Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Application of Signature Character Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Happiness Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We hypothesized that the amount of positive experiences at work (job satisfaction, pleasure, engagement, meaning) is a function of the extent to which the situational circumstances at the workplace allow for the application of an individual’s signature character strengths. For the description of the individual a reliable and valid instrument already exists, but not for the environment. Hence, the newly developed Applicability of Character Strengths Rating Scales (ACS-RS) with information on its reliability and validity were also presented. A sample of 1,111 adults filled in the ACS-RS and measures for possession of character strengths and positive experiences at work. The ACS-RS was reliable by means of internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. It proved to be valid in several ways being sensitive to: (a) the differences in the applicability of trait-relevant behavior in formal versus informal situations by showing higher applicability of the character strengths in the latter; (b) the differences between traits regarding their applicability across situations; (c) people’s disposition to choose situations fitting their dispositions by showing positive relationships between the degree of possession and applicability. Moreover, correlations between applicability of strengths and positive experiences increased with the individual centrality of the strengths. The more signature strengths were applied at the workplace, the higher the positive experiences at work. This study showed that character strengths matter in vocational environments irrespective of their content. Strengths-congruent activities at the workplace are important for positive experiences at work like job satisfaction and experiencing pleasure, engagement, and meaning fostered by one’s job.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As it is the case for personality assessment in general, character strengths as personality traits are theoretical constructs and it is not possible to possess or apply them technically speaking. Nevertheless, one can endorse statements relating to the character strengths.

  2. Example given in the instruction is about kindness rated by a nurse: A nurse’s job description entails many comments about hygiene but nothing about kindness and they do not talk much about it in the team. That is why she would rate “it is demanded” as seldom (rating = 2). As she realized that caring for patients is easier when being kind to them she rates that “it is helpful” often (rating = 4). Furthermore, it is usually important for her to interact with patients in a kind way and she therefore would rate “it is important for me” as 4 = often. However, the workload is very high and therefore impedes kind interactions some of the time (“I do it” = 3). In total kindness would have an applicability score of 3.25, which means that kindness is sometimes applicable at work.

References

  • Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. (Ed.). (2002). Career choice and development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J. M., & Pancheri, P. (1976). A handbook of cross-national MMPI research. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248–267. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(87)90042-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., & Herbener, E. S. (1990). Continuity and change: Assortative marriage and the consistency of personality in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 250–258. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. The Academy of Management Journal, 39, 292–339. doi:10.2307/256782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gati, I., Garty, Y., & Fassa, N. (1996). Using career-related aspects to assess person-environment fit. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 196–206. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.43.2.196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of work personalities and work environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huta, V., & Hawley, L. (2010). Psychological strengths and cognitive vulnerabilities: Are they two ends of the same continuum or do they have independent relationships with well-being and ill-being? Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 71–93. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9123-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., McCreath, H. E., Gover, J., King, R., & Bordin, J. (1990). Person-environment intersections: Everyday settings and common trait dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 685–698. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An investigative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implication. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852. doi:10.1177/1094428106296642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littman-Ovadia, H., & Steger, M. F. (2010). Character strengths and well-being among volunteers and employees: Toward an integrative model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 419–430. doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.516765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, G. (2010). Creating healthy organizations. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, H., & O’Brian, K. M. (2006). The role of person-environment fit in the job satisfaction and tenure intentions of African American employees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 387–396. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. D., Eid, J., Kelly, D., Bailey, J. K. S., & Peterson, C. (2006). Character strengths and virtues of developing military leaders: An international comparison. Military Psychology, 18(Suppl.), 57–68. doi:10.1207/s15327876mp1803s_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. E., Rashid, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2010). Is optimal functioning a distinct state? The Humanistic Psychologist, 38, 159–169. doi:10.1080/08873261003635781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2007). Methodological issues in positive psychology and the assessment of character strengths. In A. D. Ong & M. H. M. van Dulmen (Eds.), Handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp. 292–305). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2006). Character strengths in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1149–1154. doi:10.1002/job.398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005a). Assessment of character strengths. In G. P. Koocher, J. C. Norcross, & S. S. Hill III (Eds.), Psychologists’ desk reference (2nd ed., pp. 93–98). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005b). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25–41. doi:10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, C., Maltby, J., & Linley, P. A. (2011). Strengths use as a predictor of wellbeing and health-related quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 153–169. doi: 10.1007/s10902-009-9181-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (1992). Construct and concurrent validation of the Andrews and Withey Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 357–367. doi:10.1177/0013164492052002011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruch, W., Furrer, G., & Huwyler, D. (2004). Work Context Questionnaire (WCQ). Unpublished instrument, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

  • Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010). Values in action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS): Adaptation and validation of the German version and the development of a peer-rating form. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 138–149. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G., Bel-Bahar, T., & Fernandez, C. (2007). What modifies the expression of personality tendencies? Defining basic domains of situation variables. Journal of Personality, 75, 479–503. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00446.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimai, S., Otake, K., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Convergence of character strengths in American and Japanese young adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 311–322. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-3647-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stairs, M., & Galpin, M. (2010). Positive engagement: From employee engagement to workplace happiness. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology at work (pp. 155–172). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.87.2.245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Berge, M. A., & De Raad, B. (1999). Taxonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective. A review. European Journal of Personality, 13, 337–360. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199909/10)13:5<337:AID-PER363>3.0.CO;2-F.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, R. E. (1975). Criteria for quality of working life. In L. E. Davis & A. B. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of working life (Vol. 1, pp. 91–104). New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, A. M., Linley, A. P., Maltby, J., Kashdan, T. B., & 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, 15–19. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors like to thank Yves Weibel who helped with the data collection and the compilation of the ACS-RS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section on Personality and Assessment, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Binzmühlestrasse 14/Box 7, 8050, Zurich, Switzerland

    Claudia Harzer & Willibald Ruch

Authors
  1. Claudia Harzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Willibald Ruch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia Harzer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harzer, C., Ruch, W. The Application of Signature Character Strengths and Positive Experiences at Work. J Happiness Stud 14, 965–983 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9364-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9364-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation