Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Transcription

1 Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2 LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter Introduction This chapter provides an overview and synthesis of the relevant literature concerning to psychological capital (PsyCap). Review of literature begins with a summary of research in the field of positive psychology from the year Positive psychology literature review is covered as PsyCap has its roots in positive psychology. Thereafter, extant literature concerning to positive organizational behavior, positive organizational scholarship, and PsyCap since their inception till September 2016 are reviewed. Further, this chapter also deliberates on the literature concerning to various components of PsyCap (hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience) followed by theoretical foundation, correlates, mediators, moderators, antecedents, and applications of PsyCap in work context. Special attention is also given to studies conducted on Asian samples. Finally, developmental potentials of each component of PsyCap through training interventions are also discussed. On the basis of the literature review, hypotheses of the research were formulated Literature Search Strategy Best practices of literature search strategy as per the recommendations of Short (2009) were followed to undertake the literature review. Data base such as Web of Science, Google Scholar, Academic Search Premier, Business Source Premier, Elsevier Science Direct, Emerald, PROQUST, PsyINFO, SAGE Journals, Springer, and Wiley InterScience (including former Blackwell Synergy) were searched with key words such as psychological capital, positive psychology, hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience Positive Psychology Positive psychology as a distinct branch of psychology emerged with the positive psychology movement initiated by Martin Seligman, the then president of the American Psychological Association. Seligman (1999) in his presidential address laid out a vision for

3 research and practice in positive psychology. Seligman (1999) argued that scientific studies on human strengths have been largely neglected and central focus of psychology has been on studying psychopathology. To address this imbalance, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) called for a paradigm shift in psychology and propagated that the primary focus of positive psychology is to build on the strength of people rather than focusing only on what was wrong with people and treating diseases. Seligman (1999) suggested psychologists to study positive subjective experience, positive individual traits, and positive institutions. He urged for increasing research and scholarship on the discovery and development of positive attributes of individuals which would not only increase their level of well-being, but also would help to reduce negativity and aid in the treatment of psychological disorders. Positive psychology employs the principles of psychological theories, research methods, and intervention techniques to understand the positive, adaptive, creative, and emotionally fulfilling aspects of human behaviors. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) advocated that due importance should be given for understanding optimal human functioning. Thus, positive psychology studies the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive. Further, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) insisted on building strong theoretical grounding and scientific methodology to discover and enrich human flourishing in all walks of life. Positive psychology covers scientific study on positive human functioning and flourishing on multiple levels that include the biological, personal, relational, institutional, cultural, and global dimensions of life. Peterson and Seligman (2004) have developed the Values In Action (VIA) classification of strengths list. This classification covers human strengths under various categories like cognitive strengths (wisdom), emotional strengths (courage), social strengths (humanity and justice), protective strengths (temperance), and spiritual strengths (transcendence). Detailed description on the strengths list can be found in the work of Peterson and Seligman (2004).For the purpose of brevity detailed description on the strengths list is not mentioned. Positive psychology is not ahistorical, it has a long history. It has got its roots in humanistic psychology. Maslow (1954) was the first to use the term "positive psychology in his seminal book on motivation and personality. During the first phase of humanistic psychology (1960 to 1980), Maslow propagated the agenda of positive psychology to study 22

4 healthy people in lieu of sick people. Seligman (1999) in his presidential address also echoed the same themes of humanistic psychology as proposed by Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, the leading founders of humanistic psychology. Further, origin of positive psychology can also be traced back to similar works of James (1902) on healthy mindedness and Allport s (1958) work on positive human characteristics Origin of Positive Organizational Behavior Traditional approaches to the study of organizational behavior demonstrate a bias towards psychopathology. This predisposition towards negative phenomena stems from traditional focus for treatment of dysfunctional behavior (Cameron & Caza, 2004).More recently, a trend towards positive research framework emerged for optimizing human strengths. Positive approach that was emerging primarily in the area of clinical psychology was extended to the workplace by two schools of thoughts namely positive organization scholarship (POS) and positive organizational behavior (POB). POS started at the University of Michagan and was pioneered by Kim S. Cameron, Jane E. Dutton, and Robert E. Quinn. POS is often described as the organizational equivalent of positive psychology (Cameron et al., 2003; Dutton & Sonenshein, 2007; Roberts, 2006), POS particularly aims at understanding what represents optimal human conditions in workplace (virtuousness, compassion, positive identity, positive leadership, and job crafting) at macro level (Cameron & Caza, 2004).Elaborate discussion on POS is beyond the scope of this thesis. However, POB needs to be discussed as PsyCap is a major construct under the POB umbrella. The field of positive organizational behavior (POB) was first introduced in the Journal of Organizational Behavior about 14 years ago by Luthans (2002a) and has since received considerable attention through its major construct of PsyCap (Wright, 2003). Fred Luthans and his colleagues from University of Nebraska took insights from the positive psychology movement and applied it to workplace. Luthans (2002a, 2002b) asserts that to build sustainable positive strengths within the employees to fight with organizational problems, a strong evidence based scientific and theoretical foundation of a discipline must be devised to translate pragmatic ways for effective utilization of human potentials in organizations. 23

