The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0262-1711.htm

Human strengths: a systematic Employee

strengths
conceptual review, conceptualizing
employee strengths at work
and a framework for 1
management development Received 12 March 2020
Revised 18 July 2020
18 October 2020
Vikas Rai Bhatnagar, Ajay K. Jain and Shiv S. Tripathi Accepted 7 November 2020
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India, and
Sabir Giga
Centre for Organizational Health and Wellbeing, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Abstract
Purpose – Utilizing employee strengths contributes to humanizing organizations. However, the current
concept of strengths has evolved from the domain of social work, advanced by personality and positive
psychologists and adopted in management. The trait-like conceptualization of strengths conceptualized by
psychologists is of lesser relevance to organizations as it discounts the significance of contextual factors for
manifesting employee strengths. This study traces the evolution of strengths conceptualization, identifies gaps
in its relevance to organizations, employs the concept relation method for developing a conceptualization of
employee strengths at work and proposes a framework for management development that predicts improved
employee engagement and performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The study utilizes the Cochrane method for carrying out a systematic
conceptual review and shortlists 19 articles from an initial selection of 430 articles. Drawing insights
from the 19 reviewed studies, the study deploys the concept relation method to conceptualize the concept
of employees’ strengths at work (ESAW) that has a higher relevance for management and organizational
behavior. Thereafter, utilizing ESAW, the study proposes a conceptual framework that has
huge implications for improving employee engagement and performance by carrying out effective
management development. The conceptual framework additionally serves as a springboard for future
empirical research.
Findings – The conceptualization of human strengths in extant literature favors a trait-based
conceptualization advanced by personality psychologists. Concepts borrowed from other domains have
lesser relevance than those indigenously developed in the field of management. Incorporating the recent
empirical evidence highlighting the importance of factoring in key contextual attributes for the strengths to
manifest at work, this study develops a new higher-order construct of ESAW that factors in personal as well as
situational variables. Thereafter, the study suggests a conceptual framework for effectively carrying out
management development by utilizing the new construct of ESAW.
Practical implications – Deployment of ESAW will contribute to humanize organizations, improve
employee engagement and performance. 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. The conceptual framework proposed in the study can be utilized by practitioners for
carrying out effective management development.
Social implications – Any contribution to increasing employee engagement predicts increasing social
capital. If employees are happy at work, their productivity increases. Furthermore, higher engagement and
productivity at work creates a spiral of positivity that transcends the working life of an employee. Hence, the

The author his extends his deep gratitude to Reverend Prof. Prem Saran Satsangi, Chairman of the
Advisory Committee on Education, Dayalbagh Educational School, and the Spiritual Leader of the Journal of Management
Radhasoami Faith for constantly extending intuitive guidance to him. Development
Vol. 40 No. 1, 2021
The author thanks Prof. Soo Lee and the reviewers for their valuable inputs for improving the quality pp. 1-22
of the paper. © Emerald Publishing Limited
0262-1711
Funding: There is no funding for this research. DOI 10.1108/JMD-03-2020-0080
JMD study has huge social implications at times when the social fabric is stretched due to multiple demands on an
employee.
40,1 Originality/value – Constructs developed in other fields and adopted in management have less relevance
than those evolved indigenously in the domain of management. The systematic conceptual review of the
concept of human strengths reveals a gap in its relevance to organizations. The study develops a new concept
of ESAW that has higher relevance for organizational behavior and holds the promise of humanizing
organizations. The next originality of the study lies in proposing a conceptual framework for carrying out
effective management development that predicts higher employee engagement and performance. The
2 methodological originality lies in utilizing the systematic conceptual review for developing a new concept.
Keywords Employee engagement, Management development, Humanizing organizations,
Employee strengths at work, Concept development, Conceptual review
Paper type Literature review
Linley and Harrington (2006) define strengths as “natural capacity for behaving, thinking, or
feeling in a way that allows optimal functioning and performance in the pursuit of valued
outcomes” (p. 88). They further clarify that ‘natural’ also indicates that strengths are
personality traits, thereby largely stable. Nord (1978) posits that utilizing the strengths of
employees contributes to humanizing organizations (organizations that treat people with
dignity, are caring and bring out the best in them), results in higher employee engagement
(psychological presence of an employee, marked with attention and absorption) and
improved performance (Miglianico et al., 2020; van Woerkom et al., 2016c). The rationale for
the association of strengths use with employee well-being and superior performance is
understandable. When employees use their strengths, they bring their true selves to work, it
increases intrinsic motivation and vitality, which in turn results in an improvement in
engagement and superior performance (Bakker and Van Woerkom, 2018; Peterson and
Seligman, 2004). However, recent trends in employee engagement are a concern for
management development. In a global survey, Mann and Harter (2016) point out that only
13% of employees are engaged – a figure that did not improve since the year 2009 (Rigoni and
Asplund, 2016), placing doubts on the efficacy of management development initiatives and its
contribution to the practice of management. Is there a shortcoming in the way strengths are
conceptualized in the literature that has a lesser relevance for management development and
the practice of management?
The purpose of this systematic conceptual review is to trace the developments in the
conceptualization of strengths, identify factors that make strengths manifest in organizations
and employ the concept relational method (Nuopponen, 2011) and the articles selected for the
systematic conceptual review to develop a higher-order construct of strengths that is relevant
for management and organizational science. We name the new construct “employee strengths
at work” (ESAW). The construct of ESAW being state like and not trait like is more relevant
for management and organizational science as unlike traits, state-like constructs are
developable (Chen et al., 2000; Luthans, 2002). Furthermore, the higher-order construct of
ESAW includes personal traits and key contextual factors such as person–job fit and the role
a manager plays in deploying an employee’s strengths, thereby advancing the nascent
literature of conceptualizing strengths relevant for work. The other purpose of the study is to
delineate the implications of the new construct of ESAW for management development and
provide a conceptual model that practitioners can utilize for improving simultaneously the
engagement levels and performance of employees. Additionally, the conceptual framework
serves as a springboard for carrying out further research.
The current conceptualization of strengths is developed in social work, advanced by
personality psychologists and adopted by management and organization science.
Championing the emphasis on strengths in social work, Rapp and Goscha (1997) presented
the first comprehensive strengths model that emphasized the significance of niches (the
environmental habitat of a person) or the context of a person, in addition to the psychological
characteristics, signaling a paradigm shift in social work, mental health and other helping
professions. Thereafter, psychologists conceptualized strengths as personality traits. Employee
Peterson and Seligman (2004) developed a classification of 24 trait-like character strengths strengths
and bucketed them in six virtues. Clifton and Harter (2003) anchored their approach toward
people’s strengths on talents – the genetically determined innate abilities of people. The trait-
like conceptualization of strengths advanced by personality psychologists, although widely
employed in practice, is of lesser relevance to management as traits are relatively stable and
require situational factors to trigger their manifestation. Scholars have expressed concern
about the efficacy of constructs developed in other disciplines and adopted in the domain of 3
management (Sandberg et al., 2011; Shepherd and Sutcliffe, 2011). Oswick et al. (2011) observe
that around two-thirds of the research studies in management use concepts and theories
developed in other disciplines. Additionally, organizations play the passive role of serving as
mere empirical sites for testing borrowed constructs and theories, creating blind spots for
management researchers and reducing the relevance of research for practitioners (Suddaby
et al., 2011). The construct of strengths evolved in social work, developed by personality
psychologists and empirically tested in organizations has similar concerns of effectiveness
when applied to organizations. Hence, there is a need to evolve a state-like construct of
strengths that accounts for contextual factors and thereby is of higher relevance to
management development.
The significance of this systematic conceptual review lies in focusing on the
conceptualization of strengths, identifying the gaps in current conceptualization and
recognizing emerging trends for making the conceptualization of strengths relevant for
organizations. The methodological contribution lies in utilizing a systematic conceptual
review of strengths for developing a new construct of ESAW that being stake-like is
developable and therefore of higher relevance for management. ESAW factors in key
contextual variables, along with the traits that are essential for strengths to manifest at work,
evolving the conceptualization of strengths in extant literature from a potential form (suitable
for personality psychology) to a kinetic one (of higher relevance to organizational
psychology). Additionally, the utilization of ESAW for developing a conceptual framework
for management development is timely as it predicts humanizing organizations, increasing
employees’ level of engagement and mitigating the dramatic challenges posed by the
pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to work practices globally, such as the
increase in stress, social distancing and virtual working (Kramer and Kramer, 2020).

