The emergence of the positive psychology movement has brought the attention to individuals’
strengths and their deficits. Specifically of interest within an organisational context is the extent
to which employees’ strengths are used and their deficits are improved. Specifically,
organisations may provide their support for employees’ strengths use and deficit improvement,
and individuals themselves can also proactively seek opportunities to use their strengths and
improve their deficits. However, little attention has been paid to strengths use and deficit
improvement in empirical research. One reason for this may be a lack of a clear
conceptualisation of organisational support for strengths use and deficit improvement and
individuals’ proactive strengths use and deficit improvement. Furthermore, this lacking
conceptualisation hinders research to empirically measure these constructs, since no measuring
instrument exists to measure strengths use and deficit improvement by the organisation and the
individual. In addition, no empirical research has been conducted to determine whether strengths
use or deficit improvement, or possibly a combined approach focusing on both, may be more
beneficial for the organisation in terms of work-related outcomes such as work engagement,
learning, job satisfaction and turnover intention. Moreover, the relationship between work
engagement (a well-established positive psychology construct) with organisational support for
strengths use and deficit improvement and specifically individuals’ proactive strengths use and
deficit improvement is unexplored.
In light of the above gaps in the literature, the primary objectives of this study were: (a) To
conceptualise a taxonomy of strengths use and deficit improvement and to develop and validate
the Strengths Use and Deficit Improvement Questionnaire (SUDIQ) that measures four
constructs, namely perceived organisational support for strengths use (POSSU), perceived
organisational support for deficit improvement (POSDI), proactive behaviour towards strengths
use (PBSU) and proactive behaviour towards deficit improvement (PBDI); (b) to examine the
item bias, structural equivalence, measurement unit equivalence and scalar equivalence of the
SUDIQ among South African ethnic groups; (c) to examine whether POSSU, POSDI or a
combination of these two will lead to the best organisational outcomes (i.e. work engagement,
learning, job satisfaction and turnover intention); and (d) to determine whether (1) work
engagement mediates the relationship between POSSU and PBSU and between POSDI and
PBDI, or (2) whether proactive behaviour (PBSU and PBDI) mediates the relationship between
POSSU and POSDI with work engagement.
The above research objectives were addressed in four empirical, quantitative research articles.
For the purpose of research article 1, the Strengths Use and Deficit Improvement Scale (SUDIQ)
was developed by following the guidelines of DeVellis (2003). A pilot study was conducted
among a heterogeneous sample (N = 241). The validation study was conducted among a
heterogeneous sample (N = 699) in various industries in South Africa. For research article 2, the
item bias, construct equivalence, measurement unit equivalence and scalar equivalence of the
SUDIQ were assessed among a heterogeneous sample (N = 858) in various South African
industries. For the purpose of article 3, the relationships between POSSU, POSDI and a
combined approach with the outcomes, work engagement, learning, job satisfaction and turnover
intention were examined among a sample of 266 public school teachers in the Western Cape.
Finally, to determine the relationships between work engagement and PBSU and PBDI and also
the mediation effect in a structural model, a sample of 378 employees in the financial industry
was investigated.
For the pilot study in article 1, an initial item pool of 33 items was generated. In the exploratory
factor analysis of this pilot study, four distinct factors were extracted and were labelled perceived
organisational support for strengths use (POSSU; eight items), perceived organisational support
for deficit improvement (POSDI; eight items), proactive behaviour towards strengths use
(PBSU; nine items) and proactive behaviour towards deficit improvement (PBDI; eight items).
The factorial validity was confirmed with a confirmatory factor analysis that confirmed the
hypothesised four-factor structure of the SUDIQ. The POSSU and POSDI dimensions were
positively related to autonomy and participation in decision-making, two job resources, and
confirming the convergent validity of these two scales. The PBSU and PBDI scales were found
to be positively related to self-efficacy, establishing the convergent validity of these two scales.
The criterion-related validity was established through the positive correlation of the four SUDIQ
dimensions with work engagement and the negative correlation with burnout.
According to the results of the bias and equivalence analysis in article 2, the uniformly biased
items included one POSSU item, two POSDI items, two PBSU items and three PBDI items.
Three POSSU items were found to be non-uniformly biased. These items that were identified as
having either uniform or non-uniform bias for black, white or coloured participants were
discarded from further analyses. The results confirmed the SUDIQ to be equivalent across the
three ethnic groups in terms of construct equivalence, measurement unit equivalence and scalar
equivalence.
The results of research article 3 indicate that both strengths use and deficit improvement are
important predictors of work engagement, learning, job satisfaction and turnover intention.
Learning was higher and turnover intention lower for individuals experiencing a combined
approach compared to those believing that their school does not support them to either use their
strengths or improve their deficits. Furthermore, a combined approach was associated with
higher job satisfaction than a strengths-based approach, and a deficit-based approach was shown
to be associated with higher levels of work engagement and turnover intentions compared to an
environment where neither employees’ strengths nor deficits are addressed.
Finally, in article 4, two competing models were tested where in model 1 work engagement was
specified as a mediator in the relationship between POSSU and PBSU and between POSDI and
PBDI. In model 2, proactive behaviour (PBSU and PBDI) was specified as a mediator in the
relationship between POSSU and POSDI with work engagement. The results indicated that
model 1 fitted the data better compared to model 2. Therefore, it was found that work
engagement mediates the relationship between POSSU and PBSU and also between POSDI and
PBDI.
Recommendations were made for organisations and for future research. / PhD (Industrial Psychology), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nwu/oai:dspace.nwu.ac.za:10394/15211 |
| Date | January 2015 |
| Creators | Els, Crizelle |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0033 seconds