resource in the
context of high job demands (van Woerkom et al., 2016). Therefore, all the resources of an
organization and each individual working there should be utilized and supported in order to
compensate for the possible shortage of some resources and initiate resource caravan processes
(Hobfoll et al., 2018), which is essential for individual well-being and positive organizational out-
comes (Hakanen et al., 2011; Hobfoll, 2002).
This study also offers qualitative evidence that coaching leadership can promote strength use at
work at both the individual and team level, thus expanding the traditional view of coaching
leadership. Coaching leadership has so far mainly focused on individual level practices such as
encouraging and facilitating each individual employee (Ellinger, 2013; Heslin et al., 2006; Yuan
et al., 2019) on the basis of positive attitudes such as respect and trust in their capabilities and
ability to develop (McCarthy & Milner, 2013). It has been shown that coaching leadership exploits
an employee’s potential, develops their abilities, and helps them learn (Bond & Seneque, 2013;
Ellinger et al., 2008; Tanskanen et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2019) and our findings show that this kind
of leadership is very well enhancing strengths use at work. Coaching leadership has found to
strengthen employees’ employees’ willingness to offer their opinions on how to improve their
organization and also behave accordingly (Wang et al., 2017; Yuan et al., 2019; Cui et al., 2021). In
our study, especially coaching leadership tactics that focused on providing employees with a voice,
and support of personal development and learning were found to be crucial to enable strength use
at the individual level.
However, we suggest that in order to make the most of their teams and team members,
autonomy had to be reinforced (Rapp-Ricciardi et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2022) and positive team
climate promoted through slightly different coaching practices than those used when coaching
individual employees. For instance, asking for rather than providing readymade solutions and
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 13 of 18
answers (Ellinger, 2013) should be conducted not only in one-to-one discussions with individual
team members but also as part of the team facilitation practices. In our study leaders’ coaching
was more invisible at the team level than the individual level, despite having to be intentional and
active. The core of coaching leadership at the team level is understanding the leader as a scout for
strength awareness among team members and the coordinator (van Woerkom et al., 2022) of
a fair process that supports and enables team members’ shared strength use at work.
7.1. Limitations and future research
We now address the main limitations of the study and their implications for future studies in this
field. Although the findings of this study provide valuable insights into strength use at work as
a multi-level phenomena (van Woerkom et al., 2022) and its connection to coaching leadership
(Bond & Seneque, 2013; Ellinger et al., 2008; Yuan et al., 2019), it is important to recognize its
limitations. These limitations may impact the interpretation of the results and the generalizability
of the findings beyond the scope of the study. First, when conducting a qualitative study, the
subjectivity and role of the researcher should be considered. As qualitative analysis relies on the
interpretation of data, the researchers’ personal biases and assumptions may influence the results
and analysis. However, in this study, analysis was not based on one single person and interpreta-
tions were discussed as a team. Different kinds of research designs should still be utilized in the
future. For instance, longitudinal data collection and a multilevel source of data (both qualitative
and quantitative) would be beneficial to better understand strength use at work as an individual-
and a team-level phenomena. Also, collecting data on coaching leadership and other possible
sources of organizational support of strength use at work would give us a better understanding of
the best practices for supporting strength use at work. Moreover, the interview data on which this
study was based was highly heterogeneous, consisting of mainly females and only one man,
constituting 40 interviews in total. The data were also collected from one industry only: health
care, and more specifically elderly care and in Finland. Therefore, some caution should be exer-
cised when generalizing the results to other professions, industries, and countries. Moreover, and
when assessing the significance of the results, the amount of data should be considered.
Therefore, in the future the phenomena should also be studied in other contexts.
Further studies should investigate the possibilities of recognizing and enabling strength use on
individual and team levels using, for example, diary studies (Ohly et al., 2010) and observations of
work processes (Salmon, 2015), or should examine what technology can offer (Conte et al., 2023).
The link between strength use and a more positive organizational culture and the quality of care
provided to patients should also be studied in more detail.