Literature review and identification of the need for a systematic conceptual review
The extant literature defines strengths by focusing on different attributes. For instance,
Peterson and Seligman (2004) ground their conceptualization of strengths in moral
competence or good character, which refers to the ability to direct one’s behavior toward
goals that are inherently worthy (Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004). Petersen and Seligman (2004)
contend that a good character consists of traits that reflect thoughts, feelings and behavior.
Values in action (VIAs), a propriety instrument developed by Peterson and Seligman
measures the strengths of people. The character strengths conceptualization is criticized due
to the weak correlation between measures of personality traits and behavior in different
settings and for the partial empirical support for the complex factor structure of the 24
character strengths that constitute the six virtues (Khumalo et al., 2008; Ruch et al., 2010).
Additionally, character strengths do not consider the criterion factors essential for success in
a job and therefore are of lesser relevance to the field of management.
The Gallup scientists provide another popular stream of research on strengths. Hodges
and Clifton (2004) define strength as the ability to provide consistent, near-perfect
performance in a specific task. StrengthsFinder, a propriety instrument of the Gallup,
identifies and ranks the talents (innate traits) of people around 34 talent themes (Rath, 2007).
JMD Clifton and Harter (2003) advocate that talents are the basis for approaching a person’s full
40,1 potential when knowledge, skills and practice combine with talents. The drawbacks of
Gallup’s approach, apart from the focus on traits and its weak correlation to behaviors in
different contexts, is questionable internal consistency or reliability of its 34 talent themes
(Asplund et al., 2007).
Allport (1966) introduced the contingency aspect to the understanding of strengths and
refers to strengths as characteristics promoting adjustment with the environment. From the
4 perspective of organizational psychology, where the intent is to actively respond to the
environment, often changing it for creating a competitive edge, a mere adjustment to the
environment appears a passive activity. King and Trent (2013) carry forward the contingency
argument and contend that whether an attribute is a strength depends upon the context of a
person, implying that strength in a particular situation may turn out into a weakness in a
different setting.
As a trend, while most of the conceptualizations of strengths are trait based, scholars
remind that a conducive work environment is required for strengths to manifest at work. For
instance, Harzer and Ruch (2013) contend that positive experiences at work due to the
application of an employee’s strength depend upon workplace circumstances that allow
employees to utilize their strengths. The personality psychologists who later adopted the
concept of strengths focused on a person’s traits and undermined the importance of
situational factors that enable strengths to manifest at work – a gap highlighted in the review
articles on employee strengths (Bakker and Van Woerkom, 2018; Miglianico et al., 2020). In an
edited book on the psychology of human strengths, scholars wrestled to define strengths
(Aspinwall and Staudinger, 2003) and debated if strengths should be viewed as a personal
trait that manifests consistently across situations or whether strength should be treated as a
process. Furthermore, strengths are defined in diverse ways and scholars lack consensus on
the definition of employee strengths (Bakker and Van Woerkom, 2018).
The initial exploration of the construct of strengths reveals most of the definitions of
strengths have a genetic base, hence grounds in the trait-based theories of personality
(Dahlsgaard et al., 2005; Gander et al., 2012; Harzer and Ruch, 2014, 2015). The trait-like
conceptualization of strengths lacks relevance for management as traits are relatively stable
and not as developable as state-like conceptualization; furthermore, the many definitions of
strengths lack clarity and consensus among scholars. For instance, Peterson and Seligman
(2004), Hodges and Clifton (2004) and Linley and Harrington (2006) define strengths as
natural ability, positive traits and give prominence to traits, while Allport (1966), King and
Trent (2013) and Harzer and Ruch (2013) emphasize the importance of contextual factors and
focus on behaviors such as strengths leading to adjustment with the environment. Hence,
there is a need for examining the development of the conceptualization of strengths in social
science, evolve a conceptualization that is relevant for management, provide a definition of
employee strengths at work and present insights for the application of employee strengths at
work for management development.