5 POB has been defined as, the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed and effectively managed for performance improvement in today's workplace (Luthans, 2002b, p. 59).Thus, POB has very specific inclusion criteria, the construct should be a positive strength or psychological capacity, should have a strong theoretical grounding, necessarily have valid measures, and must be developable state-like (as opposed to trait-like) and should be linked to performance (Luthans, 2002b). PsyCap is a multidimensional construct consisting of hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism (Luthans et al., 2007).PsyCap in simple terms indicates an individual s possession of psychological resources of hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism. Luthans (2012) refers this as HERO acronym, H denotes having hope, E for efficacy, R for resilience and O for optimism. An elaborate discussion on the theoretical foundation of PsyCap, its empirical evidence with organizational outcomes, and its psychometric validities would be discussed little later in this thesis, however, prior to that it is imperative to critically evaluate, individual components of PsyCap and assess on how individually all of them contribute to the conceptualization of the PsyCap as a higher-order core construct within the ambit of POB inclusion criteria. 2.2 Hope Cognitive theory of hope was pioneered by C.R Snyder in the year Snyder (1989) argues that the propensity of people to attend desired goals lays the seeds for hope building. Conception of hope has been in existence in human philosophy since traditional times. For example in Greek mythology, hope was all that remained in Pandora s infamous jar after she unwittingly unleashed all of the evils into the world (Rand & Cheavens, 2009, p.323).importance of hope is found in famous quotes like he that lives on hope will die fasting (Benjamin Franklin quoted in Bartlett,1968, p. 422). Scholars during twentieth century wrote about the importance of human desire to achieve goals (Frank, 1975; Frankl, 1992; Menninger, 1959; Melges & Bowlby,1969). Analysis of pertinent literature concerning to hope reveals that hope is associated with perception of goal identification and goal accomplishment (Rand & Cheavens, 2009).Snyder during his initial research on hope found that when individuals speak about hope they implicitly indicate two cognitive motivational components pathways and agency (Snyder, 1994a; Snyder, 24

6 1994b). Using Snyder s (2002) definition Rand and Cheavens (2009) noted that, hopeful thinking consists of belief that one can find pathways to desired goals and the belief that one can muster the motivation to use those pathways (p.324) Hope Theory Hope is an important construct in positive psychology literature. Scholars are unanimous in their opinion that hope theory pioneered by Snyder is well established (Kauffman, 2006; Lopez et al., 2004; Riskind, 2006). Snyder (2002) explained hope as a cognitive-motivational model and argued that hope construct consists of three cognitive components ( goals, pathways and agency ). According to Snyder (2002) goals refer to the targets set by individuals and pathways reflect the strategies or multiple ways that an individual conceptualizes to attend the desired goals. Agency component of hope construct indicates the requisite motivational energy needed to pursue the conceptualized pathways to reach the desired goals. Snyder et al. (1991) defined hope as a positive motivational state supported by cognitive processes of (1) agency (goal-directed motivational energy) and (2) pathways (planning multiple paths to meet goals) (p.287). High-hope individuals proactively develop alternative plans as they apprehend negative consequence (Snyder et al., 1991; Snyder et al., 1996; Snyder, 2000a; Snyder, 2002). On the other hand, low-hope individual find pathways thinking as challenging and such individuals abstain from alternative pathways planning. Both the agency and pathways components are complementary to each other. Absence of any one of them does not operationalize the construct of hope (Snyder et al., 1996). In the event of adversity agency component plays a crucial role and helps individuals to cultivate the required motivational energy to generate multiple pathways to achieve the desired goal. Further, Snyder (2000a) argues that hope theory is based on the realistic behavior aiming at achieving pragmatic goals and he does not emphasize on unrealistic goals. Hope is a psychometrically validity construct (Snyder et al., 1991). Empirically, hope satisfies convergent validity (Snyder,2002). Snyder (2002) claims that the pathways component of hope in particular distinguishes hope construct from other related constructs like optimism. Discriminant validity of hope has been demonstrated (e.g., Bryant & Cvengros, 2004; Carifio & Rhodes, 2002; Magaletta & Oliver, 1999; Youssef & 25

