Meyers s16
This document summarizes a study on the effects of a strengths intervention training on employee well-being. The training was designed to help participants identify and develop their strengths over a 4.5 hour session. The study used a sample of 129 working adults and measured outcomes like positive affect, life satisfaction, and burnout before and after the intervention. The results showed that the strengths training increased participants' positive affect and psychological capital, but did not significantly impact life satisfaction, work engagement, or burnout. The conclusions were that focusing on strengths can enhance general well-being and psychological resources, but may not directly influence work-related forms of well-being. Limitations included the convenience sample and size of training groups.
Meyers s16
- 1. M.C. Meyers M. van Woerkom Amsterdam, July 2014 The effects of a strengths intervention on employee well- being, psychological capital, engagement & burnout
- 2. “Strengths are potentials for excellence” (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011) STRENGTHS & INTERVENTIONS A strengths intervention helps participants to identify their strong points (whatever they may be) and encourages them to develop and use their strengths. (based on Quinlan et al., 2012)
- 3. • One afternoon: 4 ½ hours • Groups of 40-45 participants • 2 professional trainers • Diverse work forms Aims • Visualize ideal future • Plan how strengths can be used to realize this future • Understand which resources can help in putting strengths to work OUR STRENGTHS TRAINING
- 4. BENEFITS OF USING STRENGTHS
- 5. Participating in the strengths-based training increases… 1. positive affect 2. life satisfaction 3. psychological capital 4. work engagement 5. burnout …of working people HYPOTHESES
- 6. Group T1 (pre) Intervention T2 (post) T3 (1 month) Intervention Experimental Group (N = 66) x x x - Waitlist Control Group (N = 63) x - x x RESEARCH DESIGN 6 Convenience sample of working adults working in diverse sectors N = 129 (filled in all three questionnaires)
- 7. • Satisfaction with Life Scale SWLS (Diener et al., 1985) • Positive and Negative Affect Schedule PANAS – PA scale (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) • Psychological Capital • Life-Orientation Test – Revised LOT-R (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) • New General Self-Efficacy Scale NGSE (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001) • Adult State Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1996) • Brief Resilience Scale (Smith et al., 2008) • Utrecht Work Engagement Scale–9 UWES-9 (Schaufeli, Bakker, Salanova, 2006) • Utrecht Burnout Scale UBOS-A (Schaufeli & van Dierendonck, 2000) MEASURES
- 8. RESULTS: POSITIVE AFFECT Wilk’s Lambda = .91, F(2,126) = 6.56, p <.01, partial eta squared = .09
- 9. RESULTS: PSYCAP Wilk’s Lambda = .95, F(2,121) = 3.24, p <.05, partial eta squared = .05
- 10. RESULTS: SWLS Wilk’s Lambda = .99, F(1,142) = 1.25, p =.27, partial eta squared = .01
- 11. RESULTS: ENGAGEMENT Wilk’s Lambda = .99, F(1,135) = 1.23, p =.27, partial eta squared = .01
- 12. RESULTS: BURNOUT Wilk’s Lambda = 1.0, F(1,138) = 1.23, p =.99, partial eta squared = .00
- 13. • Working on strengths enhances general well-being & psychological capital • PsyCap seems to be an important predictor of other positive work-related outcomes, such as performance (Luthans et al., 2008) • No evidence for a positive effect on work-related forms of well-being (engagement and burnout was found) • there are a number of possible explanations, for instance the lengths of the training CONCLUSION
- 14. Limitations • Convenience sample • Big training groups • Possible confounding factors Future Research • Conduct training with employees from 1-2 organizations • Add more follow-up measurements (3/6/9/12 months) • Optimize strengths interventions LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH
- 15. Contact: m.c.meyers@uvt.nl THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION!