Beyond the competency frameworks-

conceptualizing and deploying employee

strengths at work
Vikas Rai Bhatnagar, Ajay K. Jain, Shiv S. Tripathi and Sabir Giga

Abstract Vikas Rai Bhatnagar and

Purpose – With growing stress at work, the need for scholars to focus on humanizing organizations is Ajay K. Jain are both based
pressing. Scholars agree five factors lead to humanizing organizations. This study dwells upon one at the Department of
factor – employee strengths at work (ESAW) – problematizes, identifies the gap in its conceptualization, Organizational Behaviour,
deploys critical social systems theory and reconceptualizes the construct of ESAW by taking key Management Development
contextual factors into consideration. Thereafter, this study aims to develop a conceptual model and
Institute, Gurgaon, India.
makes propositions related to the mediating effects of ESAW on the association of leadership style and
Shiv S. Tripathi is based at
employee performance.
the Department of Strategic
Design/methodology/approach – Aimed at contributing to humanizing organizations, this conceptual
Management, Management
study problematizes the construct of competency and the trait-based conceptualization of strengths in
Development Institute,
identifying gaps in the construct of competency for humanizing organizations. Next, the study deploys
the technique of construct mixology for evolving the new construct of ESAW. To empirically test ESAW in Gurgaon, India.
the field, the authors deploy the critical social systems theory and develop a conceptual model. Further, Sabir Giga is based at the
drawing upon the conceptual model and the extant literature, the authors develop many propositions for Faculty of Health and
enabling future research. Medicine, Lancaster
Findings – The study develops a new construct of ESAW that holds the promise of contributing to University, Lancaster, UK.
humanizing organizations. By embedding the current trait-based conceptualization of employee
strengths to the context of the organization, the new five-factor construct of ESAW is indigenous to the
field of organization science, hence, has a higher relevance. The study develops a conceptual model and
makes propositions for empirically testing the new construct in the field that future researchers may focus
upon.
Research limitations/implications – There is a compelling need for humanizing organizations. This
conceptual study attempts to bring back the focus of researchers on humanizing organizations, within the
framework of the market-driven economy. The new construct of ESAW has huge potential for theory-
building and empirical testing.
Practical implications – Deployment of ESAW will contribute to humanizing organizations. The
construct of ESAW is relevant to practice as it has evolved from the domain of organization
science, unlike the earlier trait-based conceptualization of strength that emerged in
personality psychology. Practitioners can deploy the construct of ESAW and achieve the two
seemingly conflicting objectives of enabling employee well-being while also ensuring superior Received 20 July 2019
performance. Revised 10 March 2020
Accepted 18 March 2020
Social implications – Any contribution toward humanizing organizations forebodes increasing the
social capital and the personal well-being of employees. If employees are happy at work, their The authors deeply
productivity increases. As per the broaden and build theory of Fredrickson, higher well-being and acknowledge the intuitive
productivity at work creates a spiral of positivity that transcends the working life of an employee. Hence, guidance constantly extended
by Reverend Prof. Prem Saran
the study has huge social implications at times when the social fabric is stretched because of multiple Satsangi, Chairman of Advisory
demands on an employee. Committee on Education,
Dayalbagh Educational
Originality/value – Constructs developed in other fields and adopted in organization science have less
Institute and the Spiritual
relevance than those evolved in the domain of organization science. Past deficient conceptualization and Leader of the Radhasoami
practices persist unless scholars logically challenge it an alternative and improved conceptualization Faith.

DOI 10.1108/JABS-07-2019-0228 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1558-7894 j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j
 provided. The new construct of ESAW uses the method of construct mixology after unravelling the
assumptions that impedes humanizing organizations.
Keywords Competency, Strengths, Problematization, Humanizing organizations,
Employee strengths at work, Construct development, Construct mixology
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
Employees in modern organizations increasingly face problems such as stress-related
illness, burnout, absenteeism, violence and corruption, with nepotism and favoritism
assuming a new form of corruption that adversely impacts employee motivation (Iqbal and
Ahmad, 2020). Kalekin-Fishman and Langman (2015) provide evidence of even knowledge
workers experiencing alienation due to regimentation of work; the compounding nature of
the concern is the lack of awareness of the alienated of their situation and they accepting
alienation as a norm (Erikson, 1985). Bullying at the workplace are not isolated events that
further adds to the stress of employees (Agarwal and Rai, 2019). In multinational
corporations, it is commonplace to have cultural friction when many parent country
nationals are posted in culturally distant locations, contributing to sub-optimal performance
of the subsidiary firm (Singh et al., 2019). Corporate malpractices are on the rise that
eventually leads to the downfall of firms (Gaur et al., 2019), posing yet a lot of stress on
employees.
The above condition of employees calls for a renewed focus on humanizing organizations –
a quest for organizational scholars for many decades (Nord, 1978). How can we humanize
modern corporations such that employee’s well-being and the company’s profitability are
not a zero-sum game (one at the expense of the other) but corporations successfully
achieve both the objectives? Nord (1978) identifies five factors scholars agree that
contribute to humanizing organizations as follows:

1. employees treated as ends and not means to an end;

2. employees perform meaningful work;

3. employees are given opportunities to develop their unique potential;

4. employees are treated with dignity; and

5. employees have a say in making decisions, particularly aspects that affect their lives.

This study focuses on the aspect of “unique potential” of employees, known in the extant
literature as “strengths” (Rath and Conchie, 2009) that finds resonance in the surge of
interest on getting individual authenticity to work settings for attaining higher levels of
happiness and success (Cha et al., 2019).
How can organizations achieve the dual objectives of personal happiness and high
performance? The extant literature presents two antagonistic business models as follows:
the economistic business model – a corollary of market-driven economic systems – that
uses resources for furthering the wealth of shareholders and the humanistic business model
that place the interests of employees as central (Pirson et al., 2014). While the economistic
model favors performance and often sidesteps the interests of the employees, the
humanistic model furthers the interests of employees while occasionally compromises
performance. This paper deploys critical social systems theory (Fuchs and Hofkirchner,
2009) and achieves the reconciliation of the two seemingly antagonistic business models by
problematizing (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2011; Deacon, 2000) the predominant
organizational behavior construct of the economistic model (competency) and of the
humanistic model (strengths) and develops a new construct of employee strengths at work
(ESAW) by carrying out construct mixology (Newman et al., 2016). The new construct
addresses the deficiencies of the construct of competency (the economistic model) and the

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

limitations of the construct of strengths (the humanistic model) and succeeds in formulating
an eco-humanistic business model that holds the promise of achieving the dual objectives
of personal well-being and superior performance. After formulating the new construct of
ESAW, the study suggests empirical testing of ESAW by developing propositions that
examine the mediating effects of ESAW on the styles of leadership and employee
performance. The new construct of ESAW presages employee well-being and profitable
business performance. Furthermore, the propositions drawn have huge possibilities for
carrying out further research for improving theory-building and the practice of management.