7 Luthans, 2007). Hope construct is measurable through trait hope scale (Snyder et al., 1991), state hope scale (Snyder et al., 1996), and children s hope scale (Snyder et al., 1997) Components of Hope Construct Goals: The basic foundation of hope theory rests upon the fact that human behavior is goal directed (Snyder, 1994a; Snyder, 1994b; Snyder, 1998a). Snyder (2002) argues that goals are the psychological targets that propel human action. Goal can be conceptualized in shape of mental image like picturing that new coat you saw in a store window (Rand & Cheavens, 2009, p.324) or could be verbal in nature I want to loose weight (Rand & Cheavens, 2009, p.324). Rand and Cheavens (2009) argue that goals can be categorized as both short term and long term goals. Snyder (2002) also hypothesized two types of goals namely approach goals and avoidance goals. Example of an approach goal could be in shape of getting into a medical school (Rand & Cheavens, 2009, p. 324 ) and avoidance goals could be in terms of not getting the flue (Rand & Cheavens, 2009, p.324). Averill et al. (1990) suggest that longing for goal attainment intensifies when an individual feels that there is high probability of attaining the target goal. Pathways: Another component of hope construct is pathways planning. Snyder (2002) emphasizes that in order to achieve goal various pathways generation are of great importance. High-hope individuals frame many alternative pathways to reach the goal but for low-hope individuals such pathway planning is cumbersome and they are very poor in articulating various alternate roots (Snyder, 2002).In a laboratory task it was found that high-hope individuals could generate positive internal pathways but this was not possible for low-hope individuals (Snyder et al., 1998). High-hope individuals generally are flexible in planning various pathways, and they belief that alternative roots are possible to achieve a given goal (Irving et al., 1998; Tierney, 1995). Particularly in crisis situations high hope individual resort to multiple pathways planning but low-hope individuals are less flexible and they do not express confidence in following alternate pathways (Snyder et al., 1991). Agency: Snyder (2002) defined agency as, the perceived capacity to use one s pathways to reach desired goals is the motivational component in hope theory (p.251). In simple words, agency refers to the motivational energy required to pursue the conceptualized pathways to reach the goal. An example of agency thinking component 26

8 could be I am not going to be stopped (Snyder, 2002, p. 251).Agency thinking takes a crucial role when an individual encounters obstacle and it is the agency thinking that motivates a high-hope individual to pursue alternate pathways(snyder, 1994b; Snyder, 2002). Interaction of Pathways and Agency Thinking: Generation of both perceived pathways and agency thinking are essential components of the hope construct (Snyder et al., 1991).Absence of any one of them does not lead to hope generation (Snyder, 1995). Pathways and agency thinking are complementary to each other. Snyder (2002) emphasizes that, pathway and agency thoughts are iterative as well as additive over a given goal pursuit sequence (p.252) Relationship of Hope with Emotions Some researchers for example, Farina et al. (1995) have explained hope purely as an emotion but Snyder (2002) has primarily conceptualized hope as a cognitive resource. However, Snyder (2002) suggests that when an individual achieves the desired goal it results in germination of positive emotions but when an individual has unsuccessful perception of goal pursuits it results in negative emotion. There is empirical evidence towards this claim. It has been observed that those individuals who successfully pursued goals under adverse situations expressed positive emotions whereas those persons who did not peruse goals in view of the negative circumstances reported negative emotions and poor well-being (e.g., Diener, 1984; Emmons, 1986; Snyder et al., 1996; Snyder et al., 1999). Scholars are of the view that thoughts, motivational states, and expectations of outcomes are the factors that result in emotion and not vice versa (Roseman & Evdokas, 2004; Snyder, 2002) Developmental Potential of Hope Snyder (2000a) argues that hope can be developed through training interventions (e.g., stretch-goaling ; graduated mastery ; re-goaling ). Further, hope was empirically found to be developed through training interventions like goal identification training, pathways planning and by training individuals for facing and coping with obstacles (e.g., Dello Russo & Stoykova,2015; Luthans et al., 2006; Luthans et al., 2008). 27

9 2.2.5 Hope and its Correlates According to Snyder s (2002) hope theory, hope is an outcome of goal-related experiences. Hope as a psychological resource propels individual to sustain motivation. It helps to exert effort to pursue goals and helps in overcoming barriers. Hope also results in positive emotional experiences. It has been found that high-hope individuals are motivated towards achieving success when working for future goals. Such individual experiences less of stress and negative affect. However, individuals with lower levels of hope report more negative affect, and are less optimistic in approach (Snyder et al., 1991).Hope was positively associated with performance and positive work attitudes (e.g., Combs et al., 2010; Larson & Luthans, 2006; Luthans et al., 2008; Luthans et al., 2015; Peterson & Luthans, 2003; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Hope is also positively related to firm s profitability (Adams et al., 2002). Studies have also found that hope was positively associated with academic performance (Snyder, 2002; Rand et al., 2011). Further, hope was also found to be positively related to achievement in sports (Curry et al., 1997). Those individuals who had high-hope were less prone to anxiety, depression, and reported well-being (Lopez et al., 2004; Snyder & Lopez, 2007). It has been observed that high-hope persons display better psychological adjustment (Kwon, 2002). It has also been found that success in different types of psychotherapies was associated with high levels of hope (Irving et al., 2004; Snyder & Taylor, 2000). 2.3 Self-Efficacy The self-efficacy construct rests upon a long line of historical thinking related to the sense of personal control. Famous thinkers such as William James focused on willfulness and volition in human thinking. McClelland et al. (1953) spoke of achievement motivation. White (1959) stressed on effectance motivation. Rotter (1966) emphasized on locus of control and social learning. It was in these classic lines of control-related research, the Stanford University psychologist Albert Bandura conceptualized the self-efficacy construct. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as people s beliefs in their capabilities to produce desired effects by their own actions (p. vii). Similarly, Maddux (2009) described self-efficacy as what I believe I can do with my skills under certain conditions (p.336). 28