Formulation of research questions

This systematic conceptual review attempts to provide answers to three research questions.
The research questions are inspired by the three insights provided by Coghlan (2019) for
making knowledge creation relevant and useful for practice. These are (1) understanding
what has happened (we address this by carrying out a systematic conceptual review of
strengths and trace its evolution and relevance to management); (2) making sense of what has
happened (we reconceptualize the construct of strengths that has higher relevance to
management); (3) the usability of knowledge (we propose a framework for use of the new
construct of employee strengths at work for management development). Accordingly, we Employee
articulate three research questions: strengths
(1) How is the construct of strengths conceptualized in the extant literature?
(2) What can be an alternate conceptualization of strengths – we name it ESAW – that
has higher relevance for management?
(3) What are the implications of ESAW for management development? 5

Development of a review protocol

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins and Green, 2011)
provides a detailed approach, procedure and justification for developing a review protocol.
The current conceptual review draws upon aspects of the protocol relevant to social sciences.
Table 1 shows the salient features of the review protocol.

Conducting review (methods)

Database search and the initial shortlist of articles
The study’s protocol guided the database search and the initial shortlist of articles. The data
used in this paper consist of articles related to social work, positive psychology and business
organizations in the English language, covering the period from January 2009 to November
2019. As an initial review of literature has already brought out key leading definitions and
conceptualization of employee strengths, a relatively recent period of 10 years was considered
adequate and appropriate for finding an answer to the first research question. The recent
articles, while covering the past literature, will provide information if any new
conceptualization of strengths has evolved. The researcher searched EBSCO,
PsycARTICLES (APA), Sage Journals, Wiley Online, Taylor and Francis Online, Emerald
Insight and ABI/Info ProQuest databases using the library electronic journal databases.
Furthermore, Google Scholar and the chain citation process (Cribbin, 2011) led to extracting
relevant papers specifically from the Journal of Positive Psychology as the journal publishes
many articles on strengths. The keywords search included “employee and strengths,”
“employee and performance,” “strengths and work,” “human strengths,” “employee
strengths” and “strengths.” The conceptual review used the preferred reporting items for

Protocol aspect Key features

Sources EBSCO Business Source, APA PsycARTICLES, Sage Journals, Wiley Online, Taylor
and Francis Online, Emerald Insights, ABI/Inform (ProQuest) and Google Scholar
Keywords “Employee” AND “Strengths”, “Human” AND “Strengths”, “Strengths” AND
“Performance”, “Strengths” AND “Work”, “Employee Strengths”, “Human Strengths”,
“Strengths Work” and “Strengths”
Inclusion criteria Peer-reviewed and business and management journals, journals related to social work,
articles in the English language, empirical and review papers, empirical, theoretical and
review articles that define strengths, use theory and indicate research gaps. Articles
since 2009 (last 10 years)
The exclusion Articles that do not fulfill the inclusion criteria
Table 1.
criterion Key features of the
The quality Articles from only peer-reviewed journals systematic concept
criterion literature review
Note(s): The features of the table are adapted from the “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of protocol: employee
Interventions” (Higgins and Green, 2011) strengths at work
JMD systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Knobloch et al., 2011). Figure 1
40,1 gives the PRISMA flowchart visualizing the article selection process.
As seen in Figure 1, a structured approach was followed to select the articles that illuminate
the research question on the conceptualization of employee strengths. The total number of hits
was 430 papers that reduced to 44 after reading the title, abstract, accounting for relevance
and removing the duplicates. The criterion for relevance was articles on business
organization, social work, review, empirical and conceptual articles on either strength of
6 people or situational strengths. The 19 articles finally selected for the review after reading the
full texts are marked with an asterisk in the References section. In the next section, we share
the summarized analysis and conceptualize the concept of employee strengths at work.
Thereafter, by utilizing ESAW, we develop a framework for management development.

Results
The authors extract information from the 19 articles selected for the review. The following
section summarizes the diverse ways in which the extant literature conceptualizes the
construct of strengths and brings out other factors essential for strengths to manifest at work.

Figure 1.
The preferred
reporting items for
systematic reviews and
meta-analysis
(PRISMA) flowchart
visualizing the process
of article selection
(Knobloch et al., 2011)
Conceptualization and definitions of strengths Employee
Constructs are conceptual abstractions of phenomena that cannot be directly observed strengths
(Maccorquodale and Meehl, 1948). Mouton and Marais (1988) contend that since different
social scientists adhere to different theories and deploy varying conceptual frameworks, each
is likely to view a concept differently. Drawing from the 19 articles identified for the
conceptual review, Table 2 delineates the conceptualization of the construct of strengths at
work and key features of each study.
As seen from the table above, studies with serial numbers 1 and 2 focus on social work; 7
both studies highlight the application of strengths and the importance of the context in
strengths manifestation. A total of ten studies (serial numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 19)
make use of the trait-based conceptualization of strength developed by Peterson and
Seligman (2004), employing the VIAs instrument for measuring strengths, while study 11
uses StrengthsFinder Rath (2007) for assessing employee strengths. Studies with serial
numbers 13 and 18 critique the conceptualization of character strengths classification
developed by Peterson and Seligman (2004). In addition to serial numbers 1 and 2, studies
with serial numbers 6, 8, 12, 14, 16 and 19 emphasize the importance of contextual factors for
enabling the manifestation of strengths. Furthermore, two studies (serial numbers 7 and 10)
make use of the 14-item scale developed by Govindji and Linley (2007). It can be inferred that
the initial conceptualization of strengths in social work factored in the situational attributes.
Thereafter, psychologists extended trait-based conceptualization of strengths that were
relevant for the understanding personality of people. Adoption of trait-like conceptualization
of strengths in organizations was insufficient for strengths to manifest and scholars brought
out the importance of contextual factors for strengths to manifest. Therefore, there is a need
to evolve a conceptualization of strengths relevant to management and organization science.

