Investing in Strengths:

Transcription

1 Investing in Strengths: Proactive Personality as a moderator in the relation between Strengths Intervention, Work Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Student: Karin van de Greef ANR: Project theme: Strengths intervention Project period: January 2014 summer 2014 Supervisors: Marianne van Woerkom & Christina Meyers

2 Abstract Strengths interventions are processes of identifying, valuing and developing strengths of employees and putting them into practice, based on the positive psychology approach and the strengths based approach. Previous research proved that these approaches are related with individual and organizational outcomes. This research hypothesized that strengths interventions positively affect organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), mediated by work engagement. Proactive personality had a moderating role on the relation between the strengths intervention and engagement. 71 respondents working in a Dutch construction company took part in the experiment, 32 of them received a strengths intervention. All respondents filled in questionnaires regarding their levels of work engagement, proactive personality and performance before, immediately after and one month after the intervention. Colleagues also rated the respondents on their levels of performance before and after the intervention. No significant results were found regarding the self-rated measurements. However, the peerrated measurements did show significant results regarding OCB. Colleagues of the respondents did think that the respondents of the experimental group did increase in OCB over time, whereas the respondents of the control group were evaluated as showing less OCB over time. Limitations and implications for future research were discussed. Keywords: strengths intervention, positive psychology, proactive personality, work engagement, organizational citizenship behavior 2

3 Table of Contents Abstract 2 Introduction 4 Theory and Hypotheses 6 Strengths Interventions 6 The relation between strengths interventions and work engagement 7 The moderating role of proactive personality in the relation between 8 strengths interventions and work engagement The relation between work engagement and Organizational 9 Citizenship Behavior Work engagement as a mediator in the relationship between strengths 11 interventions and Organizational Citizenship Behavior The relationship between strengths intervention and Organizational 11 Citizenship Behavior Methods 13 Design 13 Procedure 13 Participants 13 Measures 14 Data analysis 16 Results 19 Correlation analyses 19 Multivariate analysis of variance 20 Mixed between-within subjects analyses of variance 20 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses 23 Discussion 26 Limitations and future research 29 Practical and theoretical implications 30 References 31 3

4 Introduction People are crucial determinants for organizational success. It is therefore important to understand how human resource management (HRM) can affect individual and organizational performance. In the field of HRM, the focus is often on the weaknesses of employees and how to fix these weaknesses in a way that they do not hinder (organizational) performance. The positive psychology movement, started by an article of Seligman (1998), focuses on a more positive, strengths based approach. This approach is concerned with the belief of positive psychologists that the key to performance improvement lies in focusing on individual strengths. Strengths are defined as positive traits reflected in behaviors, feelings and thoughts (Park, Peterson & Seligman, 2004), as a natural capacity for behaving, thinking or feeling in a way that allows optimal functioning and performance in the pursuit of valued outcomes (Linley & Harrington, 2006, p.86) and as characteristics that make it possible for a person to perform well or at his or her personal best (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan & Hurling, 2011). The positive psychology approach is used as a base for the development of strengths interventions. These interventions focus on identifying, developing and using strengths. Organizations can use strengths interventions as a tool to improve their employees performance and therefore the organizations performance. Despite the possible advantages for employee and organizational performance, strengths interventions are not researched that much. For that reason, in this research the effects of a strengths intervention on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), as a form of employee performance, will be researched. Engagement will be have a moderating role in this direct effect. This research hypothesizes that when employees participate in a strengths intervention, they are more able to use their strengths in their work and that will make them feel more energized and dedicated to their work, increasing their engagement with their work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). According to the Happy-Productive Worker thesis of Staw (1986), increased well-being is related to increased (forms of) performance, for example organizational citizenship behavior. As engagement is seen as a part of well-being, this research hypothesizes that higher engagement leads to more organizational citizenship behavior. Next to that, Dikkers, Jansen, de Lange, Vinkenburg and Kooij (2010) found that employees with high job resources were more dedicated to their job when they had a proactive personality. A strengths intervention can be understood as a job resource. A proactive personality reinforces the impact of a job resource, in this case a strengths intervention, on for instance engagement. 4