10 In the context of self-efficacy, it is important to make a distinction between skill acquisition and skill execution. We acquire skills by going to schools/colleges, by undergoing training programs, and by observing various performers. However, skill execution requires a supportive belief system. It requires the belief that the person can do the work competently. In other words, self-efficacy denotes the extent of belief that the person can execute a function competently. The belief could be very general in its tone. The person could have a general belief regarding his or her capabilities. This is called generalized self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Now let us examine a paradox. A person may possess a very high level of general self-efficacy. Yet, would he/she save a drowning child? The probable answer is negative. Even if the person has high level of general self-efficacy, the person would not venture out saving the child as he/she does not know how to swim. Hence, what is more important is the context-specific efficacy such as swimming efficacy, driving efficacy, teaching efficacy, and child management efficacy. These domain-specific efficacies are state-like concept (subject to learning and training).generalized self-efficacy is measurable. So also is the domain-specific efficacy. Apart from the notions of generalized efficacy and domain-specific efficacy (e.g., driving efficacy), there is a third from of efficacy called collective efficacy (Bandura,1997). It is otherwise known as team efficacy. It is the collective belief of a group of people regarding their team capabilities (Bandura, 1997). For example, the faculty members of an educational institution may collectively believe in the successful implementation of a new academic program. The self-efficacy of isolated members may not matter much. What would ultimately matter is the collective belief regarding successful implementation of the programme. Drawing on Bandura s (1986,1997,2001) social cognitive theory, Stajkovic and Luthans (1998b) defined self-efficacy as an individual s conviction (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and action needed to successfully execute a specific task (p.66). Why is self-efficacy so important? Firstly, self efficacy has a very robust theoretical base as well as a very sound research back-up. Secondly, self-efficacy can be measured through instruments developed by Maurer and Pierce (1998) and Parker (1998). Thirdly, the state-like property of self-efficacy brings in 29

11 its train the immense possibility of intervention (Bandura,1997). Depending on the domainspecificity of efficacy, appropriate intervention inputs can be planned and used. Self-efficacy is operationalized with respect to challenging goals set by an individual. The individual assesses the task, augments self motivation, and moves toward mastering the task and accomplishing the goals, and persevering through obstacles (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a, 1998b).The aforementioned initiatives show proactive approach of self-efficacy construct rather than a reactionary approach of handling discrepancy displayed by lesser confident people, which they might display when confronted with external challenges. Therefore, the inefficacious individuals are prone to failure, despair and lack of confidence when they encounter negative feedback, disapproval from society, set back by obstacle or even when they feel a sense of self-doubt, skepticism, or negative perceptions and attributions (Bandura & Locke, 2003) Sources of Self-Efficacy Self-efficacious individuals use cognitive attributes like symbolizing, forethought, observation, self-regulation, and self-reflection for fostering self-efficacy (Bandura,1997; Stajkovic & Luthans,1998b).Symbolizing is described as creation of mental images of products, processes, and outcomes, which might be of interest to stakeholders. Symbolizing also facilitates and prepares individual for difficult situation and challenges (Bandura,1997; Stajkovic & Luthans,1998b). Forethought is usually used for anticipation of short-term as well as long-term goals, planning for accomplishments, and also for anticipating possible hindrances in achieving goals in view (Bandura, 1997; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998b). Forethought can increase activities to prioritize, to plan for contingency, and as well for motivating self whenever one suffers from temporary low phase (Bandura,1997; Stajkovic & Luthans,1998b). Observations facilitate peer learning, time saving, and saving energy that might have got wasted in trial and error method (Bandura,1997; Stajkovic & Luthans,1998b). Self-regulation helps in making people proactive, self-disciplined, which help them, take initiatives even when the extrinsic factors of motivation are absent (Bandura,1997; Stajkovic & Luthans,1998b). Further, self reflection helps people to learn from past experience, and from some valuable lesson which people can apply during future opportunities as well as during challenges (Bandura,1997; Stajkovic & Luthans,1998b). Self-efficacy along with aforesaid cognitive processes can be developed and nurtured 30

12 through mastery experiences, learning from modeling as well as from others (vicarious experience), social persuasion, and can also be developed through psychological and physiological arousal (Bandura, 1997, 2000; Maddux,2002; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a, 1998b). Mastery experiences may be facilitated during on-the-job training and in other situations by gradually increasing the level of difficulty for allowing more scope for practice and success. Mastery experiences help individuals to learn by repetition of tasks and it is the most authentic way to develop self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Biran & Wilson, 1981; Feltz et al., 1979; Gist, 1989). Achieving repeated successes in a given task help individuals to build self-efficacy however, when individuals encounter failure in the initial phase of doing a task, in such situations an individual may develop low confidence. Nurturing of self-efficacy is not a very easy task. It requires acquisition of cognitive, behavioral, and self-regulatory skills to sustain self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Formal training programs and other non-formal methods like coaching and monitoring prove to be very useful for increasing self-efficacy. During the process of observing a specific task done by a model, trainees may gauge the similarity as well as relevance with model and themselves, and thereafter develop self-efficacy. This process is called vicarious experience. Sometimes simulated trainings are also given to help individuals to develop self-efficacy. Simulated trainings are also conducted in order to save time and from incurring higher cost involved in actual experiences (Bandura, 1997).Gaining vicarious experience help individuals to acquire self-efficacy on a sustained basis (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1987).On the contrary, when a person observes failure, then such an individual tends to develop low self-efficacy (Brown & Inouye, 1978). Apart from the above mentioned methods, social persuasion through positive feedback from the peer group, encouragement, trust, and respect, can lead to increase in self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997, 2000; Maddux, 2002; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a, 1998b). Positive social persuasion directly instills a can-do attitude thereby increasing self-efficacy (Bandura,1997). Positive social persuasion helps individuals to get convinced that they have the desired capabilities to attend success in a given task and thereby they tend to put in more efforts (Litt, 1988; Schunk, 1989).Positive social persuasion also produces selfaffirming beliefs and thereby people develop self-efficacy. However, unrealistic boosts or 31