In addition, coaching leadership is not the only possible leadership style that merits attention in
the context of strength use at work. For instance, ethical leadership (Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2021) or
servant leadership (Jiménez-Estévez et al., 2023) are potential approaches to study what kind of
leadership may enhance strength use at work.
7.2. Practical implications
Several practical implications can be drawn on the basis of our findings. First of all, strength use at
work emerges as an important resource in a challenging work context: here, elderly care
(Audenaert et al., 2020; Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). Therefore, organizations should have
practices for identifying and utilizing different strengths in their different processes. For instance,
multilevel strength use at work should be considered part of human resource planning, in staffing
and recruitment processes to identify newcomers’ strengths and ensure their fit with the existing
strengths in the team (van Woerkom et al., 2022). Appreciation of diversity and people at different
career stages is also an important aspect of strength use at work. In addition to the likelihood of
positive outcomes such as better well-being and performance at work (Els et al., 2018) of indivi-
duals and teams, it can also foster organizations’ employer images, and help them commit their
personnel, and attract new employees (Arasanmi & Krishna, 2019), which is especially important
during labor shortages.
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 14 of 18
Because the coaching leadership style seems to be an essential organizational resource for
strength use at work, organizations should support their supervisors’ coaching skills through
training and development. Development of both individual-oriented coaching practices and team-
level coaching practices should be promoted and strength use at work should be part of these
actions (Megheirkouni & Mejheirkouni, 2020).
Moreover, supervisors themselves can develop their own work tasks that involve interaction with
others, for instance, meetings and performance appraisals, and ensure that they involve the
strength use perspective through coaching practices. Leaders should aim to obtain a good under-
standing of the work itself and identify the strengths that the team already has and those that are
needed. It is also crucial that leaders recognize and acknowledge the impact of staffing challenges
on workplace climate and promote a positive team climate through team-building exercises, open
communication, and conflict resolution strategies.
Based on our findings, employees are themselves active agents in the process of strength use at
work. Thus, in order to successfully use strengths at work as an individual and as a team member,
the contribution of employees themselves is essential. Every member of the team should respon-
sibly give their best and ensure that their own interests in utilizing strengths are fairly aligned with
other team members’ opportunities to use their strengths.
8. Conclusions
To conclude, this study offers important insights on the fields of coaching leadership and its relation to
strength use at work. It was revealed that the leader has a pivotal role in the process of strength use at
work through creating a positive work environment, as well as recognizing and utilizing the strength
use of individuals and coordinating for team level use of individual strengths. Interestingly, the
findings show that if the leader is unable to employ strength use, feelings of inequity and conflicts in
team dynamics was experienced. Findings of this study offer qualitative evidence of coaching leader-
ship and strength use not only on an individual level, but on a team level as well.
Funding
This research was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social
Affairs and Health as a part of an implementation project
of the National Program on Ageing 2030, grant number
VN/19366/2020.
Author details
Liisa Mäkelä
1
Hilpi Kangas
2
E-mail: hilpi.kangas@ttl.fi
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6866-1225
Eveliina Korkiakangas
2
Jaana Laitinen
2
1
Department of Management, University of Vaasa, Vaasa,
Finland.
2
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health,
Työterveyslaitos, Finland.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Citation information
Cite this article as: Coaching leadership as a link between
individual- and team-level strength use at work, Liisa
Mäkelä, Hilpi Kangas, Eveliina Korkiakangas & Jaana
Laitinen, Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11:
2293469.
References
Arasanmi, C. N., & Krishna, A. (2019). Employer branding:
Perceived organisational support and employee
retention – the mediating role of organisational
commitment. Industrial and Commercial Training, 51
(3), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-10-2018-
0086
Audenaert, M., George, B., Bauwens, R., Decuypere, A.,
Descamps, A.-M., Muylaert, J., Ma, R., & Decramer, A.
(2020). Empowering leadership, social support, and
job crafting in public organizations: A multilevel
study. Public Personnel Management, 49(3), 367–392.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019873681
Bakker, A., & van Woerkom, M. (2018). Strengths use in
organizations: A positive approach of occupational
health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,
59(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000120
Batson, V., & Yoder, L. (2012). Managerial coaching:
A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68
(7), 1658–1669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.