Construct of competency and strengths and their problematization

Competency frameworks are extremely popular among practitioners (Shippmann et al.,
2000). McClelland’s (1973) seminal contribution introduced the concept of competency,
suggesting the superiority of its validity as a predictor of employee performance to the tests
of intelligence and aptitude. Taylor et al. (1963) provide evidence that even for highly
intellectual jobs like scientific research, superior grades in college do not correlate with
superior performance in a job. Drawing from McClelland (1973), Boyatzis (1982) and
Spencer and Spencer (2008, p. 9) define competency as “an underlying characteristic of an
individual, that is causally related to criterion-referenced effective and/or superior
performance in a job or situation.” The seminal paper of McClelland (1973) refers to
competency in diverse ways as follows: at times, it mentions competency as demonstrated
behavior. In other instances, it refers to competency as a cognitive skill such as reading,
writing and calculating and yet in other instances, it mentions competency as a personality
trait such as patience. Stevens (2013) suggests this initial confusion in the definition of
competency introduced by McClelland persists. The competency approach accords
priority to the job and performance, considering people as a means for achieving superior
performance. The approach distills attributes in a job that leads to superior performance,
identifies the presence of these identified competencies in people and develops people on
the identified competences so that it contributes to superior performance at work. From a
Kantian perspective Kant (1997), it uses people as a means for an end – the ends of
increasing the wealth of shareholders and to that extent, resonates with the economistic
model.
The strengths approach, on the other hand, focuses on people – their traits and personality.
Bakker and van Woerkom (2018) report that while strengths-based approaches have been
prevalent in the context of social work and health care, they are still emerging in the
organizational context. Rapp and Goscha (1997) presented their strengths model that
signaled a paradigm shift in mental health, social work and other helping professions.
Building on the works of Hepworth and Larsen (1986), Shulman (1979) and Germain and
Gitterman (1980) cautioned against the dangers of focusing on individual pathologies while
ignoring strengths. The strengths model (Rapp and Goscha, 1997) posits that the type and
quality of niches a person inhabits, determines the person’s quality of life, achievement and
life satisfaction. Beginning in the twenty-first century, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000)
echoed similar views when they defined positive psychology as a science of subjective
positive experiences, positive individual traits and positive institutions. However, when
psychologists developed the construct of strengths, they ignored the niches or key
contextual attributes that formed an essential part of the strengths model for the social work
profession. For instance, Hodges and Clifton (2004) describe strengths as the deployment
of talents (innate and unique abilities of a person) such that it leads to near-perfect
performance. Similarly, Peterson and Seligman (2004) contend that good character
consists of traits that reflect thoughts, feelings and behavior. They identified 24-character
strengths and assigned them to six broad categories of virtues (core characteristics valued
by philosophers and religious thinkers). The virtues identified by them are wisdom and
knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance and transcendence. Examples of good

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

 character strengths are curiosity, bravery, kindness, leadership and the like. The
conceptualization of strengths-based on good character and traits is vulnerable to criticism
as the correlation between measures of personality traits and behavior in different settings
is weak (Mischel, 1968; Peterson, 1968; Biswas-Diener et al., 2017). In Table I below, the
researchers give a few definitions of competency and strengths, thereafter the researchers
introduce five methods of problematizing (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2011), then deploy
three of these methods for problematizing the constructs of competency and strengths and
finally deploy construct mixology (Newman et al., 2016) for developing the new construct of
ESAW.
Foucault (1985) postulates that problematization is first and foremost an endeavor to know-
how and to what extent might it be possible to think differently from what is already known.
Problematization is the process of identifying and challenging the assumptions underlying
existing literature. Table II below gives the five broad sets of assumptions provided by
Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) that can be problematized.
With the above methodological understanding of problematizing, the author problematizes the
construct of competency and strengths by challenging assumptions of in-house, paradigm
and ideology. It is appropriate to recall the observation of Deacon (2000) that problematization
is not a mechanical act or something that can be reduced to an analytical procedure as it
involves creativity. Accordingly, the author has drawn upon his experiences from management
practice, consulting, research and academics in creatively yet realistically problematizing the
constructs of competence and strengths. Table III below surfaces the underlying assumptions
of competence and strengths and problematizes them.
An essential aspect of humanizing organizations rests on the essence of using the unique
abilities of people. If people are deployed as a means to an end, it reduces them to “things”
and thereby dehumanizes people (Fromm, 2003). Management is a normative science
(Sułkowski and Zawadzki, 2015) and ethical considerations in management are primarily

Table I Definitions of competency and strengths

Ser no. Competency Strengths

1 The knowledge, skills and abilities that underlie effective or
successful job performance, which is observable,
measurable and distinguishes superior from average
performance (Soderquist et al., 2010)
2 A cluster of related knowledge, attitudes and skills that as
follows: affects a major part of one’s job (i.e. one or more key
responsibilities), correlates with performance on the job, can
be measured against well-accepted standards and can be
improved via training and development (Parry, 1996a, 1998)
3 A detailed, behaviorally specific description of the skills and
traits that employees need to be effective in a job (Mansfield,
1996)
4 Collections of knowledge, skills, abilities and other
characteristics that are needed for effective performance in
the jobs in question (Campion et al., 2011)
5 “Competency consists of the virtues unique to each
individual, which are expressed in the process of interacting
with others in a given social context.” (Antonacopoulou and
Fitzgerald, 1996, p. 27). Competence gets defined and
redefined as personal and situational factors interact
6 A competency is the set of behavior patterns that the
incumbent needs to bring to a position to perform its tasks
and functions with competence. (Woodruffe, 1992)
Character strengths are positive traits reflected in thoughts,
feelings and behaviors (Peterson and Seligman, 2004)
Strength refers to “the ability to provide consistent, near-
perfect performance in a given activity” (Clifton and Harter,
2003). They profess the trait-like raw material talent as
“naturally occurring thought, feeling or behavior that can be
productively applied.” (Hodges and Clifton, 2004, p. 257)
Personality strengths refer to the characteristics that
promote adjustment to the environment (Allport, 1966)
Wood et al. (2011) define strengths broadly as “the
characteristics of a person that allows them to perform well
or at their personal best” (p. 15)
Rather than conceptualizing strengths as fixed traits across
situations and time, strengths are conceptualized as
dynamic, within-person, contextualized phenomenon
(Biswas-Diener et al., 2011)
Personality strengths are characteristics that promote
adjustment to the environment. Strength is contingent on the
context and the same characteristics that is a strength in one
context can be a weakness in another situation (King and
Trent, 2013)

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

 Table II Problematization: Description of assumptions and examples challenges the assumptions
Assumption Description Example