13 superficial social persuasion results in lowering self-efficacy. Negative social persuasion that reminds people that they do not possess the required capabilities results in lowering self-efficacy (Bandura,1997). Positive social persuasion helps nurture positive appraisal of self and help individuals set their own yardsticks of success (Bandura, 1997). People s perception on their own capabilities is partly influenced by the physiological and emotional states (Bandura, 1995).Individual having comfortable physiological state is likely to feel confident that he/she has the suitable ability to execute a task (Bandura,1977).It is pertinent to note here that sheer presence of favorable or unfavorable emotional states does not influence self-efficacy rather an individual s perception and interpretation is the key. Bandura (1995) states that, people who have a high sense of efficacy are likely to view their state of affective arousal as an energizing facilitator of performance, whereas those who are beset by self-doubts regard their arousal as a debilitator (p. 5). Moreover, psychological arousal indirectly facilitates increase in self-efficacy by promoting positive cognitive factors and positive emotions which in turn increases the range of possible actions by building psychological, physical and social resources (Fredrickson, 2001, 2003b). Physical well-being, preventive health care, healthy diet, and exercise have been found to have positive correlation with self-efficacy (Bandura, 1995).Further, self-efficacy can be developed through various training interventions as well as through other factor such as organizational support and psychological well-being (Bandura, 1997).Self-efficacy is also influenced by other sets of factors like personal, social, and situational complexities (Bandura,1997). For example, self-efficacy can be influenced by an individual preconceptions of his/her abilities, complexity of the tasks, quantum of effort exerted, individuals physical and emotional states, external support, and situational circumstances under which the task was performed Self-Efficacy and Motivation Self-efficacy helps individuals to mobilize the required motivational energy needed for task accomplishment. Cultivation of self-efficacy belief can be traced to the theoretical principles of attribution theory, expectancy-value theory, and goal theory. It can be said that self-efficacy is supported by causal attributions theory (Alden, 1986; Grove, 1993; McAuley, 1991). Causal attributions theory claims that the individuals, who believe that they are confident, tend to attribute failure to difficult circumstances, insufficient effort 32

14 demonstration, whereas those individuals who are less efficacious, attribute failure to their insufficient personal capabilities. Such causal attributions have effects on generating motivational energy required and affect performance (Chwalisz et al., 1992; Relich et al., 1986; Schunk & Gunn, 1986). Bandura (1995) argues that self-efficacy is also related to expectancy-value theory. When an individual expects favorable outcomes, in such a situation, a person directs his/her motivational energy for the given task (Bandura, 1995). But putting in the required motivational energy is contingent on the personal belief that an individual possesses with respect to his/her personal capabilities to execute a given task. Bandura (1997) emphasizes that even though there are numerous attractive options available but people do not pursue them because they perceive that they do not possess the appropriate competencies in them. Predictiveness of expectancy-value theory is significantly influenced by perceived selfefficacy of the individual concerned (Ajzen &Madden, 1986; DeVries et al., 1988; Dzewaltowski et al., 1990; Schwarzer, 1992). Locke and Latham (1990) suggest that those individuals who have high perceived self-efficacy get motivated by challenging goals and when such individuals achieve success as per their pre-set goals, they continue on exerting effort and thus get results and satisfaction. When they get the taste of self-satisfaction they continue on putting in persistent effort and maintain the motivational energy in line with goal achievement (Bandura, 1995). Perceived self-efficacy influences human motivation in several ways. For example, depending on the self-efficacy, people tend to set targets and accordingly putforth the required effort to achieve the goals. Further, depending on the intensity of self-efficacy, people take up challenging tasks and continuously put in effort in adverse circumstances (Bandura,1991a; Bandura & Cervone, 1986) Self-Efficacy and Affective Process Bandura (1997) argues that people with high self-efficacy manage their emotions in a unique way as compared to inefficacious individuals. With respect to affective process, it is observed that efficacious people adopt effective coping strategies (Bandura,1997). Inefficacious people magnify the severity of possible threats and worry about things that rarely happen (Bandura, 1997). In contrast, efficacious persons believe that they can 33

15 exercise control over potential threats (Bandura, 1997). In coping with adaptation to new social demands, efficacious people treat it as a challenge, whereas inefficacious persons view it as a threat (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy has produced huge body of research documenting adaptive benefits (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy has been implicated in successful coping with a variety of psychological problems. It has been linked with several forms of satisfaction (e.g., work, health, and family) (Bandura, 1997) Self-Efficacy and Organizational Outcomes Self-efficacy was found to be positively related to performance and job satisfaction (Luthans et al., 2007; Larson & Luthans, 2006). Many meta-analyses studies on selfefficacy and performance conducted by (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a ; Sadri & Robertson, 1993) indicated positive impact on performance. 2.4 Optimism Psychological resource of optimism has a very specific connotation in positive psychology literature. Optimism is defined as positive generalized outcome expectancies (Scheier & Carver, 1985, p. 219). Contemporary researchers generally consider optimism as a positive cognitive psychological resource (Carver, Scheier, 2014; Seligman, 2006).Carver and Scheier (2014) strongly argue that optimism construct has cognitive, emotional, and motivational component. Optimism is based on positive expectancy and therefore, this involves positive cognition (Carver & Scheier, 2014). As optimism is based on positive expectancy, it accompanies positive emotional attribute (Carver & Scheier, 2014).Moreover, Carver and Scheier (2014) emphasize that expectancy component of optimism has motivational effects. Another prospective of optimism is given by Seligman. Seligman (1998) explained optimism on the basis of an explanatory style. According to Seligman (1998) explanatory style refers to a style of explanation wherein an individual explains or interprets causes of success or failure in a positive manner. Seligman (1998) defined optimism as an attributional style or an explanatory style that explains positive events in terms of personal, permanent, pervasive causes and negative events in terms of external, temporary, and situation specific ones. This conceptualization of optimism conveys that optimism is an expressive style that interprets favorable events to personal causes and an 34

16 optimist attributes failures to external, temporary, and situation-specific factors. Optimists interpret negative events to be the cause of external factors. On the other hand, a pessimist interprets and explains positive events to be the cause of some external factor (Seligman, 1998). Further, a pessimist attributes failure to personal cause and feels responsible for negative events (e.g., Buchanan & Seligman, 1995; Peterson, 2000; Peterson et al., 1995; Seligman, 1998). The notion of explanatory style emerged from the attributional reformulation concept of the learned helplessness model (Peterson et al., 1995; Seligman, 2006).The original helplessness model posited that people develop helplessness after experiencing uncontainable and prolonged adverse situations (Peterson et al., 1995; Seligman, 2006). Peterson et al. (1995) explained individual differences in the helplessness syndrome by adding explanatory style notion to the learned helplessness model. Furthermore, Peterson et al. (1995) raised an important question. What is learned helplessness in general? They are of the opinion that individual s inner explanation determines how they respond to the adversity and perceive helplessness. Peterson et al. (1995) point out that when adverse situation continues for long, helplessness becomes chronic. When helplessness is due to a global cause, it is widely felt by many in the society. When people attribute failure to their own fault, it adversely affects their self-esteem (Peterson et al., 1995; Seligman, 2006).Optimism as a construct is measurable and has displayed adequate psychometric validity and reliability (e.g., Lopez & Snyder, 2003; Shifren & Hooker, 1995; Scheier et al., 1994; Scheier & Carver,1985, 1992). Proponents of POB have given due importance to realistic optimism, they claim that realistic optimism is based on assessment of a given situation as per availability of resources (e.g., Luthans, 2002b; Luthans et al., 2007; Schneider, 2001) Theoretical Foundation of Optimism Optimism as a psychological construct is predominantly grounded on the theoretical proposition of behavioral self-regulation theory (Carver, & Scheier,1981, 1982a, Scheier, & Carver,1982a; 1983). Outcome expectancy is an important cognitive appraisal mechanism that influences behavior of individuals (Carver & Scheier, 2014; Scheier, & Carver, 1985). Optimism construct is based on the premises of behavioral self-regulation 35

17 theory (Carver & Scheier,1981, 1982a, 1983; Scheier & Carver,1982a). Klinger (1975) and Kukla (1972) argue that when people expect favorable outcome, such favorable expectancies result in renewed and continuous effort. On the contrary, when people expect unfavorable outcome it results in reduction of effort or in such circumstance individuals may completely abstain from making any attempts to initiate any task. Therefore, Klinger (1975) and Kukla (1972) claim that expectancy is an important cognitive mechanism that determines whether an individual would be optimistic or pessimistic in nature. Peterson and Seligman (1984) are of the view that individual s expectancies are also dependent on past experience. If the past event is negative and is permanent, under such situation individuals will have negative expectancy whereas if the past experience is positive it will foster positive expectancy. Further, optimism and pessimism roots can be linked to expectancy-value theory of motivation (Carver et al., 2010). Expectancy value theories claim that an individual s behavior is mostly dependent on the goal an individual sets (Carver et al., 2010).When the identified goal is significant then under such situation individuals give more value to the goal concerned and continuously exert effort (e.g., Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Carver & Scheier, 1998; Higgins, 2006).Moreover, when individuals expect favorable events they tend to be confident. In contrast, if an individual expects unfavorable event then there is probability that under such circumstances individuals may withdraw from goal pursuit. When individuals expect positive outcomes they are likely to develop confidence and they keep on pursuing their goals in spite of adversities (Scheier & Carver, 1992). On the contrary, pessimistic individuals live with a sense of negative expectations on probable future events. Pessimistic individuals are very doubtful and hesitant to take up challenging tasks (Scheier & Carver, 1992). Channelization of goal directed energy is contingent on optimistic and pessimistic approach that an individual follows (Carver & Scheier,2014; Carver et al., 2010). Generalized expectancies is measured through Scheier and Carver s (1992) Life Orientation Test (LOT) in which people are asked whether they expect favorable or unfavorable life events. Original Life Orientation Test (LOT) scale was revised by Scheier et al. (1994) and it is termed as Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R). 36

18 2.4.2 Developmental Potential of Optimism In their initial work Scheier and Carver (1985) described optimism as a dispositional trait but later on Seligman (1998) argued that it is developable (state-like) and termed it as learned optimism. In line with Seligman s (1998) argument Carver and Scheier (2002) acknowledged that optimism can be developed through training interventions. Optimism is an attribution style concerned with interpretation of events depending on situation. This very nature of optimism construct provides scope for learning optimism. Thus, optimism is open to development and can be learned (e.g., Luthans 2002b; Meevissen et al., 2011; Peterson,2000; Seligman,2006; Seligman,1998).Schneider (2001) claims that optimism is developable by means of proven pathways such as by giving minimal importance to past events, appreciating the present circumstances, and by developing positive expectations on future opportunities. Using these pathways researchers have developed optimism through training interventions (e.g., Dello Russo & Stoykova, 2015; Luthans et al., 2015; Luthans et al., 2010; Luthans et al., 2008; Luthans et al., 2006) Optimism and Work Outcomes Researchers argue that optimism resource serves as a pool of motivational energy to withstand work pressure in a competitive environment (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 2014; Luthans et al., 2007). Research undertaken by Seligman and Schulman (1986) found that those life insurance agents who scored high on optimism reported higher sales performance than those with low optimism score. Further, studies conducted by a number of investigators (e.g., Chemers et al., 2000;Schulman,1999; Wunderley et al., 1998) found that higher performance in sales is associated with high levels of optimism. Jobin et al. (2014) found that those individuals who have high optimism scores reported less stress. Crosssectional studies also showed that optimism can be developed with training interventions and indicated positive relation with work achievements (Luthans et al., 2007; Luthans et al., 2008; Luthans et al., 2010; Seligman, 2006, 1998).Research on optimism also found that optimism is positively linked with desirable workplace attitudes like organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and work happiness (Alarcon et al., 2013; Larson & Luthans,2006; Luthans et al., 2007; Luthans et al., 2008). 37

19 Role of optimism in employee performance is positively linked to work motivation and life satisfaction (Alarcon et al., 2013; Avey et al., 2011 ). Campbell et al. (1993) argue that effort is one of the key factors of human performance. According to expectancy-value theory an optimistic employee expects positive outcomes and therefore, is likely to put in constant effort and thereby performance may get enhanced (e.g., Bandura, 1995; Larson & Luthans, 2006; Luthans et al., 2007; Youssef & Luthans, 2007).Optimism involves positive appraisal of circumstances and it includes positive emotions (Luthans et al., 2015; Youssef & Luthans,2007). Such positive emotions are expected to nurture job satisfaction. Fredrickson s (2001, 2003) broaden-and-build theory suggests that one positive emotion triggers the other. Those employees who are endowed with positive-based emotions are likely to have high job satisfaction and achieve higher work performance (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002; Luthans et al., 2015; Wright, 2005; Wright, 2003;Youssef & Luthans,2007). Fredrickson and Joiner (2002) acknowledge that an optimistic explanatory style result in upward spirals of performance and optimistic individuals are likely to express job satisfaction and well-being at work. Optimistic explanatory style increases job satisfaction, well-being, and organizational commitment at work because optimistic individuals attribute failure to external cause and assume that adverse situation are beyond their personal control (Seligman, 1998; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Optimistic individuals believe that adversities are temporary in nature and they do not give importance to negative circumstance (Seligman, 1998; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Those individuals who possess the psychological resource of optimism are most likely to pursue their desired goals and remain satisfied with their work (Seligman, 1998; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). 2.5 Resilience Theory and empirical evidence on resilience is mainly drawn from clinical psychology literature. Systematic study on resilience first began during 1970 s (Garmezy, 1971; Rutter, 1979).Researchers were surprised to find that those children who underwent chronic stressful events did not show adverse developmental outcomes. These unexpected research findings gave the requisite inquisitiveness to investigate the factors and process that nurtures and sustains resilience as a psychological resource (Garmezy, 1971, Rutter, 1979; Werner & Smith 1982). Garmezy s (1971) study on children whose parents suffered from schizophrenia is a hall mark in resilience research. 38

20 Masten and Reed (2002) have widely studied on adolescent children who displayed success and adaptation in spite of great adversity. Masten and Reed (2002) argue that those individuals who are endowed with resilience, display successful adoption in the time of difficulty and risk. From the stand point of POB, scope of resilience as a psychological construct has been widened. POB researchers have incorporated a cross disciplinary approach in understanding resilience in organizational contexts. Research in clinical and developmental psychology supports utility of resilience in organizational contexts. Resilience in organizational settings is defined by Luthans (2002a) the developable capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, and failure or even positive events, progress, and increased responsibility (p.702).study conducted by Fredrickson and Joiner (2002) observes a positive and proactive reaction of resilience component on growth of an upward spiraling effect on emotions. Luthans (2002a) agrees that ability of resilience includes both negative setbacks and positive events. It is claimed that resilience indicates coping responses to both negative and positive events (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002; Richardson, 2002). Resilience resource has been found to have demonstrated psychometric validity and is a measurable construct (e.g., Block & Kremen, 1996; Wagnild & Young, 1993) Resilience Protective Factors The scientific study on the protective factors of resilience is a paradigm shift in resilience research (Jessor, 1993). Resilience protective factor refers to those factors and circumstances that positively moderates the negative effects of risk and helps an individual to successfully adopt to the given situation (Masten, 1994).Werner (1993) categorized protective factors into within individual factors (outgoing, active, autonomous, positive self-concepts), in family factors (close bond emotionally stable parent), and in community factors (support from peers and elders).these factors in combinations help individuals to successfully adopt to challenging situations. 39

21 2.5.2 Resilience Risk Factors Masten et al. (2009, p. 119) define resilience risk factors as those that cause an elevated probability of an undesirable outcome. Risk factors also refers to vulnerability factors (Kirby & Fraser, 1997), Drug abuse, alcoholism (e.g., Johnson et al., 1998; Sandau-Beckler et al., 2002), experiencing violence (Qouta et al., 2001), continuous exposer to stressful event and experiencing burnout (Baron et al., 1996; Smith & Carlson, 1997), unemployment, under education, and poor health (Collins,2001) are the major risk factors that make an individual susceptible to poor adaptation in challenging circumstances and inhibit people from displaying resilience. However, it is important to note that presence of risk factors does not necessarily lead to poor adoption rather facing the risk factors may develop resistance to risk. In this context Cowan et al. (1996) argue in terms of processfocused perspective and they state that, the active ingredients of risk do not lie in the variable itself, but in the set of processes that flow from the variable, linking risk conditions with specific dysfunctional outcomes (p.9).they go on to compare individual s taking small doses of a disease through immunization and build on the resistance towards the disease. Therefore, effective adaptation to challenging circumstances occurs, when risk factors are properly identified and managed successfully using assets to combat risks factors Developmental Potential of Resilience Resilience is a dynamic and developable psychological resource (Masten, 2001).Waite and Richardson (2004) have empirically demonstrated effectiveness of training interventions in increasing resilience in work context. Masten et al. (2009) have identified the following types of resilience development plans which can be adopted in work environment. Asset-Focused Strategies: These strategies aim at enhancing the perceived and actual levels of assets and resources. Realization of these assets would help an individual to successfully adapt to difficult circumstances. Enhancement of human capital (education levels, skills, knowledge, and abilities) can help to increase resilience. Increase in social capital like development of relationship with the peers and developing networking within and outside the community would aid in resilience cultivation. Development of 40

22 psychological resources (optimism, self-efficacy, and hope) can also help in resilience growth. Management practice such as maintaining transparency, open communication, leader s authenticity, positive feedback, teamwork, recognition of merit, and implementing work-life balance programs can foster resilience in workplace (Luthans & Youseef, 2004; Youssef & Luthans, 2005a, 2005b). Risk-Focused Strategies: These involve risk-management strategies that would help an individual to manage probable risk by developing assets. Initiatives like coaching, mentoring, giving appropriate and constructive feedback would help develop confidence of the individual concerned and would help them to develop a pool of psychological assets. Such management practices would be of help in successful adoption. Positive approach like solving work related problem by means of promoting out of the box thinking and encouraging employees to take entrepreneurial initiatives would help individuals to develop resilience. Further, rewarding and promoting good eating habits and pursuing individuals to get engaged in physical exercise would also enhance resilience. Process-Focused Strategies: These strategies involve identifying, employing, and maintaining a suitable mix of assets in managing the risk factors. Cultivation of selfawareness and self-regulation are the key ways under these process-focused strategies. Possessing the appropriate asset may not be productive unless they are effectively assessed and employed. Self-awareness would help in accurate assessment of the assets and selfregulation would help in meticulous employment of the assets to overcome the risks and adversities. Moreover, empirical evidences suggest that resilience can be enhanced through training interventions (e.g., Luthans et al., 2010; Luthans et al., 2008; Peterson et al., 2011) Resilience and Work Outcomes Resilience has been found to be applicable and positively related to performance in the workplace (e.g., Coutu, 2002; Harland et al., 2005; Luthans et al., 2006; Waite & Richardson, 2004; Worline et al., 2002; Zunz, 1998).Other empirical studies have also found positive relationship of resilience with performance (e.g., Luthans et al., 2007 ; Luthans et al., 2008; Luthans et al., 2010; Peterson et al., 2011). Apart from positive linkage with performance, resilience has been found to be positively related to job satisfaction (e.g., Larson & Luthans,2006; Luthans et al., 2007). 41