2011.05840.x
Biswas-Diener, R. (2006). From the equator to the north
Pole: A study of character strengths. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 7(3), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10902-005-3646-8
Bond, C., & Seneque, M. (2013). Conceptualizing coaching
as an approach to management and organizational
development. Journal of Management Development,
32(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02621711311287026
Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E., & King, N. (2015). The
utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology
research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(2),
202–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.
955224
Bryman, A.(2004). Qualitative research on leadership: A
critical but appreciative review. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15(6), 729–769.
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 15 of 18
Buljac-Samardžić, M., van Woerkom, M., & Gutman, R.
(2018). Improving quality and safety of care in nur-
sing homes by team support for strengths use:
A survey study. PLoS One, 13(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0200065
Cadge, W., Lewis, M., Bandini, J., Shostak, S., Donahue, V.,
Trachtenberg, S., & Robinson, E. (2021). Intensive
care unit nurses living through COVID-19:
a qualitative study. Journal of Nursing Management,
29(7), 1965–1973. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.
13353
Conte, G., Arrigoni, C., Magon, A., Stievano, A., & Caruso, R.
(2023). Embracing Digital and Technological solu-
tions in nursing: A scoping review and conceptual
framework. International Journal of Medical
Informatics, 177, 105148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmedinf.2023.105148
Cui, Z., Wang, H., & Nanyangwe, C. (2022). How does
coaching leadership promote employee’s construc-
tive deviance? Affective events perspective.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43
(2), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2020-
0153
Dello Russo, S., Miraglia, M., & Borgogni, L. (2017).
Reducing organizational politics in performance
appraisal: The role of coaching leaders for age-
diverse employees. Human Resource Management,
56(5), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21799
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., & Bulters, A. (2004). The loss
spiral of work pressure, work–home interference
and exhaustion: Reciprocal relations in a three-
wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1),
131–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)
00030-7
Ding, H., & Chu, X. (2020). Employee strengths use and
thriving at work: The roles of self-efficacy and per-
ceived humble leadership. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 19(4), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1027/
1866-5888/a000262
Ding, H., & Yu, E. (2021). Followers’ strengths-based lea-
dership and strengths use of followers: The roles of
trait emotional intelligence and role overload, per-
sonality and individual differences. Personality &
Individual Differences, 168, 110300. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2020.110300
Doyle, L., McCabe, C., Keogh, B., Brady, A., & McCann, M.
(2020). An overview of the qualitative descriptive
design within nursing research. Journal of Research in
Nursing, 25(5), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1744987119880234
Dubreuil, P., Forest, J., Gillet, N., Fernet, C., Thibault-
Landry, A., Crevier-Braud, L., & Girouard, S. (2016).
Facilitating well-being and performance through the
development of strengths at work: Results from an
intervention program. International Journal of
Applied Positive Psychology, 1(1–3), 1–19. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s41042-016-0001-8
Dwertmann, D., & Boehm, S. (2016). Status matters: The
asymmetric effects of supervisor–subordinate dis-
ability incongruence and climate for inclusion.
Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 44–64.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0093
Ellinger, A. (2013). Supportive supervisors and man-
agerial coaching: Exploring their intersections.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 86(3), 310–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/
joop.12021
Ellinger, A., Ellinger, A., & Keller, S. (2003). Supervisory
coaching behavior, employee satisfaction, and
warehouse employee performance: A dyadic per-
spective in the distribution industry. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 14(4), 435–458. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hrdq.1078
Ellinger, A., Hamlin, R., & Beattie, R. (2008). Behavioural
indicators of ineffective managerial coaching: A
cross-national study. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 32(4), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03090590810871360
Els, C., Mostert, K., & van Woerkom, M. (2018).
Investigating the impact of a combined approach of
perceived organisational support for strengths use
and deficit correction on employee outcomes press.
South African Journal of Human Resource
Management, 16, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/
sajhrm.v16i0.882
Fernández-Castillo, R. J., González-Caro, M. D., Fernández-
García, E., Porcel-Gálvez, A. M., & Garnacho-
Montero, J. (2021). Intensive care nurses’ experi-
ences during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative
study. Nursing in Critical Care, 26(5), 397–406. https://
doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12589
FIOH. (2022). Working time in the social affairs and health
care sector. Work life knowledge service. Finnish
Institute of Occupational health.Working time in the
social affairs and health care sector | work-life
knowledge service |.
Forest, J., Mageau, G., Crevier-Braud, L., Bergeron, É.,
Dubreuil, P., & Lavigne, G. L. (2012). Harmonious
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0018726711433134
Hakanen, J., Peeters, M., & Perhoniemi, R. (2011).
Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and at
home: A 3-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1),
8–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.
02014.x
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature
character strengths and positive experiences at
work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 965–983.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9364-0
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W.(2014). The role of character
strengths for task performance, job dedication,
interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support.
Human Performance, 27(3), 183–205. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08959285.2014.913592
Heslin, P., Vandewalle, D., & Latham, G. (2006). Keen to
help? managers’ implicit person theories and their
subsequent employee coaching. Personnel
Psychology, 59(4), 871–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1744-6570.2006.00057.x
Hobfoll, S. (2001). The influence of culture, community,
and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing
conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 50(3), 337–421. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hobfoll, S. (2002). Social and psychological resources and
adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4),
307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307
Hobfoll, S., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J., & Westman, M.
(2018). Conservation of resources in the organiza-
tional context: The reality of resources and their
consequences. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1),
103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych
-032117-104640
Jiménez-Estévez, P., Yáñez-Araque, B., Ruiz-Palomino, P.,
& Gutiérrez-Broncano, S. (2023). Personal growth or
servant leader: What do hotel employees need most
to be affectively well amidst the turbulent COVID-19
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 16 of 18
times? Technological Forecasting & Social Change
190, 122410. ISSN 0040-1625. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.techfore.2023.122410
Keenan, E., & Mostert, K. (2013). Perceived organisational
support for strengths use: The factorial validity and
reliability of a new scale in the banking industry.
South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(1),
1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v39i1.1052
King, N. (2012). Doing template analysis. Qualitative
Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current
Challenges, 426(10.4135), 9781526435620.
King, N., Brooks, J., & Tabari, S. (2018). Template analysis
in business and management research. In M.
Ciesielska & D. Jemielniak (Eds.), Qualitative meth-
odologies in organization studies (Vol. 2, pp. 179–
206). Palgrave Macmillan.
Lavy, S., & Littman-Ovadia, H. (2017). My better self using
strengths at work and work productivity, organiza-
tional citizenship behavior, and satisfaction. Journal
of Career Development, 44(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0894845316634056
Linley, A. (2008). Average to A+: Realising strengths in
yourself and others. ICON Group International.
Linley, P., & Harrington, S. (2006). Strengths coaching: A
potential-guided approach to coaching psychology.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1),
37–46. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsicpr.2006.1.1.37
McCarthy, G., & Milner, J. (2013). Managerial coaching:
Challenges, opportunities and training. Journal of
Management Development, 32(7), 768–779. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2011-0113
Megheirkouni, M., & Mejheirkouni, A. (2020). Leadership
development trends and challenges in the
twenty-first century: Rethinking the priorities. Journal
of Management Development, 39(1), 97–124. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JMD-04-2019-0114
Meyers, M., Adams, B., Sekaja, L., Buzea, C., Cazan, A.-M.,
Gotea, M., Stefenel, D., & van Woerkom, M. (2019).
Perceived organizational support for the use of
employees’ strengths and employee well-being:
A cross-country comparison. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 20(6), 1825–1841. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10902-018-0026-8
Meyers, M., & 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. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9745-x
Miglianico, M., Dubreuil, P., Miquelon, P., Bakker, A., &
Martin-Krumm, C. (2020). Strength use in the work-
place: A literature Review. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 21(2), 737–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10902-019-00095-w
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary
studies in organizational research: An introduction
and some practical recommendations. Journal of
Personnel Psychology, 9(2), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.