In-house Assumptions existing within a specific school of Within the rationalistic school, the traits of leaders
thought shared and accepted as self-evident by its define their leadership – the trait theory of leadership.
supporters Challenging this assumption by arguing that social
context contributes to leadership, then one challenges
the in-house assumption of leadership
Root metaphor Broader images of a subject matter underlying existing Organizations are perceived as cultures that provide a
literature common set of beliefs and shared values to people. If
one questions the assumptions of unity, uniqueness
and consensus and emphasizes an alternative image
of differentiation, fragmentation and ambiguity, then
the root metaphor is problematized
Paradigm Ontological, epistemological and methodological Competence within the rationalistic school considers
assumptions underlying existing literature competence and attributes of the job as two separate
entities. By deploying an interpretative approach,
Sandberg (2000) argued that competence and
attributes of the job form a unified entity, dynamically
influencing each other
Ideology Include political, moral and gender-related Instead of inquiring why do not people work hard to
assumptions why people work as hard as they do is questioning the
ideological assumption
Field These are a broad set of assumptions shared across The concept of bounded rationality challenging the
disciplines within a paradigm assumptions of the rationality of people challenges
field assumption

normative, dwelling upon not what is but also on what should be and ought to be (Kaptein,
2017). The competency approach favors superior performance by mapping correspondence
between what the job requires and the capabilities an employee possesses. The chances are
an employee may have superior capabilities and deliver superior performance, but the
strengths of an employee lie elsewhere. In such an instance, despite demonstrating superior
performance in the job, the employee will not experience well-being as deployment of
strengths (and not competency) associates with the well-being of an employee (Forest et al.,
2012; Gander et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2009; Niemiec, 2013).
On the other hand, the trait-based assumption of strengths presupposes the deployment of
alternative strengths for accomplishing goals, overlooking the key attributes of contextual
factors essential for the manifestation of strengths (Harzer and Ruch, 2013; Ruch et al., 2010).
While extant literature provides empirical evidence on the importance of contextual factors for
the expression of ESAW, the literature neither identifies specific contextual factors nor does the
conceptualization of strengths at work or its definition reckons the key contextual factors that
contribute to the manifestation of ESAW. Yiu et al. (2018) urge scholars to develop meaningful
theories by discovering the uniqueness of the context. Having problematized the constructs of
competence and strengths, the author articulates the research question as “what can be the
conceptualization and definition of strengths at work that factors in empirical research
evidence and contributes to humanizing organizations?” Identifying the key attributes of
context that enables the manifestation of strengths forms an essential aspect and its inclusion
in the conceptualization of strengths at work would make the definition comprehensive. The
authors view the phenomenon of strengths deployment contributing to humanizing
organizations from the lens of critical social systems theory.

Theoretical framework – the critical social systems theory

Critical social systems theory combines the stance of a critical theory put forward by
Habermas (McCarthy, 1985; White, 1995), Marcuse (1968, 2001) and Bloch (1990) and

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

 Table III Problematizing the constructs of competence and strengths
Unraveling the assumptions and problematization
Description of assumption Competency Strengths

In-house assumptions: it exists within a Assumption: Assumption:

particular school of thought is shared and
accepted as unproblematic by its
advocates (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2011)
Paradigm: The ontological, epistemological
and methodological assumptions that
underlie specific literature characterizes as
paradigmatic assumptions (Burrell and
Morgan, 1979)
Ideology: It includes various political, moral
and gender-related assumptions about the
subject matter
Envisages outcome of superior
performance in a job (McClelland, 1973)
Problematization:
Overlooks the well-being and flourishing of
the employee.
Assumes employee as a means for an end
and thereby neglects the dignity of the
employee (Hicks, 2018; Rachels, 1986)
Assumption:
It assumes a one-to-one correspondence
between competency and behavior
Problematization:
Overlooks the emergent nature of
competency because of the combination of
different competencies, making the
assumed one to one correspondence
between a competency and behavior an
oversimplification of a complex process
Ignores the principle of equifinality
(Bertalanffy, 1969) and downplays the role
of teleology and intention in determining
outcomes. To elaborate, if the intention is
strong, a system – irrespective of initial
conditions (competencies) and system
perturbance (obstacles) – as per the
principle of equifinality, achieves the goal
Assumption: An econometric model of
business, where performance and profits
are the only objectives sought
Problematization: Ignores the humanistic
model where the flourishing of employees
and other stakeholders is as important as
performance and profits
Extant conceptualization of strengths is trait-
based (Peterson and Seligman, 2004; Rath,
2007)
Problematization:
Trait-based conceptualization of strengths
while overlooking the contextual or
situational factors that are instrumental for
strengths to manifest (Biswas-Diener et al.,
2017)
Assumption:
Assumes that strengths are enduring in
nature and best results emerge when
employees sharpen and deploy their
strengths at work
Problematization:
Recent evidence from neurosciences,
particularly neuroplasticity and
neurogenesis (Garland and Howard, 2009)
suggests that strengths are malleable, and
hence, what is relatively not a strength, can
be developed into one
The malleability of strengths depends upon
the mindset a person has – if the mindset is
“growth” rather than “fixed” (Dweck, 2008;
Louis, 2011), new strengths are acquired
Aristotle suggested a moderation in
deploying virtues and avoiding the extreme
ends of the spectrum (Schwartz and
Sharpe, 2006) as over deployment leads to
dysfunctional behavior (Drath, 2007; Grant
and Schwartz, 2011; Kaplan and Kaiser,
2009)
Assumption: A panacea for well-being and
performance, by placing the employee at
the focal point and thereby professing a
monistic ontology
Problematization: Employee interacts with
the situation; hence, a dualistic ontology
enables strengths to manifest

systems theoretical perspective, specifically the evolutionary systems theory put forward by
Laszlo (1987) and the general systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1969).
Being critical is to be normative; social systems theory advances a dialectical relationship
between the agency and structure that works as a process, which in turn forms a structure
that further triggers actions by either providing enabling or constraining structures
(Giddens, 1984; Hofkirchner, 2007; Jones and Karsten, 2008). Hofkirchner (1998) suggests
that in the dialectic relationship between the context and the individual forms a feed-forward
and feed-back loop whose emergent new qualities cannot be explained with deterministic
causations. Luhmann (1988) conceives organizations as social systems, in addition to
interaction and societal systems. A critical social systems theory aims at realizing the full
potential of human beings by conceiving what organizations can be and not merely
delineating how organizations currently are Fuchs and Hofkirchner (2009).

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

Viewed from the lens of critical social systems theory, the problematization of the constructs
of competency and strengths as currently conceptualized and operationalized in
management practice fails to bring the best of people by using what is required for
achieving superior performance (competency approach) and by advocating the
deployment of traits that are innate to people and comes naturally to them and downplaying
the importance of contextual factors (current strengths approach). The researcher next
deploys construct mixology for developing the new construct of ESAW.

Construct mixology for developing employee strengths at work

Constructs are conceptual abstractions of phenomena that cannot be directly observed
(MacCorquodale and Meehl, 1948). It is a concept that has been consciously invented or
adapted for a specific scientific purpose (Kerlinger, 1973). Newman et al. (2016) review the
practice of developing new constructs and provide evidence that new constructs are either
new compound constructs or old constructs that are to form a new one – a practice they
term as “construct mixology.” The compound construct heightens the explanatory power of
the phenomenon. Suddaby (2010) suggests that the building blocks of a robust construct
are precise and accurate terms or factors that make up the construct. Newman et al. (2016)
identify seven cardinal constructs in OB and 26 influential constructs that make-up these
seven cardinal constructs. Strengths as a compound construct include the deployment of
talents, skills, knowledge, experience, reflected in quick learning and leading to positive
affect at work (Clifton and Harter, 2003; Hodges and Clifton, 2004). Competency as a
compound construct includes the deployment of skills, knowledge and abilities as per the
requirements of the job, leading to superior performance. The outcome of strengths
deployment is a positive affect and that of competency is superior performance. When we
mix the two constructs, by incorporating the person-job fit (Edwards, 1991; Kristof-brown
et al., 2005) aspect of the competency construct in the construct of strengths, we get the
following four factors that constitute the compound construct of ESAW, namely, potential
(talent, skills, knowledge and experience) deployment, person-job fit, quick learning and
positive affect. Extant literature suggests that an essential aspect of the trait-based
expression of strengths is the supportive role played by the supervisor of the employee
(Lavy et al., 2017). The review on the impact of the quality of the relationship between
manager and team member (Anand et al., 2011) reinforces the prominence of the
supervisor’s role in influencing the behavior of team members. For strengths to take on a
kinetic form from a mere potentiality, the influencing role of the manager assumes
importance; hence, the leader-member exchange in terms of the role played by the
manager is the fifth factor of the construct mixology that makes the compound construct of
ESAW. Incorporating all the five factors, the authors define the new construct of ESAW as:
[. . .] enablement by manager and deployment of individual talents, skills, knowledge,
experience and its compatibility with the requirement of the job, leading to prompt assimilation,
personal gaiety, and superior performance at work.