Conceptualization of employees’ strengths at work (ESAW)

A concept unifies divergent perspectives and “real concepts are grounded in social
experience, moderated through interaction, merging with the general culture of a community
and used by people who are consciously aware and critical of the concepts they use” (Blunde,
2012, p. 7). The purpose of the concept analysis is to distinguish between the defining
attributes of a concept from the irrelevant ones (Walker and Avant, 1994). Nuopponen (2011)
provides the concept relation method for building and comparing concepts. The method
provides a graphical representation of the phenomenon being scrutinized, facilitates
conceptualization of ESAW by identifying key characteristics of the concept (refer to the top
left box of Figure 2) and delineates how the concept relates to a superordinate concept (the
larger concept that includes the core concept – the concept being developed), coordinate
(concepts that are similar to the core concept), subordinate (concepts that are included in the
core concept) and indirect coordinate concepts (concepts that are not located in the same
generic concept system but form a part of an alternate concept system) and characteristics
(the properties that distinguish the core concept from other concepts and help in defining the
core concept). Figure 2 depicts the concept relation tool utilized for conceptualizing ESAW
and comparing it with other concepts – the superordinate, coordinate, subordinate and
indirect coordinate concepts.
Utilizing the 19 studies of the systematic conceptual review, the authors identify key
personal and situational characteristics necessary for conceptualizing ESAW and form the
basis for defining ESAW. Next, by employing the concept relation tool and comparing it with
other concepts, we establish the nomological distinction and identity of ESAW. A holistic
conceptualization of employee strengths, analogous to the initial conceptualization in the
domain of social sciences, includes personal as well as contextual factors. Hence, for
conceptualizing the construct of ESAW, we select a definition from the domain of personality
 8
40,1
JMD

Table 2.

literature review
for the systematic
and salient features of
the 19 articles selected
grounding of strengths
Summary of definition/
S.
No Author(s) Focus Definition/grounding Salient features (outcomes and future direction)

1 (Probst, 2009)
2 (Guo and Tsui,
2010)
3 (Biswas-Diener
et al., 2011)
4 (Harzer and
Ruch, 2012)
Social work Embeds in German humanism, where the focus is on
meaning rather than measurement; grounds in principles
of self-determinism, self-worth, dignity and personal
fulfillment
Social work Transcends the conception of strengths as enabling
resilience and advocates reflective practices on personal
behavior and social structures and includes the aesthetics
and ethical dimensions than just rationality
Business Instead of considering strengths as traits that are fixed
organizations across place and time, the authors conceive strengths as a
dynamic and contextual phenomenon that changes as per
the interests, goals, values and situational factors. All
current definitions of strengths ground in classic trait
personality theory
Business Character strengths (values in action) developed by
organization Peterson and Seligman (2004). People use between four to
seven strengths forming “core strengths” out of the 24
strengths a person can possess
(1) The strengths approach grounds in humanism and
focus on meaning, personal fulfillment, dignity and
worth of people
(2) The concept of strength is malleable and its meaning
and functions depend upon the use of strengths for
assessment, intervention or impact
(3) Strength is an applied concept and assumes tangibility
when manifested
(1) A combination of ecosystem and strengths-based
approaches are the new mainstream model in social
work practice
(2) The model takes into consideration the relationship
between behavior and one’s position in the social
structure and on the resources that one can mobilize to
manage one’s situation effectively
(1) Instead of an “identify and use” approach, suggests a
developmental approach
(2) Awareness and development of strengths can
transform potential into excellence
(3) Practitioners (coaches and therapists) work with
“clients” to help them identify and use strengths
(4) Focus on interaction between people and their
environment
(1) When four or more strengths are deployed at work,
levels of positivity and calling were highest
(2) Positive experiences partially mediated the effects of
applied signature strengths use and calling

(continued )
S.
No Author(s) Focus Definition/grounding Salient features (outcomes and future direction)

5 (Harzer and
Ruch, 2013)
6 (Botha and
Mostert, 2014)
7 (Dubreuil et al.,
2014)
Business Deploy signature character strengths developed by (1) The use of strengths results in higher engagement and
organization Peterson and Seligman but identify its incompleteness in flow state
manifestation at the workplace (2) The compatibility of an employee to organizational
culture is important for strengths use
(3) Positive experiences at work are attributable to how
many situational factors permit the manifestation of
signature strengths
(4) Develop a scale to measure situational attributes
Business Takes a positive organizational behavior approach and its (1) Competitive advantage will occur when employees
organization linkage to strengths use in organizations deploy their strengths. Hence, employees should be
given sufficient opportunities to deploy strengths
(2) Perceived organizational support and proactive use of
strengths contribute to improved work engagement
Business Conceives strengths as traits and utilizes a 14-item scale (1) Wise deployment of strengths leads to higher
organization developed by Govindji and Linley (2007) to measure it. engagement and flow
Emphasizes the use of strengths leading to higher vigor, (2) Human resource management practices that promote
authenticityand concentration the use of strengths stimulate employee passions,
vitality and concentration
(3) Both use and development of strengths lead to superior
performance and employee well-being
(4) Explores the underlying mechanisms between
strengths use and deployment that foster individual
performance and well-being
(5) Harmonious passion, subjective vitality and
concentration mediate the association of strengths use
and work performance

(continued )
strengths
Employee

Table 2.
 10
40,1
JMD

Table 2.
S.
No Author(s) Focus Definition/grounding Salient features (outcomes and future direction)

8 (Judge, 2015) Business Focuses on the role of situational strengths in activating (1) Personality–job compatibility leads to superior
organization personality traits performance
(2) Culture is an important situational context that
influences behavior
(3) Makes use of the interaction model of personality–
situation and highlights the importance of general and
specific effects situation to influence work performance
and specific activation of traits
9 (Young et al., Business Makes use of the concept of values in action (VIAs) – trait- (1) Strengths balance predicted life satisfaction,
2015) organization based conceptualization of strengths developed by relatedness and competence but not autonomy. The
Peterson and Seligman (2004) probable cause is the situation dictating the activation
of strength and not the preference of the person
(2) Strengths balance associate positively with well-being
10 (Kong and Ho, Business The study focuses on the use of strengths. Adopts the (1) Strengths are positive traits refined by knowledge and
2016) organization character strengths (trait-based) approach and uses a 14- skills
item instrument developed by Govindji and Linley (2007) (2) Manager’s role is most important for an employee’s
for measuring the use of strengths strengths to manifest
(3) By designing and allocating work to team members
based on their strengths, managers can improve
productivity
(4) Strengths use increases the intrinsic motivation of
employees
(5) Organizational culture is an important determinant for
strengths use
(6) As individuals feel good about using strengths, they
are intrinsically motivated to use strengths

(continued )
S.
No Author(s) Focus Definition/grounding Salient features (outcomes and future direction)

11 (Rigoni and Business Makes use of the conceptualization given by (Hodges and (1) Managers’ behavior accounts for a 70% variation in
Asplund, 2016) organization Clifton, 2004) and uses the StrengthFinder to assess 34 employee engagement, thereby highlighting the role of
talents managers’ in utilizing employee’s strengths
(2) Employee engagement levels have remained constant
at 13% since 2009, implying that the work practices are
not improving
(3) Engagement levels of employees when managers focus
on strengths measure 67%
12 (van Woerkom Business Conceives strengths as unique talents that each employee (1) Congruence between employee’s skills and demands of
et al., 2016) organization brings to the work. Uses the scale developed by Keenan the job increases the utilization of strengths
and Mostert (2013) for measuring perceived organizational (2) Support by the manager to an employee for the use of
support strengths depends on the relationship between
manager and subordinates
(3) Organizational support for strengths use buffer the
impact of job demands
(4) Support for strengths use reducing absenteeism of
employees who experienced high workload and high
emotional demands
13 (Kinghorn, 2016) Theoretical The article questions the cross-cultural validity of values (1) Virtue classification of VIAs is not universal and is
article in action (VIAs) determined by culture
(2) Virtue theory reveals that all virtue classifications
reflect the norms of particular political communities
and VIAs’ classification favors the modern liberal
democracy
14 (Kooij et al., 2017) Business Conceives strengths as personal characteristics or traits (1) The crafting of jobs around a person’s strengths and
organizations that result in superior performance, specifically in interests leads to a higher level of job crafting and
particular tasks results in superior performance
(2) Participation of employees in job crafting intervention
led to strengths crafting in older employees and led to
better job demand and need–supply fit

(continued )
strengths
Employee

11

Table 2.
 12
40,1
JMD

Table 2.
S.
No Author(s) Focus Definition/grounding Salient features (outcomes and future direction)

15 (Lavy and Business Makes use of character strengths that are durable (1) Managers supporting the daily use of employee
Littman-Ovadia, organization individual characteristics, facilitating individual strengths contribute to their flourishing
2017) fulfillment and growth (2) Examined the effect of character strengths on employee
productivity, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
and job satisfaction and found a positive association
(3) Furthermore, positive emotions and engagement
mediated the effects of character strengths and
productivity, OCB and job satisfaction
16 (Lavy et al., 2017) Business Makes use of character strengths at work and studies the (1) Utilizing character strengths contribute to human
organization factors that contribute to the use of strengths at work thriving
(2) The support of the supervisor the previous day resulted
in a higher deployment of strengths the next day. The
support from colleagues did not result in the
deployment of strengths
(3) Brings out the importance of contextual variables in the
manifestation of employee strengths at work
17 (Ghielen et al., Review article Makes use of the definition provided by Linley and (1) Identification and use of strengths heightened feelings
2018) Harrington (2006, p. 88) that conceptualizes strengths as of competence
“natural capacity for behaving, thinking, or feeling in a (2) Overlap of strengths with competencies results in an
way that allows optimal functioning and performance in effective application of strengths. Use of strengths
the pursuit of valued outcomes” associates with higher joy
(3) Outcomes of strengths interventions were well-being,
higher engagement, personal growth and group
cohesion
(4) Authentic self-expression, hope, positive affect and
social worth were some of the mediators, while
extraversion and persistence were a few moderators

(continued )
S.
No Author(s) Focus Definition/grounding Salient features (outcomes and future direction)

18 (Miller, 2018) Theoretical The article highlights concerns on the values in action (1) Concerns are flagged for missing strengths, conflicting
article character strengths classification and their measurement character strengths, ambiguity in the connection of
strengths and virtues and lack of vices to form a
comprehensive classification
(2) Concerns on the six virtues, absence of a six-factor
structure upon additional factor analysis, a few
conflicting virtues and their practical wisdom
19 (Bakker and Van Review article The article focuses on the theory and strengths use in an (1) Talents (a person’s natural and persisting patterns in
Woerkom, 2018) organizational context thinking, feeling and behaving) develop into strengths
by adding knowledge and skills to these innate talents
(2) Aligning strengths to job requirements by job crafting
leads to higher levels of person–job fit and thereby
improved performance
(3) Organizational support for strengths use is an
antecedent to strengths use. Support for strengths
includes enabling employees to identify their strengths
and enabling them to engage in tasks that employ their
strengths. For the employees, managers represent the
organization
(4) Positive organizational health psychology promotes
flourishing
(5) Highlight important questions for future research,
including closure on the definition of strengths
(6) Encourage organizations to enable employees to use
strengths as it leads to higher authenticity, flourishing
and energization
strengths
Employee

13

Table 2.
JMD
40,1

14

Figure 2.
The concept relational
model to analyze and
build concept
psychology that is currently widely used by practitioners and includes contextual factors Employee
emphasized by scholars that are essential for strengths to manifest at work. We utilize the strengths
conceptualization provided by Buckingham and Clifton (2001) – strengths are conceptualized
as talents and are refined by knowledge, skills and practice – as the starting point for
evolving the concept of ESAW. Thereafter, drawing from the articles of the systematic
conceptual review, we identify key contextual factors that play a significant role in strengths
to take a kinetic form from potentiality. A total of three contextual factors emerge from the
articles: (1) the role of the manager for understanding and deploying the strengths of team 15
members at work (Bakker and Van Woerkom, 2018; Kong and Ho, 2016; Lavy and Littman-
Ovadia, 2017; Rigoni and Asplund, 2016; van Woerkom et al., 2016a), (2) the compatibility of
employee’s strengths to the requirement of the job, understood as person–job fit (Bakker and
Van Woerkom, 2018) and (3) the cultural fitment of the employee with the organization
(Harzer and Ruch, 2013; Judge, 2015; Kinghorn, 2016; Kong and Ho, 2016). Incorporating these
factors, the higher-order conceptualization of ESAW is defined as “enablement by manager
and deployment of a team member’s talents, skills, knowledge, experience and its alignment
with requirements of the job and organizational culture, leading to joy at work.” Next,
drawing from the articles used in the systematic literature review, we examine and provide
clarity on the relation of ESAW with other concepts.
Probst (2009) posits that humanizing organizations is about treating employees with
dignity, emphasizing personal fulfillment and realizing the inherent worth of employees.
Dubreuil et al. (2014) contend that human resources function should deliberately design
processes that engage employees’ passions. Utilizing the strengths of employees is one factor
that contributes to humanizing organizations (Nord, 1978) – other factors include treating
employees with dignity, involving them in decision-making and employees performing
meaningful work. Hence, we identify “humanizing organization” as the superordinate
concept.
Next, we distinguish concepts that are similar to ESAW and identify the concepts of
competency, flow and engagement (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011; Dubreuil et al., 2014; Ghielen
et al., 2018; Harzer and Ruch, 2013). Spencer (2008) defines 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.” 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, 1990). Engagement is the harnessing of organizational
members selves to the work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performances (Kahn, 1990). Although
similar, the distinction between competency and ESAW lies in the focus of competency on the
abilities required to perform a job well and then assessing the extent to which employees
possess them, while ESAW emphasizes the alignment of an employee’s talents, skills,
knowledge, experience, interests and values with the requirement of the job. ESAW differs
from flow in increasing the possibility of experiencing more flow moments and being one of
the end states of application of ESAW, while ESAW signifies the process that leads to one
possible state of flow. On similar lines, engagement is one of the end states of ESAW and
includes a few attributes of engagement in the conceptualization mentioned as “joy at work,”
while there are additional factors that constitute the concept of ESAW such as person–job fit,
cultural compatibility and the role a manager plays in understanding the strengths of team
members for employing them at work.
The concepts subordinate to the core concept are derived from the characteristics (top left
box of Figure 2) of the ESAW identified from the systematic conceptual review and utilized
for defining the concept of ESAW. The subordinate concepts are lower-order concepts that
form the higher-order concept of ESAW and include personal attributes of talent, skills,
knowledge, experience, interests and joy at work and contextual factors of person–job fit,
JMD support by the manager and cultural fitment (Bakker and Van Woerkom, 2018; Ghielen et al.,
40,1 2018; Judge, 2015; Kong and Ho, 2016; van Woerkom et al., 2016b). The indirect coordinate
concepts identified are thriving and flourishing. Thriving is a temporary psychological state,
and flourishing is a higher-order construct consisting of positive emotions, engagement,
positive relationships, meaning and achievement. We are now poised for addressing the third
research question – what are the implications of the new conceptualization of ESAW on
management development?
16
Application of employee strengths at work for management development
Mayrhofer (2004) remind that management being a practical-normative science, the theory-
building should not only support theoretical advancement but also improve practice. Having
developed the construct of ESAW that has relevance for organizational science, it is
important to address the usability of the new construct for management development, more
so as management development initiatives appear not to improve employee engagement
(Rigoni and Asplund, 2016). We do this by developing a conceptual framework that provides
an organizing scheme (Shields and Tajalli, 2006) for carrying out effective management
development interventions.
Howieson and Grant (2020) provide a succinct description of management development as
“any attempt to improve the effectiveness of managers through planned learning” (p. 2). The
current stagnation in the levels of employee engagement can be buffered and
counterbalanced by utilizing the construct of ESAW for management development,
thereby bringing about improved levels of engagement and performance. Drawing from
Figure 2, the conceptual model for management development, employing the higher-order
conceptualization of ESAW embeds in the superordinate concept of humanizing
organizations. Figure 3 depicts the conceptual model for management development.
As seen in Figure 3 above, the conceptual framework anchors in humanizing
organizations. The factors constituting the higher-order concept of ESAW are causally
arranged in the conceptual model, bringing out the role significance of the manager in
understanding the talents, skills, knowledge, experience, interests and joy at work and
thereafter creating the appropriate conditions by ensuring person–job fit and cultural
compatibility for achieving higher levels of employee engagement and performance. Note
that of the three contextual factors necessary for employee strengths to manifest (manager’s
support, person–job fit and cultural compatibility), given the importance of managers’
support in influencing other personal and contextual factors, the conceptual model decouples
managers’ support from other contextual factors and causally positions it to influence others
factors of ESAW. For effective management development, each attribute can be assessed by
employing validated instruments to know the baseline measures, designing focused
management development interventions to improve the measures and again measuring after
a period to evaluate the improvements and efficacy of the interventions. Designing systemic
interventions by spotting team-based as well as individual developmental needs will
contribute to the effectiveness of management development initiatives.

Discussion
Mouton and Marais (1988) define concepts as the “most elementary symbolic constructions
by means of which people classify reality” (p. 126) and provide access to empirical experience.
Concepts are symbols that provide an organizing framework for viewing reality. The purpose
and manner of developing a concept either limits or expands the boundaries of perceiving
reality. The purpose of developing character strengths classification was to provide a
categorization of the positive attributes of human beings; this was analogous to the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association,
 Employee
strengths

17

Figure 3.
The conceptual
framework of
employee strengths at
work for management
development
JMD 2013) that classifies human pathologies. Floyd (2009) posits that when we retrofit a theory
40,1 borrowed from other disciplines and apply it to organizations (e.g. the concept of strengths
taken from personality psychology and applied to organizations), the process imports “core
questions, assumptions, and metaphors” (Suddaby et al., 2011, p. 237) that creates problems
for researchers as well as practitioners by creating blind spots and restricting vision.
This systematic conceptual review reveals that despite over two decades, organizational
science has adopted the trait-based conceptualization of strengths that embeds in personality
18 psychology. All the empirical studies in the current systematic conceptual review utilized the
trait-based conceptualization of strengths put forward by psychologists. The studies also
revealed that just possessing strengths are insufficient for strengths to manifest. As
management is a performance-based contextual practice (Billsberry and Birnik, 2010; Nicolai
and Seidl, 2010), the conceptualization of employee strengths makes relevance for
organizations only when strengths are manifested and applied. This study assumes
significance by isolating a few contextual factors and incorporating them in defining the
construct of ESAW that provides insights on making strengths kinetic from the previous
conceptualizations of strengths that saw them as a mere potentiality. How does the new
concept of ESAW contribute to humanizing organizations?
Nord (1978) identifies five factors that contribute to humanizing organizations: employees
treated with dignity, employees able to deploy their unique capabilities or strengths at work,
employees consulted for decision-making, employees treated as an end and not a means
toward an end and employees performing meaningful work. In the trait-based
conceptualization of employee strengths, only one attribute is focused – the unique
capabilities of employees or the personality traits as measured by the VIAs instrument or the
StrengthsFinder. However, by only identifying personality traits-like strengths, the strengths
do not manifest unless situational factors influence. Hence, there are limitations to the trait-
based conceptualization of strengths for humanizing organizations. In the new
conceptualization of ESAW, four attributes are utilized for humanizing organizations:
unique capabilities of employees, extending dignity to the employees (trying to
understanding and utilize the strengths of employees), involving them in decision-making
(designing person–job fit by consensus) and making the work meaningful (deploying
strengths and achieving a person–job fit). Therefore, utilizing the conceptualization of ESAW
holds the promise of humanizing organizations.

Implications to practice and future research

The new conceptualization of ESAW calls for developing managers for making positive
changes in an organization. Humanizing organizations is a neglected yet worthwhile change,
given the stagnating employee engagement. The conceptual model proposed in this article
provides the basis for objectively assessing organization and people on each attribute and
designing personalized management developmental interventions that have a higher impact
on employee engagement and performance (Hooi, 2019). The framework also serves as a
springboard for developing hypotheses for their empirical investigation. Concepts are
dynamic in nature and should evolve to respond to the continuously evolving environment
(Sonnentag and Frese, 2002). Accordingly, future researchers may refine the concept of
ESAW to suit the changing environment.

Conclusion
The extant literature draws attention to the lesser relevance of concepts developed in other
domains and applied in organizations; the literature also highlights the absence of a
comprehensive definition of strengths relevant for management. This study contributes to
the nascent body of knowledge on employee strengths by carrying out a systematic
conceptual review of the concept of human strengths and tracing the evolution of the concept
from social sciences and personality psychology. Thereafter, using the concept relation Employee
method of developing a new concept, this study develops a concept that is relevant for the strengths
domain of management and organization science and delineates its implications for
management development. Utilizing ESAW predicts humanizing organizations – a critical
requirement due to the growing instances of employees not able to get their true selves at
work. Furthermore, this article achieves a methodological innovation by utilizing a
systematic conceptual review for building a new concept.
19
References
(References marked with an asterisk indicate articles included in the systematic review.)
Allport, G.W. (1966), “Traits revisited”, American Psychologist, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
American Psychiatric Association (2013), “Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders
(DSM-5®)”, available at: https://tinyurl.com/y4mzy999.
Aspinwall, L.G. and Staudinger, U.M. (2003), “A psychology of human strengths: some central issues
of an emerging field”, in Aspinwall, L.G. and Staudinger, U.M. (Eds), A Psychology of Human
Strengths - Fundamental Questions and Future Directions for a Positive Psychology, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, Vol. 1, pp. 9-22.
Asplund, J., Lopez, S.J., Hodges, T. and Harter, J. (2007), The Clifton Technical Report: Development and
Validation, The Gallup Organization, Gallup Press, Princeton, NJ, available at: https://tinyurl.
com/y4bd3cfu.
* Bakker, A.B. and Van Woerkom, M. (2018), “Strengths use in organizations: a positive approach of
occupational health”, Canadian Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 38-46.
Billsberry, J. and Birnik, A. (2010), “Management as a contextual practice: the need to blend science,
skills and practical wisdom”, Organization Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 171-178.
* 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.
Blunde, A. (2012), Concepts-A Critical Approach, Brill, Boston.
* Botha, C. and Mostert, K. (2014), “A structural model of job resources, organisational and individual
strengths use and work engagement”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Buckingham, M. and Clifton, D. (2001), Now, Discover Your Strengths, The Free Press, New York.
Chen, G., Whiteman, J.A., Gully, S.M. and Kilcullen, R.N. (2000), “Examination of relationships among
trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 6, pp. 835-847.
Clifton, D. O. and Harter, J.K. (2003), “Investing in strengths”, in Cameron, K., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn,
R. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, Berret-Koehler.,
San Francisco, pp. 111-121.
Coghlan, D. (2019), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, 5th ed., SAGE Publications, London.
Cribbin, T. (2011), “Citation chain aggregation: an interaction model to support citation cycling”,
Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge
Management, Glasgow, doi: 10.1145/2063576.2063913.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow-The Psychology of Optimal Performance, Harper & Row, New York.
Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2005), “Shared virtue: the convergence of valued human
strengths across culture and history”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 203-213.
* Dubreuil, P., Forest, J. and Courcy, F. (2014), “From strengths use to work performance: the role of
harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration”, The Journal of Positive Psychology,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 335-349.
JMD Floyd, S.W. (2009), “Borrowing theory: what does this mean and when does it make sense in
management scholarship?”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46, pp. 1059-1075.
40,1
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, pp. 895-904.
* Ghielen, S.T.S., van Woerkom, M. and Christina Meyers, M. (2018), “Promoting positive outcomes
20 through strengths interventions: a literature review”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 13
No. 6, pp. 573-585, Routledge.
Govindji, R. and Linley, P.A. (2007), “Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: implications for
strengths coaching and coaching psychologists”, International Coaching Psychology Review,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 143-153.
* Guo, W.H. and Tsui, M.S. (2010), “From resilience to resistance: a reconstruction of the strengths
perspective in social work practice”, International Social Work, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 233-245.
* Harzer, C. and Ruch, W. (2012), “When the job is a calling: the role of applying one’s signature
strengths at work”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 362-371.
* 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.
Harzer, C. and Ruch, W. (2014), “The role of character strengths for task performance, job dedication,
interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support”, Human Performance, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 183-205.
Harzer, C. and Ruch, W. (2015), “The relationships of character strengths with coping, work-related
stress, and job satisfaction”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00165.
Higgins, J.P.T. and Green, S. (2011), “Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions”,
available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Hitlin, S. and Piliavin, J. (2004), “Values: reviving a dormant concept”, Annual Review of Sociology,
Vol. 30, pp. 359-393.
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.
Hooi, L.W. (2019), “Leveraging human assets for MNCs performance: the role of management
development, human resource system and employee engagement”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 1, pp. 1-30.
Howieson, B. and Grant, K. (2020), “Re-conceptualising management development”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-3.
* Judge, T.A. (2015), “The person-situation debate revisited: effects of situation strengths and trait
activation on the validity of the big-five personality traits in predicting job performance”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 1149-1179.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Keenan, E.M. and Mostert, K. (2013), “Perceived organisational support for strengths use: the factorial
validity and reliability of a new scale in the banking industry”, SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Khumalo, I.P., Wissing, M.P. and Temane, Q.M. (2008), “Exploring the validity of the values-in-action
inventory of strengths (VIA-IS) in an African context”, Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 133-142.
King, L.A. and Trent, J. (2013), “Personality strengths”, in Tennen, H.A., Suls, J.I. and Weiner, I.B.
(Eds), Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 5. Personality and Social Psychology, 2nd ed., John Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ, pp. 197-222.
* Kinghorn, W. (2016), “The politics of virtue: an Aristotelian-Thomistic engagement with the VIA Employee
classification of character strengths”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 5,
pp. 436-446, Routledge. strengths
Knobloch, K., Yoon, U. and Vogt, P.M. (2011), “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias”, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial
Surgery, Elsevier, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 91-92.
* Kong, D.T. and Ho, V.T. (2016), “A self-determination perspective of strengths use at work:
examining its determinant and performance implications”, Journal of Positive Psychology, 21
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
* Kooij, D.T.A.M., van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L. and Denissen, J.J.A. (2017), “Job
crafting towards strengths and interests: the effects of a job crafting intervention on person-job
fit and the role of age”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 102 No. 6, pp. 971-981.
Kramer, A. and Kramer, K.Z. (2020), “The potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on occupational
status, work from home, and occupational mobility”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Academic
Press, Vol. 119, pp. 1-15.
* Lavy, S. and Littman-Ovadia, H. (2017), “My better self: using strengths at work and work
productivity, organizational citizenship behavior, and satisfaction”, Journal of Career
Development, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 95-109.
* 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.
Linley, P.A. and Harrington, S. (2006), “Playing to your strengths”, The Psychologist, Vol. 19, pp. 86-89.
Luthans, F. (2002), “Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological
strengths”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Maccorquodale, K. and Meehl, P.E. (1948), “On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and
intervening variables”, Psychological Review, Vol. 55 No. 2, p. 95.
Mann, A. and Harter, J. (2016), “The worldwide employee engagement crisis”, Gallup Business Journal, p. 7.
Mayrhofer, W. (2004), “Social systems theory as theoretical framework for human resource
management–benediction or curse?”, Management Revue, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 178-191.
Miglianico, M., Dubreuil, P., Miquelon, P., Bakker, A.B. and Martin-Krumm, C. (2020), “Strength use in
the workplace: a literature review”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer Netherlands, Vol. 21,
doi: 10.1007/s10902-019-00095-w.
* Miller, C.B. (2018), “Some philosophical concerns about how the VIA classifies character traits and
the VIA-IS measures them”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, Routledge, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 6-19.
Mouton, J. and Marais, H.C. (1988), Basic Concepts in the Methodology of the Social Sciences, HSRC
Publishers, Pretoria.
Nicolai, A. and Seidl, D. (2010), “That’s relevant! Different forms of practical relevance in management
science”, Organization Studies, Vol. 31 Nos 9-10, pp. 1257-1285.
Nord, W.R. (1978), “Dreams of humanization and the realities of power”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 674-679.
Nuopponen, A. (2011), “Methods of concept analysis – tools for systematic concept analysis (Part 3 of 3)”,
LSP Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 4-15.
Oswick, C., Fleming, P. and Hanlon, G. (2011), “From borrowing to blending: rethinking the processes
of organizational theory building”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 318-337.
Peterson, C. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2004), Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and
Classification, Oxford University Press, New York.
* Probst, B. (2009), “Contextual meanings of the strengths perspective for social work practice in
mental health”, Families in Society, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 162-166.
JMD Rapp, C.A. and Goscha, R.J. (1997), The Strengths Model-A Recovery Oriented Approach to Mental
Health Services, Oxford University Press, New York.
40,1
Rath, T. (2007), StrengthsFinder, Gallup, Washington, DC.
* Rigoni, B. and Asplund, J. (2016), “Strengths-based employee development: the business results”,
Gallup Business Journal, available at: https://tinyurl.com/y5hxefcp (accessed 5 July 2020).
Ruch, W., Proyer, R.T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2010), “Values in action
22 inventory of strengths (VIA-IS)”, Journal of Individual Differences, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 138-149.
Sandberg, J.R., Tsoukas, H., Sandberg, J.R. and Tsoukas, H. (2011), “Grasping the logic of practice:
theorizing through practical rationality”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 338-360.
Shepherd, D.A. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2011), “Inductive top-down theorizing: a source of new theories of
organization”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 361-380.
Shields, P.M. and Tajalli, H. (2006), “Intermediate theory: the missing link in successful student
scholarship”, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 313-334.
Sonnentag, S. and Frese, M. (2002), “Performance concepts and performance theory”, in Sonnentag, S.
(Ed.), Psychological Management of Individual Performance, 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons, West
Sussex, pp. 3-25.
Spencer, L.M. and Spencer, S.M. (2008), Competence at Work-Models for Superior Performance, Wiley
India, New Delhi.
Suddaby, R., Hardy, C. and Huy, Q.N. (2011), “Where are the new theories of organization?”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 236-246.
* van Woerkom, M., Bakker, A.B. and Nishii, L.H. (2016a), “Accumulative job demands and support
for strength use: fine-tuning the job demands-resources model using conservation of resources
theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
van Woerkom, M., Mostert, K., Els, C., Bakker, A.B., de Beer, L. and Rothmann, S. (2016b), “Strengths
use and deficit correction in organizations: development and validation of a questionnaire”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Routledge, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 960-975.
van Woerkom, M., Oerlemans, W. and Bakker, A.B. (2016c), “Strengths use and work engagement: a
weekly diary study”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 384-397.
Walker, L.O. and Avant, K.C. (1994), Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing, 3rd ed., Appleton
& Lange, Norwalk.
* Young, K.C., Kashdan, T.B. and Macatee, R. (2015), “Strength balance and implicit strength
measurement: new considerations for research on strengths of character”, The Journal of
Positive Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 17-24.

Corresponding author
Vikas Rai Bhatnagar can be contacted at: efpm08vikas_b@mdi.ac.in, vikasrai.bhatnagar@gmail.com

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