Conceptualizing employee strengths at work and scale development

Abstract

Purpose There is a compelling need for developing constructs in management science for higher relevance rather than adapting constructs developed in other domains and applying them in organizations. An inquiry in the relevance of the construct of strength developed in personality psychology and applied to organizations is compelling, as deploying strengths leads to humanizing organizations. With growing disengagement of employees at work, this study makes a significant contribution by conceptualizing strengths in the context of organizations and carrying out two studies on independent samples for developing a psychometrically validated 14-item scale for measuring it. Design/methodology/approach The study has two phases. The first phase is conceptual in nature where the authors deploy the social systems theory and use recent empirical research evidence in conceptualizing the construct of employee strengths at work (ESAW). In the second phase, the author carry out two studies on independent samples for ascertaining the factor structure by carrying out EFA and then confirming it by doing a confirmatory factor analysis. Findings The construct of ESAW, relevant for management science, has five factors: potential deployment, person-jot fit, managerial sensitivity, prompt assimilation and joy. The psychometrically validated scale for measuring ESAW developed in this study has 14 items. Because the construct incorporates key contextual factors, it is more relevant to organizational science and contributes to humanizing organizations. Originality/value This study evolves the construct of ESAW from a predominantly trait-based approach to a conceptualization that accounts for the contextual factors, essential for enabling strengths of employees to manifest. The study contributes to advancing literature that holds promise for humanizing organizations – a pressing need because of the growing instances of employee disengagement. The author develop a 14-item psychometrically validated scale for measuring ESAW that the practitioners can use in first assessing current levels of employee strengths’ deployment and thereafter intervening for increasing the deployment of their strengths for enabling higher well-being and superior performance.

Measuring Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Results: Psychometric Properties of the 12-Item SOAR Scale

“…Several tools have been developed to assess strengths individually and in terms of assets and capabilities. Self-report tools to measure identification and the use of strengths include the Clifton Strengths-Finder (Rath, 2007), the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (Park and Peterson, 2006), the Personal Strengths Inventory (Kienfie Liau et al, 2010), the Employee Strengths at Work Scale (Bhatnagar, 2020), and the Strengths Use Scale (Govindji and Linley, 2007). The Developmental Assets Profile (Scales, 2011) is a self-report inventory comprised of 58 strength items (Scales, 2011).…”

Systemic coaching for higher effectiveness

“…Most of the earlier studies make use of either strength-use by employing the scale developed by Govindji and Linley (2007) or make use of the propriety instruments of Gallup (Rath, 2007) or the character strengths (Peterson and Seligman, 2004) that identifies the dominant trait-based strengths in a person. This study has a higher relevance for organizational behavior as it makes use of the concept of employee strengths at work that conceives of strengths as a dynamic interaction of personal traits and contextual variables (Bhatnagar, 2020;Bhatnagar et al, 2020).…”

“…Enablement by manager and deployment of individual talents, skills, knowledge, experience and its alignment with the requirement of the job, leading to prompt assimilation and personal gaiety at work (Bhatnagar et al, 2020) 14-item scale (Bhatnagar, 2020) 6…”

“…The other attribute of the microsystem is the use of a coachee's strengths at work. Figure 3 exhibits case 1's current use of strengths on the five attributes, namely, potential transmutation, personal gaiety, resonant synergy, quick assimilation and managerial sensitivity (Bhatnagar, 2020). It is evident from the Figure 3 that case 1 is not able to deploy the talents, skills, knowledge and experience at work; there is scope for improving the alignment of the requirements of the job to the strengths; case 1 expects the manager to be more sensitive to the talents possessed and there is scope for higher joy at work ones all the factors identified are addressed.…”

The Strengths Use Scale: Psychometric Properties, Longitudinal Invariance and Criterion Validity

“…This is further indicated by the vast array of propriety psychometric instruments used to identify or assess strengths (Richter et al, 2020 ). These include, but are not limited to, the Clifton Strengths-Finder (Rath, 2007 ), the VIA Signature Strengths Inventory for adults (Peterson and Seligman, 2004 ) and children (Ruch et al, 2014 ), the Signature Strengths Questionnaire-72 (Rashid et al, 2017 ), the Personal Strengths Inventory (Kienfie Liau et al, 2011 ), the Realise2 Strengths Finder (Linley et al, 2010 ), and the Employee Strengths At Work Scale (Bhatnagar, 2020 ). Each of these instruments aims to measure various forms of manifested strengths ranging from character strengths to inherent talents.…”