1027/1866-5888/a000009
Park, S., McLean, G., & Yang, B. (2021). Impact of man-
agerial coaching skills on employee commitment:
The role of personal learning. European Journal of
Training & Development, 45(8/9), 814–831. https://
doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2020-0122
Peng, Z., Gao, B., & Zhao, H. (2019). Coaching leadership
and subordinates’ career success: The mediating role
of leader–member exchange. Social Behavior &
Personality: An International Journal, 47(11), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8406
Pensar, H., & Rousi, R.(2023). The resources to balance–
exploring remote employees’ work-life balance
through the lens of conservation of resources. Cogent
Business & Management, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.
1080/23311975.2023.2232592
Radcliffe, L., Cassell, C., & Spencer, L. (2023). Work-family
habits? Exploring the persistence of traditional
work-family decision making in dual-earner couples.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 145, 103914. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103914
Rapp-Ricciardi, M., Garcia, D., & Archer, T. (2018). Personal
attributes linked to empowerment that influence
receptivity to coaching leadership. Coaching: An
International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice, 11
(1), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2017.
1330352
Ruiz-Palomino, P., Martínez-Cañas, R., & Bañón-Gomis, A.
(2021). Is unethical leadership a negative for
employees’ personal growth and intention to stay?
The buffering role of responsibility climate. European
Management Review, 18(4), 535–549. https://doi.org/
10.1111/emre.12461
Salmon, J. (2015). Using observational methods in nur-
sing research. Nursing Standard, 29(45), 36–41.
https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.29.45.36.e8721
Sulander, J., Sinervo, T., Elovainio, M., Heponiemi, T.,
Helkama, K., & Aalto, A. M.(2016). Does organiza-
tional justice modify the association between job
involvement and retirement intentions of nurses in
Finland?. Research in Nursing & Health, 39(5), 364–
374. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21740
Tanskanen, J., Mäkelä, L., & Viitala, R. (2018). Linking
managerial coaching and leader–member exchange
on work engagement and performance. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 20(4), 1217–1240. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10902-018-9996-9
van Woerkom, M., & Meyers, M. (2015). My strengths
count! Effects of a strengths-based psychological
climate on positive affect and job performance.
Human Resource Management, 54(1), 81–103.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21623
van Woerkom, M., & Meyers, M. (2019). Strengthening
personal growth initiative; the effects of
a strengths intervention on personal growth initia-
tive with general self-efficacy as moderator and
mediator. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 92(1), 98–121. https://
doi.org/10.1111/joop.12240
van Woerkom, M., Meyers, M., & Bakker, A. (2022).
Considering strengths use in organizations as
a multilevel construct. Human Resource Management
Review, 32(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.
2020.100767
van Woerkom, M., Mostert, K., Els, C., Bakker, A., de
Beer, L., & Rothmann, S., Jr. (2016). 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.
1080/1359432X.2016.1193010
Van Woerkom, M., Oerlemans, W., & Bakker, A. (2015).
Strengths use and work engagement: A weekly diary
study. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 25(3), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1359432X.2015.1089862
Viitala, R. (2004). Towards knowledge leadership.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25
(6), 528–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/
01437730410556761
Wang, J., Gu, Y., Luo, Y., Huang, Y., & Liao, L. (2022). The
mechanism of the influence of coaching leadership
behavior on subordinate’s sense of gain at work.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(4),
638–652. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2021-0342
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 17 of 18
Wang, Y., Yuan, C., & Zhu, Y. (2017). Coaching leadership
and employee voice behavior: A multilevel study. Social
Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 45(10),
1655–1664. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6593
Wood, A., Linley, P., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T., & Hurling, R.
(2011). Using personal and psychological 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. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.004
Yuan, C., Wang, Y., Huang, W., & Zhu, Y. (2019). Can coach-
ing leadership encourage subordinates to speak up?
Dual perspective of cognition-affection. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 40(4), 485–498.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2018-0009
Mäkelä et al., Cogent Business & Management (2024), 11: 2293469
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2293469
Page 18 of 18