The authors name and define each of the five factors as follows:

1. Potential transmutation: deployment of unique capabilities (talents), knowledge, skills

and experience at work.

2. Resonant synergy: compatibility of an employee’s unique capabilities, knowledge,

skills and experience to the requirement of the job.
3. Managerial sensitivity: awareness of the team member’s talents, skills, knowledge and
experience by the manager and facilitating its deployment at work.

4. Prompt assimilation: quick grasping of the requirements at work.

5. Personal gaiety: experiencing joy while working.

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

 In Table IV below, the authors validate the uniqueness of the new construct of ESAW by
comparing it with other similar constructs in literature.
Having developed the new construct of ESAW, the authors next develop a conceptual
model and propose the mediating effects of ESAW on the association of leadership styles
and employee performance.

Development of a conceptual model

The construct of ESAW highlights the role a manager plays in the manifestation of strengths.
As different managers display distinct leadership styles, it is logical to explore what styles of
leadership influence the strengths of team members to express. Yukl and Van Fleet (1992,
p. 149) define leadership as:
[. . .] a process that includes influencing the task, objectives, and strategies of a group or
organization, influencing people in the organization to implement the strategies and achieve the
objectives, influencing group maintenance and identification, and influencing the culture of the
organization.

Table IV ESAW as compared to other similar constructs

Ser. no. Construct Definition How ESAW is different

1 Engagement Engagement is the harnessing of The construct of ESAW includes engagement

2 Flourish
3 Thriving
4 Resilience
5 Flow
6 OCB
organizational members selves to the work
roles; in engagement, people use and
express themselves physically, cognitively
and emotionally during role performances
(Kahn, 1990)
Flourish is a state of well-being as measured
by positive emotions, engagement,
relationship, meaning and achievement
(Seligman, 2011)
Thriving is a psychological state in which
individual experiences both a sense of
vitality and a sense of learning at work
(Spreitzer et al., 2005). Further, Spreitzer
and his colleagues inform that thriving is a
temporary state of an individual, rather than
an enduring disposition
Resilience is the ability to rebound in the
face of unusually extreme and extenuating
circumstances that pose a threat to good
outcomes (Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003). The
construct of resilience requires adversity for
manifestation
Flow is the holistic sensation that people feel
when they act with total involvement, to the
point of losing awareness of the time and
their surroundings (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014)
OCB involves involuntary and informal
behavior that can help colleagues and
organizations. Smith et al. (1983) predict
altruism and generalized compliance as the
two separate factors of OCB
(personal gaiety) as one of the reflective factors. It
includes a few other formative factors such as
managerial sensitivities, potential transmutation,
resonant synergy and an additional reflective factor
of prompt assimilation
The construct of ESAW includes engagement
(personal gaiety) as one of the reflective factors. It
includes a few other formative factors such as
managerial sensitivities, potential transmutation,
resonant synergy and an additional reflective factor
of prompt assimilation
Learning is a common factor between thriving and
ESAW. The distinction between the two constructs
lies in the focus on vitality in case of thriving while
talent, the role of the manager of the employee and
positive effect in the case of the ESAW
ESAW is distinct from resilience as it displays
despite adversity and emphasizes the importance of
positive affect and the relationship of the employee
with the manager
ESAW increases the possibility of experiencing
more flow moments, but flow does not define all of
what SAW signifies as prompt assimilation,
managerial sensitivities and alignment of talent with
the job (resonant synergy) forms essential attributes
of the ESAW
The construct of OCB is distinct from that of ESAW,
as altruism does not form a factor of the ESAW

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

The typology most prominently used in leadership studies is the transformational-
transactional leadership, introduced by Burns (1978) and elaborated by Bass (1985). In
research extending over 10 years, Pearce et al. (2003) extend the transactional-
transformational model of leadership by developing four styles of leadership by deducting
from the historical literature on leadership. They provide a comprehensive typology,
supported by CFA of four distinct leadership styles, namely, directive, transactional,
transformational and empowering styles of leadership. While Burns considered
transformational and transactional leadership as two ends of a single continuum, Bass
argued that transformational and transactional leadership are separate concepts and best
leaders are both transformational and transactional. Extending the argument of Bass
(1985), that an effective leader is both transactional and transformational, the authors
extend the argument that effective leaders manifests directive, transactional,
transformational and empowering styles, suiting the requirements of the situation. This gives
rise to the four predictors variables in the development of the conceptual model. If
employees deploy their strengths, how does it impact performance? As task completion is
fundamental to performance (in-role behavior) and strengths deployment should
necessarily lead to an extra-role behavior, the authors consider employee voice as the other
performance outcome (extra-role behavior). These outcome variables are in line with the
ones taken in a study in the Dutch and Belgium organizations examine the use of strengths
in in-role and extra-role behavior and found a positive relationship (Van Woerkom and
Meyers, 2015). Hence, Figure 1 below depicts the conceptual model for empirical testing.
As seen from the model above, the ESAW mediates the association of leadership styles as
given by Pearce et al. (2003) and employee performance by considering one in-role (task
completion) and other extra-role (employee voice) variables. The researcher next develops
relational propositions between the variables.

Development of propositions emerging from the conceptual model

Directive leadership style and task performance. In a field experiment conducted in United
Arab Emirates (UAE), Martin et al. (2013) compared the impacts of the directive and
empowering leadership on task proficiency and proactive behaviors and found that both
the styles of leadership improved task proficiency, but only empowering leadership
increased proactive behaviors. Katzenbach and Smith (1993) suggest that directive leaders
establish clear rules of conduct that associate positively with job performance. Directive
leadership influences adherence to standards and procedures, which, in turn, lead to job
performance (Somech, 2005). Hence, the researcher proposes as follows:
P1 (a). Directive leadership style associates positively with task performance.

Figure 1 The conceptual model for deploying ESAW

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

 Employee strengths at work as a mediator of the association of directive leadership style
and employee task performance. Directive leadership relies on positional power and resorts
to coercion, reprimand, direction and command for influencing the behaviors of
subordinates (French and Raven, 1959). One finds the roots of directive leadership in the
initiating structures (Fleishman, 1953), Theory X (McGregor, 1960) and task-oriented
leaders as contrasted to people-centered leaders (Katz and Kahn, 1951). Hence, it follows
that a directive leader’s bias for the task and outcomes and relatively has a lesser focus on
the people. Accordingly, the researcher proposes as follows:
P1 (b). ESAW do not mediate the relationship between directive leadership style and task
performance.
Directive leadership style and employee voice. Peterson (1997) posits that subordinates
who have directive leaders advance fewer opinions or ideas than with groups with no
leaders or participative leaders. Tjosvold (1984) found that warm leaders who demonstrate
a direct approach to their team members, get better work outputs. Directive or autocratic
style of leadership does not provide latitude to subordinates to think and discuss their
ideas; instead, the leader pushes the decisions on subordinates, thereby not giving much
voice, control and respect to others (De Cremer, 2006). Bogosian (2018) contends that in
cultures that have a high power distance and are collectivist, directive leadership does not
encourage employee voice and strengthens the acquiescent voice. India has high power
distance and exhibits collectivism (Hofstede et al., 2010), hence it can be proposed as
follows:
P1 (c). Directive leadership style does not associate positively with employee voice.
Employee strengths at work as a mediator of the association of directive leadership style
and employee voice. Directive leaders are focused on task completion and use positional
power to influence team members (French and Raven, 1959). The bias of directive leaders
is more to the task and less on the people as the directive leadership embeds in the
theoretical base of initiating structures (Fleishman, 1953), Theory X (McGregor, 1960) and
task-oriented style of leadership (Katz and Kahn, 1951). Accordingly, a directive leader will
have a lesser focus on people and their uniqueness as compared to the concern for task
completion. Hence, the researcher proposes as follows:
P1 (d). ESAW do not mediate the relationship between directive leadership style and
employee voice.
Transactional leadership style and task performance. Transactional leadership relies upon
clearly defined quid pro quo transactions with subordinates (Rowold et al., 2014). In a study
investigating the predictability of followers’ performance based upon leadership style of
supervisors, Hamstra et al. (2014) found transactional leadership predicted followers’
performance goals while transformational leadership predicted goals that required higher
levels of proficiency. The transactional leaders satisfy the material and psychic needs of
team members by following a cost-benefit economic exchange (Sarros and Santora, 2001).
Accordingly, the researcher proposes as follows:
P2 (a). Transactional leadership style associates positively with task performance.
Employee strengths at work as a mediator of the association of transactional leadership
style and employee task performance. Research on employee strengths and directive
leadership style is negligible, hence the hypothesis has to be inferred based on the existing
literature on directive leadership and task performance. A reciprocal relationship defines
transactional leadership and task performance (Vito and Denney, 2014). Obiwuru et al.
(2011) suggest that transactional leadership style is a passive style of leadership that
requires monitoring for deviations and mistakes rather than improving the process when
problems occur. As transactional leadership concerns with cost-benefit economic
orientation (Sarros and Santora, 2001), the possibility of a transactional leader identifying

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

and deploying the strengths of team members is less; hence, the researcher proposes as
follows:
P2 (b). ESAW do not mediate the relationship between transactional leadership style and
task performance.
Transactional leadership style and employee voice. Bowerman and Wart (2011) posit that
transactional leadership style may create intimidation and discourage initiation –
conditions not conducive for employees to express their concerns without inhibitions.
Afsar et al. (2017) found that transactional leadership has a negative relationship with
entrepreneurial behavior – a behavior characterized by identifying and exploiting
business opportunities by taking risks and triggering innovative behavior in the team
members (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007). Transactional leadership concerns itself
with the exchanging rewards – positive and negative reinforcements – with the
performance of the team members, based on the research evidence stated above, the
researcher proposes as follows:
P2 (c). Transactional leadership style does not associate positively with employee voice.
Employee strengths at work as a mediator of the association of transactional leadership
style and employee voice. Transactional leadership relies upon clearly defined quid pro quo
transactions with subordinates (Rowold et al., 2014). Bowerman and Wart (2011) posit that
transactional leadership style may create intimidation and discourage initiation – conditions
not conducive for employees to express their concerns without inhibitions. Culminating from
the above, the researcher proposes the following:
P2 (d). ESAW do not mediate the relationship between transactional leadership style and
employee voice.
Transformational leadership style and task performance. Transformational leadership
rests on the premise that specific leadership behaviors lead to arousal of a higher level
of thinking in followers (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Many meta-analytical reviews have
summarized that transformational leadership has a positive impact on employee task
performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) across organizations
(Banks et al., 2016; Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Aryee et al. (2012) examined the
psychological processes that associate positively the relationship between
transformational leadership and task performance and found that meaningfulness of
work and innovative behavior partially mediated the association. Hence, the researcher
proposes as follows:
P3 (a). Transformational leadership style associates positively with task performance.
Employee strengths at work as a mediator of the association of transformational leadership
style and employee task performance. The transformational leadership style influences the
motivational state of a team member (Pearce et al., 2003). Transformational leaders
exercise their leadership by providing a vision, carrying out inspirational communication,
engaging in individualized consideration, challenging the status quo and expecting a high
performance from the team members (Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978). As transformational
leadership focuses on individualized consideration, one may assume that the individualized
consideration extends to leveraging the strengths of team members. Accordingly, the
researcher proposes as follows:
P3 (b). ESAW mediate the relationship between transformational leadership style and
task performance.
Transformational leadership style and employee voice. Transformational leadership rests on
the leaders’ ability to identify and address the needs of team members, thereby inspiring
them to perform at higher levels (Turner et al., 2002). Bass (1998) informs that
transformational leaders influence their team members to deliver beyond expectations by

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

 engaging in idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and
individualized consideration. Furthermore, by appealing to the ideals and values of
followers, transformational leaders inspire followers to develop new ways of thinking about a
problem and voicing them (Piccolo et al., 2006). Hence, the researcher proposes as
follows:
P3 (c). Transformational leadership style associate positively with employee voice.
Employee strengths at work as a mediator of the association of transformational
leadership style and employee voice. Employee voice refers to the promotive behavior
that emphasizes the expression of constructive inputs, aimed at improving processes
rather than merely criticizing, despite others opposing the idea (Van Dyne and LePine,
1998). It is upward communication of an idea, solution or concerns related to work
(Morrison, 2014). Duan et al. (2017) explored the mediating effects of leader’s
expectations and team member’s role perception of voice behavior on the association
of transformational leadership and employee voice and found a positive relationship.
Furthermore, by appealing to the ideals and values of followers, transformational
leaders inspire followers to develop new ways of thinking about a problem and voicing
them (Piccolo et al., 2006). Hanson and Miller (2002) suggest that the strengths of team
members manifest only when the leader and the team member collaboratively work
toward the deployment of strengths. Transformational leaders provide individual
consideration and challenge the status quo (Bass, 1990), it can be deduced that
transformational leaders will encourage the voice of team members to express and they
will be inclined to deploy the strengths of their team members. Accordingly, the
researcher proposes as follows:
P3 (d). ESAW mediate the relationship between transformational leadership style and
employee voice.
Empowering leadership and task performance. Empowering leadership involves sharing
power with subordinates, raising their level of autonomy and responsibility and manifests
itself in encouraging subordinates to express ideas and opinions, promoting collaborative
decision-making, supporting information sharing and teamwork (Chen et al., 2011). Martin
et al. (2013) carried out a field experiment in the UAE and they compared the impact of the
directive and empowering leadership style on task proficiency and proactive behaviors.
They found both directive and empowering leadership styles increased work proficiency
while only empowering leadership style increased proactive behaviors such as voicing
concerns, taking charge and initiating changes. Accordingly, the researcher proposes the
following:
P4 (a). Empowering leadership style associates positively with task performance.
Employee strengths at work as a mediator of the association of empowering leadership
style and employee task performance. Empowering leadership demonstrates
predominantly four types of behaviors, namely, they enhance the meaningfulness of work,
fosters partnership in decision-making, express confidence in the team members for high
performance and provides autonomy from bureaucratic control (Ahearne et al., 2005).
There is less research on empowering leadership and employee strengths; it is inferred that
if meaningfulness of work is enhanced, then identifying and deploying the strengths of team
members should contribute to effectiveness in task performance. Accordingly, the
researcher proposes as follows:
P4 (b). ESAW mediate the relationship between empowering leadership style task
performance.
Empowering leadership and employee voice. In a study carried out in the
telecommunication industry in China, Gao et al. (2011) found empowering leadership
moderated the effect of trust on a leader and employee voice. Martin et al. (2013), in their

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

study at UAE, found that empowering leadership style increased proactive behaviors such
as voicing concerns, taking charge and initiating changes. Hence, the researcher proposes
as follows:
P4 (c). Empowering leadership style associates positively with employee voice.
Employee strengths at work as a mediator of the association of empowering leadership style
and employee voice. The relationship between empowering leadership and strengths are
less researched while there is evidence for a significant association of empowering
leadership and employee voice (Martin et al., 2013). Hence, the hypothesis of the mediating
effect of ESAW on the relationship between the empowering leadership and employee
voice is exploratory, with the hypothesis more speculated than deducted. As empowering
leadership lays stress upon the meaningfulness of work and collaborates with team
members in decision-making, the possibility of an empowering leader identifying and
leveraging the strengths of team members is high. Therefore, the researcher proposes as
follows:
P4 (d). ESAW mediate the relationship between empowering leadership style employee
voice.

Discussion and future research directions

Constructs developed in other domains and applied in organizations have little relevance to
practitioners. Suddaby et al. (2011) bemoan the practice of constructs developed in other
fields and organizations treated merely empirical sites to test, prove and tweak old theories.
Weick (1996) the colonial reverence to the “founding father” of a theory that constrains the
progress of management science, specifically its relevance to the practice of management.
The construct of strength finds itself in a similar hurdle. Scholars have ceased to question
the conceptualization of the trait-based construct of strength developed in the domain of
personality psychology and have merely treated organizations to apply and test the VIA
scale developed by Peterson and Seligman (2004). As an analogy, just as Berning (2019)
provides evidence of how Indian and Chinese firms convert disadvantage into an
advantage and shift the point of take-off, this paper views the trait-based conceptualization
as an opportunity to reconceptualize and make the construct more meaningful for
organizational behavior.
This study reframes the construct of strengths relevant to the organizations, and hence,
advances the theory and holds the promise of improving the practice of management. The
future researcher can further enrich the identification of five factors in the definition of ESAW
by incorporating the research evidence from the field. The new construct of ESAW will
necessitate new scale development for its measurement. Future researchers can also
empirically test the propositions emerging from the conceptual model and contribute to the
nascent body of knowledge related to strengths. The comprehensive typology of leadership
given by Pearce et al. (2003) is highly relevant for practice as managers display different
styles of leadership depending upon many situational factors. However, the typology of
transaction-transformation leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1997) is more used in management
research. Scholars will contribute more to the relevance and benefit the practice of
management by using the leadership typology of Pearce et al. (2003) dues to its
comprehensiveness.

Conclusion
With growing disengagement, dehumanization and alienation of people at work, the need
for research on humanizing organizations for improving the practice of management is
compelling. Realizing the dire need for leveraging the human side of management in the
educational institutes, Singh (2019) recently edited a special issue that focused on how

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

 best the current challenges in educational institutes are best optimized. By conceptualizing
strengths indigenously in the domain of organizations and advocating its deployment in
organizations, this study provides a method of humanizing organizations, within the
capitalistic framework. The time is right to appreciate and follow the wisdom of Aristotle
when he says:
[. . .].strain every nerve to live in accordance with the best thing in us; for even if it be small in
bulk, much more does it in power and worth surpass everything (Aristotle, 2009, p. 195).

Drucker (1977) urged managers to promote the use of strengths for being effective. The
body of knowledge on strengths and leadership will further progress and contribute to
improving the practice upon empirical testing of the propositions developed in this
conceptual article.

References
Afsar, B., Badir, Y.F., Saeed, B.B. and Hafeez, S. (2017), “Transformational and transactional leadership
and employee’s entrepreneurial behavior in knowledge–intensive industries”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 307-332.
Agarwal, U.A. and Rai, A. (2019), “Exploring bullying among Indian managers: a grounded theory
approach”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 588-611.
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Rapp, A. (2005), “To empower or not to empower your sales force? An
empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945.
Alvesson, M. and Sandberg, J. (2011), “Generating research results through problematization”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 247-271.

Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R.C. and Vidyarthi, P.R. (2011), “Leader-member exchanges: recent research
findings and prospects for the future”, in Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B. and Uhl-Bien, M.
(Eds), The Sage Handbook of Leadership, 1st ed., Sage, London, pp. 311-325.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. and Fitzgerald, L. (1996), “Reframing competency in management development”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 27-49.
Aristotle (2009), “The nicomachean ethics”, Oxford Wor, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F.O., Zhou, Q. and Hartnell, C.A. (2012), “Transformational leadership, innovative
behavior, and task performance: test of mediation and moderation processes”, Human Performance,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-25.

Bakker, A.B. and van Woerkom, M. (2018), “Strengths use in organizations: a positive approach of
occupational health”, Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 38-46.
Bass, B.M. (1985), “Leadership: good, better, best”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 26-40.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, The
Free Press, New York, NY, doi: 10.2307/2064114.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1997), “Full range leadership development: manual for the multifactor leadership
questionnaire”,
Berning, S.C. (2019), “The rise of Asian elephants and tigers: what makes Indian and Chinese firms
competitive?”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 13 No. 2, doi: 10.1108/JABS-05-2016-0074.
Bertalanffy, L.V. (1969), General Systems Theory-Foundation, Development, Application, George
Braziller, New York, NY.

Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T.B. and Lyubchik, N. (2017), “Psychological strengths at work”, in
Oades, L.G., Steger, M.F., Fave, A.D. and Passmore, J. (Eds), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the
Psychology of Positivity and Strengths-Based Approaches at Work, John Wiley & Sons, West
Sussex, pp. 34-47.

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T.B. and Minhas, G. (2011), “A dynamic approach to psychological strength
development and intervention”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 106-118.
Bloch, E. (1990), Heritage of Our Times, Polity Press, Berkeley.
Bogosian, R. (2018), “The intersection of national cultural values and organizational cultures of silence
and voice, and the moderating effect of leadership”, A I B Insights, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 16-20.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), The Competent Manager, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, 1st ed., Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Campion, M.A., Fink, A.A., Ruggeberg, B.J., Carr, L., Phillips, G.M. and Odman, R.B. (2011), “Doing
competencies well: best practices in competency modeling”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64,
pp. 225-262.

Cha, S.E., Hewlin, P.F., Roberts, L.M., Buckman, B.R., Leroy, H., Steckler, E.L., Ostermeier, K. and
Cooper, D. (2019), “Being your true self at work: integrating the fragmented research on authenticity in
organizations”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 633-671.

Clifton, D.O. and Harter, J. (2003), “Investing in strengths”, in Cameron, K., Dutton, J.E. and Qunin, R.
(Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, Berret-Koehler, San
Francisco, pp. 111-121.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014), Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology, Springer Nature, New
York, NY.

De Cremer, D. (2006), “Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: the moderating
effect of autocratic leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 79-93.

De Jong, J.P.J. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2007), “How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-64.

Deacon, R. (2000), “Theory as practice: Foucault’s concept of problematization”, Telos, Vol. 2000
No. 118, pp. 127-142.
Drath, W. (2007), “The versatile leader: make the most of your strengths – without overdoing it”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 4, p. 1061.
Drucker, P.F. (1977), People and Performance: The Best of Peter Drucker on Management, Harvard
Business Review Press, New York, NY.
Duan, J., Li, C., Xu, Y. and Wu, C.H. (2017), “Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior: a
pygmalion mechanism”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 650-670.
Edwards, J.R. (1991), “Person-job fit: a conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological
critique”, International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Erikson, K. (1985), “On work and alienation. Presidential address delivered at the 1985 ASA annual
meeting”, American Psychological Association, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Fleishman, E.A. (1953), “The description of supervisory behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 37
No. 1, doi: 10.1037/h0056314.
Forest, J., Mageau, G.A., Crevier-Braud, L., Bergeron, É., Dubreuil, P. and 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, Vol. 65 No. 9, doi: 10.1177/0018726711433134.
Foucault, M. (1985), The Use of Pleasure: History of Sexuality, Vintage Books, New York, NY, Vol. 2.
French, J. and Raven, B. (1959), “The bases of social power”, Studies in Social Power.

Fromm, E. (2003), On Being Human, The Continuum International Publishing Group, New York, NY.
Fuchs, C. and Hofkirchner, W. (2009), Autopoiesis and Critical Social Systems Theory, Advanced Series
in Management, Vol. 6, Elsevier, doi: 10.1108/S1877-6361(2009)0000006007.
Gander, F., Proyer, R.T., Ruch, W. and Wyss, T. (2012), “The good character at work: an initial study on
the contribution of character strengths in identifying healthy and unhealthy work-related behavior and
experience patterns”, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 85 No. 8,
doi: 10.1007/s00420-012-0736-x.

Gao, L., Janssen, O. and Shi, K. (2011), “Leader trust and employee voice: the moderating role of
empowering leader behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 787-798.

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

 Garland, E. and Howard, M.O. (2009), “Neuroplasticity, psychosocial genomics, and the
biopsychosocial paradigm in the 21st century”, Health & Social Work, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 191-199.
Gaur, A., Ghosh, K. and Zheng, Q. (2019), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asian firms: a
strategic choice perspective of ethics and compliance management”, Journal of Asia Business Studies,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 633-655.
Germain, C.B. and Gitterman, A. (1980), The Life Model of Social Work Practice, Columbia University
Press, New York, NY.
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Polity, Cambridge.
Grant, A.M. and Schwartz, B. (2011), “Too much of a good thing: the challenge and opportunity of the
inverted U”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 61-76.
Harzer, C. and Ruch, W. (2013), “The application of signature character strengths and positive
experiences at work”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 965-983.
Hepworth, D. and Larsen, J. (1986), Direct Social Work Practice, Dorsey, Chicago.
Hicks, D. (2018), Leading with Dignity-How to Create a Culture That Brings Out the Best in People, Yale
University Press, New Haven and London.
Hodges, T.D. and Clifton, D.O. (2004), “Strengths based development in practice”, in Linley, P.A.
and Joseph, S. (Eds), Positive Psychology in Practice, John Wiley & Sons, New Jeresy,
pp. 256-268.
Hofkirchner, W. (1998), “Emergence and the logic of explanation – an argument for the unity of science”,
Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica, Mathematics, Computing and Management in Engineering Series.
Hofkirchner, W. (2007), “A critical social systems view of the internet”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 471-500.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010), Cultures and Organizations-Software of the Mind-
Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Iqbal, Q. and Ahmad, N.H. (2020), “Workplace spirituality and nepotism-favouritism in selected
ASEAN countries: the role of gender as moderator”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 31-49.
Jones, M.R. and Karsten, H. (2008), “Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 127-157.
Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test
of their relative validity”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 755-768.
Kalekin-Fishman, D. and Langman, L. (2015), “Alienation: the critique that refuses to disappear”, Current
Sociology, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 916-933.
Kant, I. (1951), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Gregor, M. (Ed.), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Kaplan, R.E. and Kaiser, R.B. (2009), “Managing yourself-stop overdoing your strengths”, Harvard
Business Review, p. 100.

Kaptein, M. (2017), “The battle for business ethics: a struggle theory”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 144
No. 2, pp. 343-361.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1951), “Human organization and worker motivation”, in Tripp, L.R. (Ed.),
Industrial Productivity, Industrial Relations Research Association, Madison, pp. 146-171.

Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993), The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance
Organization, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1973), Foundations of Behavioral Research, Reinhart & Winston, New York, NY.
King, L.A. and Trent, J. (2013), “Personality strengths”, in Tennen, H.A., Suls, J.I. and Weiner, I.B. (Eds),
Handbook of Psychology: Personality and Social Psychology, 2nd ed., John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 5,
pp. 197-222.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals ‘fit at
work: person – organization, person – group, and person – supervisor fit’”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58
No. 2, pp. 281-342.

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

Laszlo, E. (1987), Evolution—the Grand Synthesis, New Science Library, Boston.
Lavy, S., Littman-Ovadia, H. and Boiman-Meshita, M. (2017), “The wind beneath My wings: effects of
social support on daily use of character strengths at work”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 703-714.
Luhmann, N. (1988), “The Autopoiesis of social systems”, in Geyer, F. and Van der Zouwen, J. (Eds),
Sociocybernetic Paradoxes, Sage, London, pp. 172-192.
McCarthy, T. (1985), The Critical Theory of Jurgan Habermas, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
McClelland, D.C. (1973), “Testing for competence rather than for ‘intelligence”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-14.

McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprize, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
MacCorquodale, K. and Meehl, P.E. (1948), “On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and
intervening variables”, Psychological Review:, Vol. 55 No. 2, doi: 10.1037/h0056029.
Mansfield, R.S. (1996), “Building competency models: approaches for HR professionals”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 7-18.
Marcuse, H. (1968), Negations: Essays in Critical Theory, Penguin Press, Westminister.
Marcuse, H. (2001), Towards a Critical Theory of Society (Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse), in
Kellner, D. (Ed.), Routledge, London.
Martin, S.L., Liao, H. and Campbell, E.M. (2013), “Directive versus empowering leadership: a field
experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 1372-1395.
Mischel, W. (1968), Personality and Assessment, Wiley, New York, NY.
Mitchell, J., Stanimirovic, R., Klein, B. and Vella-Brodrick, D. (2009), “A randomised controlled trial of a
self-guided internet intervention promoting well-being”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.003.
Morrison, E.W. (2014), “Employee voice and silence”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 173-197.
Newman, D.A., Harrison, D.A., Carpenter, N.C. and Rariden, S.M. (2016), “Construct mixology: forming
new management constructs by combining old ones”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 10 No. 1,
doi: 10.1080/19416520.2016.1161965.
Niemiec, R.M. (2013), “Mindful living: character strengths interventions as pathways for the five
mindfulness trainings”, International Journal of Wellbeing, Vol. 2 No. 1, doi: 10.5502/ijw.v2i1.2.
Nord, W.R. (1978), “Dreams of humanization and the realities of power”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 674-679.
Obiwuru, T.C., Okwu, A.T., Akpa, V.O. and Nwankwere, I.A. (2011), “Effects of leadership style on
organizational performance”, Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 1 No. 7,
pp. 100-111.
Parry, S.B. (1996a), “The quest for competencies”, Training, Vol. 33 No. 7, p. 48.
Parry, S.B. (1996b), “Just what is a competency? (And why should you care?)”, Training, Vol. 35 No. 6,
p. 58.
Pearce, C.L., Jr, Sims, H.P., Cox, J.F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K.A. and Trevino, L. (2003),
“Transactors, transformers and beyond: a multi-method development of a theoretical typology of
leadership”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 273-307.
Peterson, D.R. (1968), The Clinical Study of Social Behavior, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.
Peterson, C. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2004), Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and
Classification, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Piccolo, R.F., Colquitt, J.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2006), “Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the
mediating role of core job characteristics”, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 327-340.
Pirson, M.A. Steinvorth, U. Largacha Martı́nez, C. and Dierksmeier, C. (2014), “From capitalistic to
humanistic business”, Humanism in Business, No. August 2016, p. 219.

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

 Rachels, J. (1986), “Kantian theory: the idea of human dignity”, in Rachels, J. (Ed.), The Elements of Moral
Philosophy, Random House, New York, NY, pp. 114-117; pp. 122-123.
Rapp, C.A. and Goscha, R.J. (1997), The Strengths Model: A Recovery-Oriented Approach to Mental
Health Services, 1st ed., Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Rath, T. and Conchie, B. (2009), “Strengths based leadership”, Strengths Based Leadership – Business
Book Summaries, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Rowold, J., Borgmann, L. and Bormann, K. (2014), “Which leadership constructs are important for
predicting job satisfaction, affective commitment, and perceived job performance in profit versus
nonprofit organizations?”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, doi: 10.1002/nml.21116.
Ruch, W., Proyer, R.T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2010), “Values in action
inventory of strengths (via - IS”, ) ”, Journal of Individual Differences., Vol. 31 No. 3.
Sarros, J.C. and Santora, J.C. (2001), “The transformational-transactional leadership model in practice”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 383-394.
Schwartz, B. and Sharpe, K.E. (2006), “Practical wisdom: Aristotle meets positive psychology”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 377-395.
Seligman, M.E.P. (2011), Flourish-A New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being and How to
Achieve Them, Nicholas Brealey, London.
Seligman, M.E. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000), “Positive psychology. An introduction”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
Shippmann, J.S., Ash, R.A., Battista, M.A., Carr, L., Eyde, L.D., Hesketh, B., Kehoe, J., Pearlman, K.,
Prien, E.P. and Sanchez, J.I. (2000), “The practice of competency modeling”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 53 No. 3,
Shulman, L. (1979), The Skills of Helping: Individuals and Groups, F. E. Peacock, Itasca, IL.
Singh, S.K. (2019), “The Human side of management”, International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-3.

Singh, D., Pattnaik, C., Lee, J.Y. and Gaur, A.S. (2019), “Subsidiary staffing, cultural friction, and
subsidiary performance: evidence from Korean subsidiaries in 63 countries”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 219-234.
Soderquist, K.E., Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G. and Prastacos, G. (2010), “From task-based to
competency-based: a typology and process supporting a critical HRM transition”, Personnel Review, doi:
10.1108/00483481011030520.
Somech, A. (2005), “Directive versus participative leadership: two complementary approaches
to managing school effectiveness”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 777-800.
Spencer, L.M. and Spencer, S.M. (2008), Competence at Work-Models for Superior Performance, Wiley
India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S. and Grant, A.M. (2005), “A socially embedded
model of thriving at work”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 537-549.

Stevens, G.W. (2013), “A critical review of the science and practice of competency modeling”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, doi: 10.1177/1534484312456690.

Suddaby, R. (2010), “Editor’s comments: construct clarity in theories of management and organization”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 346-357.

Suddaby, R., Hardy, C. and Huy, Q.N. (2011), “Where are the new theories of organization?
Iintroduction”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 236-246.

Sułkowski, Ł. and Zawadzki, M. (2015), “Critical discourse in contemporary management science”, Folia
Philosophica, Vol. 9445 No. 34, pp. 199-230.
Taylor, C., Smith, W. and Ghiselin, B. (1963), “The creative and other contributions of one sample of
research scientists”, in Taylor, C.W. and Barron, F. (Eds), Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and
Development, Wiley, New York, NY.

Turner, N., Barling, J. and Zacharatos, A. (2002), “Positive psychology at work”, in Snyder, C.R. and
Lopez, S.J. (Eds), Handbook of Positive Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York, NY,
pp. 715-728.

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j

Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and
predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 108-119.

Van Woerkom, M. and Meyers, M.C. (2015), “My strengths count!: effects of a strengths-based
psychological climate on positive affect and job performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 54
No. 1, pp. 81-103.

Vito, G.H. and Denney, A. (2014), “Transactional and transformational leadership”, An International
Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 809-822.
Weick, K.E. (1996), “Drop your tools: an allegory for organizational studies”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 2, doi: 10.2307/2393722.
White, S.K. (1995), (Ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Woodruffe, C. (1992), “What is meant by a competency?”, in Boam, R. and Sparrow, P. (Eds), Designing
and Achieving Competency, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, Berks.
Yiu, D.W., Lam, L.W., Gaur, A., Lee, S.H. and Wong, C.S. (2018), “Asian relevance, global impact: Asian
management research entering a new era”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 565-571.
Yukl, G. and Van Fleet, D.D. (1992), “Theory and research on leadership in organizations”, Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

Further reading
Cornelissen, J. and Durand, R. (2012), “More than just novelty: conceptual blending and causality”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 152-154.
Rapp, C.A. and Goscha, R.J. (2012), The Strengths Model – A Recovery Oriented Approach to Mental
Health Services, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Sambre, P. and Brone, G. (2002), “The way We think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden
complexities”, Pragmatics, doi: 10.1207/S15327868MS1901.

Corresponding author
Vikas Rai Bhatnagar can be contacted at: efpm08vikas_b@mdi.ac.in

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

j JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES j