POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AT WORK

It was Sigmund Freud who first made the bold statement that a healthy life is one in which a person has
the ability to love and to work (O'Brien, 2003). Job-related wellbeing is crucial to study – (a) it provides a
positive foundation for examining the determinants of healthy work, and (b) work experiences translate
directly into other mental health outcomes (e.g., Kelloway & Barling, 1991) and indirectly affect
employees’ life satisfaction (Judge & Watanabe, 1993). Although many people awaken only to dread
getting up and going to work, gainfully employed people actually look forward to it.

Gainful employment is work that is characterized by the following eight benefits:

l. Variety in duties performed

2. A safe working environment

3. Income for the family and oneself

4. A purpose derived from providing a product or service

5. Happiness and satisfaction

6. Positive engagement and involvement

7. A sense of performing well and meeting goals

8. The companionship of and loyalty to coworkers, bosses, and companies

Happiness and satisfaction are at the center because of their key role ( Amick et al., 2002). As Henry
(2004) describes it, the centrality of work to well-being is not surprising when you think of the number
of benefits it offers, notably: an identity, opportunities for social interaction and support, purpose, time
filling, engaging challenges, and possibilities for status apart from the provision of income. If a person is
happy at work, chances are that his or her overall satisfaction with life will be higher (Hart, 1999; Judge
& Watanabe, 1993). The correlation of job satisfaction with overall happiness is about .40 (Diener &
Lucas, 1999). Employed people consistently report being happier than their counterparts without jobs
(Argyle, 2001; Warr, 1987, 1999).
 FACTORS LINKED TO HAPINESS AT WORK

PERFORMING WELL AND MEETING GOALS Related to the previous hypothetical interchanges, one
school of thought about the happy worker is that such an employee has a sense of effectiveness and
efficiency in performing his or her work activities (Hertzog, 1966). By far the most research related to
the sense of performing well has emerged from Bandura's influential self-efficacy. Career self-efficacy,
which is defined as the personal confidence in one's capacity to handle career development and work
related goal activities, has been significantly related to both success and satisfaction with one's
occupational efforts and decisions (Betz & Luzzo, 1996; Donnay & Borgen, 1999).

Performing well at work is more likely to occur when workers have clear goals. As shown in relevant
literature (Snyder, 1994/2000), lucid goals offer satisfaction when they are met. Accordingly, when work
goals are clearly delineated and employees can meet established standards, heightened personal
pleasure and a sense of accomplishment result. A high-hope boss also can provide greater satisfaction
at work. This sequence unfolds this way: The high-hope boss clearly identifies achievable work subgoals,
which in turn increases workers' motivation and the chances of reaching larger, organizational goals
(Snyder & Shorey, Good Work 2004). In this process, the hopeful leader also facilitates workers'
willingness to embrace the company's overall objectives (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005).

DERIVING PURPOSE BY PROVIDING A PRODUCT OR SERVICE – One's work also is an important potential
source of purpose in life. A major underlying force that drives such purpose is the sense of providing
needed products or services to customers. Workers want, sometimes in very small ways, to feel that
they are making a contribution to other people and to their society.

ENGAGEMENT AND INVOLVEMENT – Engagement is the employee's involvement with his or her work,
whereas satisfaction is what we might call employee enthusiasm at work (Harter et aI., 2002).
Engagement is said to occur when employees find that their needs are being met. Specifically,
engagement reflects those circumstances in which employees "know what is expected of them, have
what they need to do their work, have opportunities to feel something significant with coworkers whom
they trust, and have chances to improve and develop" (Harter et al., 2002, p. 269).

Warr (1999) – most engaging jobs are those with special duties and in which there is a good match
between the required activities and the skills and personality of the employees. Engaged involvement at
work bears a resemblance to the concept of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1988).
VARIETY IN JOB DUTIES – If the tasks performed at work are sufficiently varied, satisfactions come more
easily (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Lacking variability in work, the employee may lapse into what
recently has been called presenteeism (the employee may physically be at work, but because of the
mental health problems that often result from aversive and repetitive work experiences, he or she is
unproductive and unhappy). In such scenarios, employees can become demoralized and lose their
motivation.

INCOME FOR FAMILY AND SELF Without question, a minimum income is necessary to provide for the
needs of one's family and oneself. Furthermore, when making important life decisions, people are most
likely to cite financial reasons (Miller, 1999). Workers must make sure that the pursuit of money does
not undermine important family pleasures and obligations. Indeed, if both parents work furiously to
make money and do not attend to their offspring, the unfortunate result may be that their children end
up behaving in the very same way when they grow up and have children. The irony here is that the same
work that is meant to provide the financial resources to raise a family may grow like a cancer and cause
problems in the family it is intended to support.

COMPANIONSHIP AND LOYALTY TO COWORKERS AND BOSSES: FRIENDS AT WORK – The work of the
Gallup researchers, presented in the book Vital Friends, confirmed that the sense of community at a
given workplace is a contributing factor to happiness and satisfaction on the job (Mahan, Garrard, Lewis,
& Newbrough, 2002; Royal & Rossi, 1996). Furthermore, Rath found that, if you have a "best friend" at
work, you are likely to have fewer accidents, increased safety, more engaged customers, and increased
achievement and productivity.

SAFE WORK ENVIRONMENTS – Part of happiness at work is a safe and healthy physical environment
where it is obvious that management cares about the welfare of workers. In the previously discussed
meta-analytic report by Harter et al. (2002), perceived safety of the workplace was one of the most
robust predictors of employee satisfaction.

What Promotes Employee Engagement?

Positive Emotions and Work: Disposition to positive emotionality significantly impacts work experiences.
People scoring higher on positive emotionality, described as more enthusiastic and energetic, report
greater job satisfaction (Luthans & Youssef, 2009; Warr, 1999). Peterson et al. (2009) highlighted
personal zest—approaching life with anticipation and excitement—as crucial for work satisfaction and
seeing one’s work as a calling. Positive emotions at work enhance personal fulfillment and productivity.

Impact on Psychological Processes: Isen (2008, 2009) found that positive emotions improve problem
solving, decision making, and lead to more flexible and creative solutions. They also foster favorable
evaluations of others, and increase helpfulness, generosity, and empathy. Employees experiencing
positive emotions contribute more to organizational effectiveness (Pinder, 1998).

Behavioral Benefits: Positive moods make people more sociable, less aggressive, and better at recalling
positive information. They lead to spontaneous positive workplace behaviors, such as helpfulness, skill
development, constructive criticism, goodwill, and protective actions, reducing job injuries (George &
Brief, 1992).

Career Advantages: Higher confidence, optimism, self-efficacy, likability, and sociability give individuals
an advantage in launching and advancing their careers. Positive emotions promote approach-oriented
behavior, leading to novel interactions and goal pursuit (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Carver, 2003). Happy
workers show less burnout, emotional exhaustion, and absenteeism, and are less likely to quit (George,
1995; Herrbach, 2006). They gain more social support from colleagues and supervisors (Feingold, 1983;
Iverson et al., 1998) and are more likely to exhibit helpful behavior (Baron & Bronfen, 1994; Cunningham
et al., 1980), enhancing their value as team players.

Psychological Capital (PsyCap): Luthans et al. (2007) proposed PsyCap, comprising self-efficacy, hope,
optimism, and resiliency, as a catalyst for these behaviors. New interventions aim to develop PsyCap
(Luthans & Yussef, 2009).

HAVING OR BEING A GOOD BOSS

The boss is a crucial resource in helping employees to have productive and satisfying job experiences.
Supervisors who provide clear job definitions and duties as well as support to employees foster job
satisfaction and production (Warr, 1999).
Managers and leaders who are focused on employees' strengths (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001), good at
communicating the company goals, and facile at giving feedback contribute to employees' positive
experiences.
High-hope bosses also enjoy their social interactions with employees; moreover, they often take an active
interest in how employees are doing, both at work and outside it (Snyder & Shorey, 2004). It also is helpful
for a boss to be genuine and authentic in interactions with employees (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa,
2004; Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004; George, 2003; Luthans & Avolio, 2003).

Avolio et al. (2004):

“Authentic bosses are those individuals who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are
perceived by others as being aware of their own and others' values/moral perspective, knowledge, and
strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic,
resilient, and high on moral character.”
Authentic bosses foster trust and positive emotions among their employees along with high engagement
and motivation. Authentic leaders hold deep personal values and convictions that guide their behaviors.
In turn, their employees respect and trust them, and these positive views are reinforced as the authentic
boss encourages differing views and interacts collaboratively with workers.
Thus, authentic bosses value diversity in their employees and want to identify and build on employee
talents and strengths (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). The authentic boss sets high standards for his or her own
behavior and models integrity and honesty to employees – thereby, facilitate teamwork.

APPLICATIONS OF SIGNATURE STRENGHTS AT WORK

A budding stream of research on positive organizational scholarship focuses on maximizing positive

states, developing employees’ strengths, and encouraging flourishing (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003;
Dutton & Glynn, 2008).
One strategy for improving employees’ well-being could be facilitating use of employees’ signature
character strengths at work (Seligman et al., 2002). Existing research suggests that across the long term,
application of signature strengths at work may be associated with a variety of positive outcomes.
Higher levels of CS have been linked with greater levels of experienced pleasure, meaning, and
engagement in life (Peterson, Ruch, Beermann, Park, & Seligman, 2007). In a study of employees, Harzer
and Ruch (2015) found that possession of character strengths mediated the relationship between stress
and job satisfaction.
Young-Jin and Mi-Na (2014) found that possession of character strengths was positively associated with
self-efficacy in a sample of Korean special education teachers.

Littman-Ovadia and Lavy (2015) identified perseverance as one key strength, finding that perseverance
was positively associated with self-reported performance and negatively associated with self-reported
counterproductive work behavior. In another study, Harzer and Ruch (2014) found that several
character strengths were significantly associated with task performance, job dedication, and
organizational support.

Regarding application of strengths at work, research suggests that the most optimal outcomes arise
when applying at least four signature strengths, although it might be difficult (Harzer & Ruch, 2012a,
2012b). Linley, Nielsen, Gillett, and Biswas-Diener (2010) assert that ‘these strengths convey a sense of
ownership and authenticity in their use, an intrinsic yearning to use them and a feeling of inevitability in
doing so’ (p. 8). When individuals use their signature strengths, they experience more positive
outcomes including psychological need fulfillment, well-being, life satisfaction, zest, and happiness
(Forest et al., 2012; Park & Peterson, 2009; Proctor, Maltby, & Linley, 2011).

However, employees may not always have opportunities to use their signature strengths at work.
Application of signature strengths is contingent upon the extent to which the work setting demands,
encourages, or restricts behavior related to those strengths (Harzer et al., 2012b). Thus, application of
signature strengths is likely a function of both the person’s proclivities and the work environment, and
alignment between the two can be conceptualized as one form of person-job fit (e.g. van Woerkom,
Bakker, & Nishii, 2016).

• Person-job fit encompasses both demands-abilities fit and needs-supplies fit.

• Demands-abilities fit occurs when a need of the organization is fulfilled by an ability

(i.e. strength) of the individual (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).

• Needs-supplies fit reflects the extent to which an employee’s personal needs are
fulfilled by job duties. If individuals possess an intrinsic drive to express their signature
strengths, then jobs that allow for regular expression of those strengths would exhibit
high levels of needs-supplies fit (Harzer & Ruch, 2016).

Following this perspective, it is expected that individuals should experience positive outcomes only
when they express and apply their signature strengths at work. Though research has focused on the
extent to which individuals possess certain strengths, less attention has been paid to environmental
constraints or facilitators of strength use. The need for greater attention to this interactionist
perspective has been recognized (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
The Gallup Organization suggest focusing on employees’ strengths and talents and then finding job
duties that provide a good match for those talents (Hodges & Clifton, 2004). The focus is not on
changing worker weaknesses and deficiencies but on building on their assets. MATCH PEOPLE, DON'T
FIX THEM : The underlying premise of the strengths-based approach to work is Instead of "fixing" all
employees so that each has the same basic level of skills, find out what a worker's talents are, and then
assign the worker to jobs where those talents can be used, or shape the job activities around the
workers' talents and skills.

THE STAGES OF THIS APPROACH – According to Clifton and Harter (2003), there are three stages in the
strengths-based approach to gainful employment.

• The first stage is the identification of talents, which involves increasing the employee's
awareness of his or her own natural or learned talents.

• The second stage is the integration of the talents into the employee's self-image; the person
learns to define him- or herself according to these talents. Gallup has developed books aimed at
helping particular groups of people to integrate their talents – examples include: a workbook for
students (see Clifton & Anderson, 2002), a book for people in sales (Smith & Rutigliano, 2003),
and one for members and leaders of faith-based organizations (see Winseman, Clifton, &
Liesveld, 2003).

• The third stage is the actual behavioral change, in which the individual learns to attribute any
successes to his or her special talents. In this stage, people report being more satisfied and
productive precisely because they have begun to own and accentuate their strengths.

CAPITAL AT WORK

As Carly Fiorian of Hewlett-Packard has put it (in Luthans & Youssef, 2004, p. 143), "The most important
ingredient in the transformed landscape is people."

TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC CAPITAL: traditional economic capital involves an organization's answer to

the question, "What do you have?" The answer usually has been a list of the concrete facilities that
make a given company unique. Included here would be the buildings or plants, the equipment, data,
patents, technology, and so forth. Obviously, this type of capital is very expensive in terms of monetary
outlay. Often, a marker of the success of an organization is that other companies attempt to copy these
sources of capital (euphemistically called benchmarking). Historically, these physical resources of
economic capital have received most of the attention in analyses of work settings (Luthans, Luthans, &
Luthans, 2004), but this is changing in the 21st century.

HUMAN CAPITAL: The term human capital refers to the employees at all levels of an organization. The
knowledge inherent in human capital is made up of the explicit skills of workers. Such skills and tacit
knowledge are organization specific; for example, Nike has been characterized as superb at brand
management, General Electric at global cooperation; and Microsoft has been lauded for having
employees who excel at trying new ideas (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). In the American workforce, human
capital increasingly involves workers of diverse ethnic backgrounds. In the words ofJohn Bruhn (1996), A
healthy organization is one in which an obvious effort is made to get people with different backgrounds,
skills, and abilities to work together toward the goals or purpose of the organization.

SOCIAL CAPITAL: Throughout all levels of an organization, an important set of assets taps into the
relationships, network of contacts, and friends (see Figure 17.6). Such social capital makes an
organization facile in setting goals and solving any challenges that may arise. Because employees know
with whom they should talk both within and outside the company, they can reach their goals even
under difficult circumstances. Thus, advice is a precious commodity in social capital.

POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL : The last and newest form of capital discussed by social scientists is
positive psychological capital, which, for Luthans and his colleagues (Luthans et al., 2004; Luthans &
Youssef, 2004), comprises four positive psychology variables (see Figure 17.7). These four variables
involve Bandura's (1997) efficacy (confidence in one's ability to reach a desired goal; see Chapter 9),
Snyder's (2002a) hope (the capacity to find pathways to desired goals, along with the motivation or
agency to use those pathways; Seligman's (2002) optimism (the ability to attribute good outcomes to
internal, stable, and pervasive causes; and Masten's (2001) resiliency (the capacity to endure and
succeed in adversity), Luthans argues that, as we move into the 21st century, it is time for businesses to
lessen their dependency on the traditional sources of capital (e.g., economic) (Luthans et aI., 2004;
Luthans & Youssef, 2004). Instead, he suggests that there already are compelling theoretical reasons,
along with beginning reports from research programs (see Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, in press), to
move to these psychological forms of capital.
 Hope: A Prime Psychological Capital ( can mention a bit of this in answer)

Generally, using the principles of hope theory, it is adaptive in work settings to clarify the important
goals, to break larger goals into subgoals that are easier to reach, and to learn to come up with alternate
routes to desired goals-especially in stressful circumstances (Luthans & Jensen, 2002).
THE HIGH-HOPE COMPANIES : Generally, the higher-hope companies appeared to be very successful in
terms of their profits. Thus, hope plays a positive role when it comes to the bottom line. We also found
that high-hope work settings (as compared to low-hope ones) shared the following characteristics:

• No one, including management, was greatly feared by employees.

• There was a level playing field where everyone had an equal chance to succeed.

• Advancement and benefits were linked to effort expended.

• The lowest person in the organization was treated with the same respect as every other employee,
including management.

• The first priority of management was to help the employees to do the best job possible.

• There was open, two-way communication between employees and management.

• Employee feedback was solicited and viewed as a means of making the company better.

• As many decisions as possible were given to the employees who were doing the particular work.

• Employees were included in the setting of company goals.

• Employees were given responsibility for finding solutions to problems.

• Whether it was solving a problem or trying a new idea, employees were given the responsibility for
implementing the changes.

• The objective was to establish enduring relationships with customers instead of to accomplish a given
sales objective.

HIGH-HOPE EMPLOYEES : Using the same survey data (i.e., Snyder, 2004), the highest-hope employees
also were identified. It also should be noted that these highhope employees tended to work at the high-
hope companies. Results showed that the high-hope employees (as compared to the low-hope ones)
shared the following characteristics:

• They were conscientious about their jobs.

• They showed helping attitudes toward other workers and the local communities.

• They were courteous to fellow workers and customers, especially during difficult discussions or
interactions.
• They were good sports when it came to fellow workers getting rewards (raises, advancement,
recognition, etc.).

• They did not blame fellow workers, the management, or customers when difficulties arose. • They set
clear work goals.

• They found good and multiple routes to desired goals.

• They were able to motivate themselves under normal circumstances and were especially energized
during difficult circumstances.

Outcomes of application of strengths at work:

In their studies, Harzer and Ruch (2012a, 2012b) developed a measure to assess the extent to which one
is able to apply signature strengths in one’s job environment. They found that application of strengths is
related to a number of positive outcomes such as perceiving one’s job as satisfying and as a calling.
Application of strengths has been linked with engagement, positive affect, job satisfaction, burnout
(negatively), engagement, and harmonious passion for work (Forest et al., 2012; Keenan & Mostert,
2013). Van Woerkom and colleagues (2016) CS at work can reduce withdrawal-related absenteeism.
Beyond attitudinal outcomes, application of strengths has been significantly linked with increased task
and citizenship performance and decreased counterproductive work behavior (e.g. Kong & Ho, 2016;
Littman-Ovadia, Lavy, & Boiman-Meshita, 2017).
Lack of opportunity to apply signature strengths, or lacking the strengths demanded by the job, likely
produces lower perceptions of person-job fit – this can result in strain – higher strain is linked with
intentions to turnover.

Ten Qualities of Positive Work Environments

Peter Warr (1999) reviewed the research on job engagement and satisfaction and classified the major
elements of the work environment that determine well-being.
1. Opportunity for personal control: People enjoy a certain degree of freedom, autonomy, participation
in decision making, and selfdetermination on their jobs. The chance to make decisions about how to
attain goals and to contribute to various aspects of one’s job helps create a sense of competence.
2. Opportunity for skill use: Meeting the need for competence is also related to having opportunities for
using one’s skills and talents on the job.
3. Reasonable, externally generated goals: Satisfaction is associated with having moderately strong and
clear goals that stimulate challenging work conditions.
4. Variety: A 1991 Gallop poll found that “interesting work” and “chances to learn new skills” were
ranked second and fourth, respectively, in importance for job satisfaction. People like to learn new skills
and to use certain aspects of work to stimulate curiosity and even personal growth.
5. Environmental clarity: One element is clarity of feedback, or how well people communicate tasks,
assignments, concerns, and goals within an organization.
6. Availability of money: Some extent of job satisfaction does relate to one’s absolute level of pay.
However, studies have also shown that one’s satisfaction with income depends substantially on a
comparison with what others are earning for doing the same job. Clark and Oswald (1996) found that it
is possible to calculate an average salary for different jobs and that the more people believed their pay
was lower than the “going rate,” the less their overall job satisfaction.
7. Physical security: This refers to pleasant working conditions, safety on the job, and ergonomically
adequate equipment.
8. Supportive supervision: Supportive management and effective leadership.
9. Opportunity for interpersonal contact: Items 8 and 9 refer to one of the most important aspects of
job satisfaction: gratification from one’s social relationships at work. Since coworkers can be a source of
support, recognition, validation, and other forms of social rewards, one’s work satisfaction tends to be
positive when those features are present.
10. Work is valued by society: People also need to feel that what they do is important in some way.
That is, individuals derive a sense of life purpose from believing their job makes a real difference in the
lives of others (London & Strumpf, 1986). In a 1987 Harris poll, researchers found that 48% of
respondents listed “My job gives a feeling of real accomplishment” as the most important aspect of their
work.

Leadership
In the growing field of positive organizational behavior, leadership is pivotal for employee engagement
and organizational success, supported by over 25 years of research. The leadership market is vast, with
numerous books on figures like Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Steve Jobs, and Queen Elizabeth I.
Leadership theories have evolved significantly. Initially, the "Great Man" perspective, proposed by
Thomas Carlyle in the 1840s, suggested that heroic individuals with unique traits motivated others to
achieve. This view held that "Leaders are born, not made" and celebrated leaders as almost god-like
figures (Whitman, 2009).
By the early 1900s, influenced by Freudian theory, leadership was seen differently. Renowned figures
like Leonardo da Vinci were viewed as flawed and driven by inner conflicts. Some scholars denied the
existence of leadership, considering achievements as accidental or situational. They believed that figures
like Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi were leaders only because they were thrust into historical
moments requiring their specific traits.
This view was challenged by Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus in the 1980s. They argued that a clear
understanding of what distinguishes leaders from non-leaders and effective leaders from ineffective
ones was lacking. Research then shifted towards the transformational leadership approach, emphasizing
personality traits and competencies linked to success. This approach, advanced by Bennis, Bruce Avolio,
and Bernard Bass, focused on transformational leaders' ability to boost self-confidence, intrinsic
motivation, and self-expectation among group members, thereby harnessing group talent for success
(Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1997).

Although theorists have disagreed on specific emphases, the following three traits have been regarded
as most salient for leadership:
(1) possessing a broad vision—that is, preferring to think in big-picture terms, rather than on minute
details and micromanaging issues;
(2) having optimism and excitement about the future; and,
(3) valuing individuals for their unique talents and seeking to maximize their self-actualization as the
building blocks of organizational success.
Three additional leadership traits are often mentioned too:
(4) dedication and hard work;
(5) integrity; and,
(6) providing clear directives and specific feedback to subordinates.
Finally, another far-more-nebulous trait is sometimes identified with transformational leadership:
(7) charisma. Bass (1998) suggested that transformational leaders make followers feel more aware of
their own importance and value to the success of the group. Kark, Shamir, & Chen (2003) found that
followers socially identified with transformational leaders and felt empowered to take action as a result
of their relationship. More recent studies have moved away from a strong focus on transformational
leadership toward a greater emphasis on shared and relational factors, especially on the interaction
between leader and follower (Avolio, Walumwa & Weber, 2009). That is, the focus of leadership
researchers has changed from concentrating only on the leader to exploring a wider context, including
peers, supervisors, work setting, and culture. As Van Dierendonck (2011, p. 1234) observed, “Leadership
theories are more and more acknowledging the complex process that leadership actually is.”

EXAMPLES OF THE INTERVENTION/TRAINING OUTCOMES

Training programs have been effective in helping employees both identify and apply their signature
strengths (Dubreuil et al., 2016; Forest et al., 2012). Increasing leader support for application and for
autonomy is another strategy (Ho & Dejun, 2016; Lavy et al., 2016). The greater autonomy employees
have, the more they are likely to craft their jobs to leverage their strengths.

IBM is one organisation that has successfully shifted thinking, behaviours, improved performance, and
received outstanding feedback through top-down ‘strengthsbased leadership’ interventions. IBM
introduced flexible work schedules-such as giving many employees the option to work part-time or at
home-based on another of its survey findings that such scheduling contributes to improved worker
satisfaction. Now, one-third of IBM employees do not work at a traditional office.
The IBM Positive Leadership Program was established to provide senior leaders with the tools and
resources to enhance their own leadership capability, personal resiliency and positive mindset, with
subsequent positive impacts on their teams and the business. Executives completed the online VIA Survey
and undertook exercises to help them identify, understand, and build their strengths. They also had the
opportunity to take part in one-on-one coaching sessions.

With similar goals in mind, IBM also ran a three part strengths-based leadership classroom series for all
managers.
In addition to the classroom content on strengths research, participants also completed the VIA Survey
(Peterson and Park 2009; Peterson and Seligman 2004), received a tool kit with exercises to help them
to continue to explore and build their signature strengths, and were invited to join a coaching call to
hear how leaders had personally applied strengths at work both individually and with their teams.

IBM also facilitated tailored strengths sessions at the team level for different business groups focused on
providing an introduction to the principles of positive psychology, the strengths based approach to
maximising human potential, and the opportunity to explore their individual strengths and how to use
them to build performance and improve personal

Another step that we have found helpful is for workers to talk with their fellow employees about ways
the work setting can be improved. Your coworkers may have good ideas for changes in the physical
aspects of your job. Moreover, they may have tips about how to deal more effectively with other workers
and bosses and team satisfaction.
A last strategy that comes from the "Make Job Better" side of Figure 17.8 is to learn to enjoy what you
have. Appreciation and savoring (Bryant, 2005; Bryant & Veroff, 2006) are important positive psychology
attributes, and you may want to take more time to simply realize and enjoy what you have.