5 Summarizing the above, this research will use proactive personality as a moderating variable to research the effect of proactive personality on the relation between strengths intervention and engagement. To date, there has been hardly any research that investigated the link between strengths interventions and performance. Most research on strength interventions focused on the wellbeing related outcomes, for example engagement (Quinlan, Swain, & Vella-Brodrick, 2012). Govindji and Linley (2007) have found supporting evidence for the hypothesis that using ones strengths at work increases the psychological well-being, a construct where engagement is part of. This research takes it further and links the relation between strengths intervention and engagement to the performance related outcome, OCB. Research investigating strengths interventions and performance mediated by another variable, for example engagement, has not been found. Different from earlier research, this research uses objective measures of performance by using peer-rated performance measures. Summarizing, the current research will add more insights on the relation between strengths interventions and organizational citizenship behavior, mediated by engagement. Also, it provides insights on the moderating effect of a personal trait on the relation of strengths interventions and employee engagement. All the above led to the following research question: To what extent is the relation between strengths interventions and organizational citizenship behavior mediated by work engagement, and to what extent is the relation between strength intervention and engagement moderated by proactive personality? 5

6 Theory and Hypotheses Strengths interventions Strengths interventions are based on the positive psychology approach. Key in this approach are strengths. Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan and Hurling (2011) characterize strengths as characteristics of a person that allow them to perform well or at their personal best (p. 16). Peterson and Seligman (2004) define strengths as being 1) a stable trait, 2) enhancing other people when expressed rather than harming them and 3) intrinsically considered to be a moral quality, regardless any benefits. This research is based on the idea that every person has a relatively stable set of strengths. However, these strengths can be developed, what is of importance when using a strengths intervention to affect performance (Biswar-Diener, Kashdan, & Minhas, 2011; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The strengths-based approach is focused on developing strengths and talents instead of fixing weaknesses of employees (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). According to Clifton and Harter (2003) organizations that make use of the strengths-based approach do not ignore weaknesses, but focus more on gaining optimization by identifying and building upon strengths and talents. The shift towards a more positive psychology approach may be of great value to organizations, because using strengths increases satisfaction, energy levels, engagement, motivation, and employee health (Linley & Harrington, 2006; Peterson & Park, 2006; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Because it can be hard to use strengths by oneself, for the simple reason that employees are not aware of them (Biswar-Diener et al., 2011), employees can take part in a strengths intervention to identify and develop their strengths. A strengths intervention is an example of a positive psychology intervention. These interventions are based on 1) the cultivation of positive subjective experiences, 2) the building of positive individual traits, or 3) the building of civic virtue and positive institutions (Meyers, van Woerkom & Bakker, 2012, p. 3). A strengths intervention is more specific and has the aim to help an employee identify and develop his or her strengths, and also provides insights in how these strengths can be used in the workplace (Quinlan, Swain, & Vella-Brodick, 2012). Beneficial of a strengths intervention is that the activity is relatively short and easy to implement for organizations. 6

7 The relation between strengths interventions and work engagement Strengths interventions can affect work engagement. Work engagement is defined as a positive work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor (high energy), dedication (high identification), and absorption (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007b in Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009). Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) hypothesize that when certain job resources are available to employees, employees feel more engaged with their work. Job resources are defined as physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that either/or (1) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; (2) are functional in achieving work goals; (3) stimulate personal growth, learning and development (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Strength interventions reduce job demands by providing employees insights in their strengths so they can cope with psychological demands. This makes it easier for employees to achieve work goals, developing and stimulating the growth of the employee and motivating employees. Because strengths interventions meet the characteristics of a job resource mentioned above, this research will see strengths interventions as a job resource. So, when a strengths intervention is available to employees, they will feel more engaged to their work. Meyers and Van Woerkom (in press) describe three theoretical reasons why strengths interventions have a positive influence on engagement. First, using strengths is an energizing process, making employees feel more invigorated (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Therefore, using strengths increases the vigor component of engagement (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007b in Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009). Second, the Effort- Recovery model of Meijman and Mulder (1998) states that work environments that offer job resources, promoting making use of strengths, cultivate the willingness of an employee to dedicate his or her efforts or abilities to their work tasks. So, when the willingness of the employee is stimulated, the engagement of the employee increases. Third, by identifying strengths, actively using these strengths and choosing a job that encourages the use of these strengths, a flow experience (Csikzentmihalyi, 1990) can be triggered (Seligman, 2002). This flow experience is closely related to the component absorption of engagement. The three theoretical reasons mentioned above suggest that strengths interventions can have a positive effect on engagement. The research of Seligman, Steen, Park and Peterson (2005) showed that the benefits of strengths came from the actual use of strengths rather than the process of identifying strengths. The actual use of strengths is also linked to engagement, whereas work engagement is part of (work- 7

8 related) well-being, and Wood et al. (2011) found that greater use of strengths was related to increased well-being. The research suggests that when strengths lead to increased well-being over time, interventions focusing on increased strengths use may be an option to build long term resilience and optimal functioning of an individual. With this is mind, this research suggests that when the actual use of strengths increases, for instance as a result of a strengths intervention, the engagement of an employees will also increase. The study of Minhas (2010) found that whether employees, participating in a strengths intervention, developed strengths known to them and used before or whether they developed strengths they did not use before, engagement increased after participating in the intervention. Summarizing the above, the following hypothesis is formed: Hypothesis1. Strengths interventions have a positive effect on work engagement The moderating role of proactive personality in the relation between strengths interventions and work engagement Whereas the use of strengths can influence engagement, proactive personality can influence the relation between strengths interventions and engagement. The view on work behavior has shifted from a non-active performance concept to a more active performance concept (Frese and Fay, 2001). In today s fast changing and highly competitive business environment, employees have to make decisions by themselves to perform in a business, they cannot simply wait for a task and do what is told to them. This process would take too long and would not be beneficial for the performance of a business. When an employee has a proactive personality, he or she can react to the fast changing and highly competitive business environment and is valuable for a business. This person will show proactive behavior, challenging the status quo, taking initiative and will go beyond work requirements (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996; Crant, 2000). According to Bateman and Crant (1993, in Crant 2000) the prototypical proactive personality is someone who is relatively unconstrained by situational forces and who effects environmental change. People with a proactive personality are identifying opportunities and act on them, show initiative, take action, and persevere until meaningful change occurs (Crant, 2000, p. 439). They also search for learning opportunities and engaging in learning activities (Frese et al., 1996). Less proactive employees are reactive and more willing to adapt to circumstances than to change circumstances. 8

9 Bateman and Crant (1993) define proactive personality as a relatively stable tendency to effect environmental change that differentiates people in the way they take action to change their environments. Crant (2000) also states that proactive personality is a relatively stable personal disposition (p.442). So, in this research, proactive personality is also seen as a trait rather than a more flexible construct. The research of Dikkers, Jansen, de Lange, Vinkenburg and Kooij (2010) found that high job resources are more strongly related to engagement (dedication) over time among employees with a proactive personality. The explanation of the researchers for this finding is that proactive personality reinforces the impact of job resources. The findings might imply that employees with a proactive personality will be more capable to use insights gained through the strengths intervention to model their work in such a way that they feel positive about it and, consequently, feel more engaged with their work. The Conservation of Resources (COR) theory of Hobfoll (2001) is built on the idea that having one resource, is linked to having other resources (a so-called resource caravan ). A proactive personality can be seen as a personal resource (Dikkers et al., 2010), that can be linked to other resources. Employees with a proactive personality easier generate other resources, like support from a supervisor, than employees without a proactive personality. Those other resources make the employee more able to apply strengths in the workplace. As mentioned earlier, increases in the use of ones strengths leads to increases in engagement (Wood et al., 2011). Also, proactive employees will engage in and make more use of a learning opportunity in the form of a strengths intervention. After the workshop, proactive personality employees will more actively search for or adjust situations where they specifically can use their identified strengths, which in turn makes them feel more engaged, in comparison to employees with a less proactive personality that will not specifically look for or adjust situations to use their strengths. Summarizing the above, the following hypothesis is formed: H2. The relation between strengths interventions and work engagement will be more positive among employees with a proactive personality than among employees without a proactive personality The relation between work engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Performance is defined as the accomplishment of fulfilling the job s core tasks (in-role) and the extra tasks-accomplishments that contribute to the organizational, psychological and social 9

10 environment (extra-role) (Van Woerkom & Meyers, in press). Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) make a distinction between two forms of extra-role behavior, 1) behaviors of interpersonal facilitation and 2) behaviors showing dedication to the job. Van Woerkom and Meyers (in press) translate behaviors of interpersonal facilitation as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). OCB covers the important and useful activities at the workplace that are desirable to the organization and that go further than the tasks described in formal job descriptions (Williams & Shiaw, 1999) or are those organization-directed behaviors that go above and beyond normal task performance and are critical to the effective functioning of any organization (Kane, Magnusen, & Perrewé, 2012, p.29). Key in these definitions are the benefits for the organization that result from the extra exerted behavior of the employee. Examples of OCB activities are talking favorably about the organization to outsiders, volunteering to help co-workers, gaining knowledge (Van Woerkom & Meyers, in press). The link between work engagement and OCB can be explained by the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions of Fredrickson (2001). This theory states that certain discrete positive emotions although phenomenologically distinct, all share the ability to broaden people's momentary thought action repertoires and build their enduring personal resources, ranging from physical and intellectual resources to social and psychological resources (Fredrickson, 2001, p. 219). The theory can be applied to positive emotions. Because engagement also refers to a positive state, the reasoning of the broaden-and-build theory can also be applied for the relation between engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. The theory describes that in a positive state, a positive action will occur. In this case, when the feeling(s) of vigor, dedication and/or absorption occur, the mind of the employee broadens beyond the tasks of the job description and actions not included in the job description, organizational citizenship behaviors, can occur. Frederickson also names two explanations for positive feelings triggering OCB. First, when experiencing positive feelings, people have the tendency to show approach behavior to other people and second, it leads to greater perceived similarity with others (Waugh & Fredrickson, 2006) resulting in more likeliness to help others (Van Woerkom & Meyers, in press). Thus, when employees are feeling engaged (positive feeling) than they will turn that emotion into positive actions, such as organizational citizenship behaviors. 10

11 Next to the broaden-and-build theory, Cropanzano and Wright (2001) use the Happy- Productive Worker Thesis of Staw (1986) stating that when happiness is operationalized as well-being, it is positively related to various measures of job performance. The Happy Productive Worker Thesis (Staw, 1986) is operationalized consisting out of four constructs, where psychological well-being is one of them. Cropanzano and Wright (2001) define happiness in their research as psychological well-being and have found evidence, in according with the research of Staw (1986), for the relation between well-being and job performance. They found that employees with high well-being reported higher levels of subjective and objective performance. Engagement is an aspect of the concept well-being and therefore also related to various measures of job performance. The above is summarized in the following hypothesis: H3. Work engagement is positively related to Organizational Citizenship Behavior Work engagement as a mediator in the relationship between strengths interventions and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Combining hypothesis 1 and 3 together, this research expects that engagement mediates the relationship between a strengths intervention and organizational citizenship behavior. The effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable is transmitted by a mediating variable (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007). With this in mind, it is likely that a strengths intervention on itself will not directly lead to increased OCB, but it is a determinant for engagement, which in turn will lead to increased OCB. Summarizing the above, the following hypothesis is formed: H4. Work engagement mediates the relationship between strengths interventions and OCB The relationship between strengths intervention and Organizational Citizenship Behavior According to the Social Exchange Theory (Emerson, 1976) employees who receive something from their organization, for instance a training, feel like the organization is investing in him or her. To balance the relation between the employee and the organization, the employee can reciprocate the investment with behaviors that go further than the tasks described in their job descriptions, organizational citizenship behaviors. This leads to the following hypothesis: 11

12 H5. Strengths Interventions are positively related to OCB All hypotheses mentioned above describe the following model: Proactive Personality Strengths Intervention Work Engagement Organizational Citizenship Behavior 12

13 Methods Design In order to test the hypotheses, a quasi-experiment with a pre-test post-test design was conducted. All research participants were divided into two groups, an experimental and a waitlist-control group, based on subscription for one of the workshops. Participants were not aware whether they were part of the experimental or the control group. Only the experimental group participated in a strengths training. This training was provided by an independent professional and was aimed at providing participants more insight in their strengths and how to use their strengths more. Participants did also receive an assignment that they had to prepare before the training. At the end of the training a buddy was assigned to all participants. This person helped the participants remind the goals they had set during the training, once they were back at their workplace. Procedure A total of three questionnaires were filled out by the experimental and the control group. Two weeks before the first training all participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire (pre-test) (t1) about strengths, personal characteristics, engagement and performance. Two weeks later the experimental group participated in the workshops. Directly after the training, the participants were asked to fill in another questionnaire (t2). A month after the first workshop, the both groups received the third questionnaire (post-test) (t3), in order to measure their work outcomes after the intervention. Only the results of the first and third questionnaires were use in this study. When all questionnaires were filled in and received, the control group also received the strengths training. To collect more objective measures, colleagues of the participants filled in two questionnaires about the performance of the participant. One questionnaire was filled in before the participant received the training (t1) and the second questionnaire was filled in one month after the training (t2). Participants The participants of this study were all employees of Heijmans, a Dutch construction company. The study was conducted at Jong Heijmans, a special organization for young employees within Heijmans. The (potential) members of Jong Heijmans received an invitation with 13

14 information about the study and the strengths workshop. Members could subscribe voluntarily to participate in the workshop. The first questionnaire was send to all subscribers for the workshop (N=74). A number of N=71 respondents completed the questionnaire, 3 people who subscribed did not fill in the questionnaire and will therefore not be part of the research. Of the participating respondents, 66,2% was male and the average age of the respondents was 28,8 years. The respondents were highly educated, 75% completed higher of academic education. The experimental group consisted of N=32 respondents, N=41 respondents were part of the control group. The post-measurement had a response of N=57. At t3 the experimental group consisted out of N=25 respondents, the number of respondent that was part of the control group was N=32. Measures The data of the questionnaires were used to measure the variables engagement, proactive personality and organizational citizenship behavior. The variable proactive personality was only measured in the pre-test, because the variable is seen in this research as a trait and will therefore not change over time. There were different questionnaires distributed, questionnaires for the participants and questionnaires for a colleague. This third-person rating by a colleague was used to measure outcomes of the strengths intervention, engagement and OCB of the participant. At baseline measurement, the levels of trait- and state-variables were measured. After the intervention, only the levels of the state-variables that can be influenced in the month between the intervention and the third measurement were measured. To check what the smallest amount of items is that reflect the construct that has to be measured, a principal component analysis (PCA) was executed for all scales. The scales are sufficient when the Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) measure was be higher than.6 and the Bartlett s sphericity test was significant (p<.05). With the eigenvalues and the scree plot, the number of components per scale is determined. Next to the measures mentioned above, the reliability of the scales had to be higher than.7 to be reliable. According to Pallant (2007) however, a Cronbach s alpha of.8 is preferable. In addition, the Alpha if item deleted should be lower than Cronbach s alpha and the Corrected item-total correlation had to be higher than.3. All scales met the conditions mentioned above, and for that reason the scales were approved. 14

15 Engagement was measured with the UWES-9 scale by Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova (2006). An example question is my work inspires me (1= never to 7= daily, always ). Factor analysis reported a significant KMO value of.908 (p<.05). The eigenvalues and scree plot indicated that all items loaded on one factor. The eigenvalue of the work engagement scale was 6.75, explaining 74,9% of the variance. The Cronbach s alpha of the scale was sufficient with a value of.956. Despite a very small increase in reliability if item nine was to be deleted, the scale was not altered. Proactive personality was measured with the 6-item version of Bateman and Crant s Proactive personality Scale (1993, in Claes, Beheydt & Lemmens, 2005). An example question of the employee questionnaire is I am always looking for better ways to do things (1= certainly not agree to 7= certainly agree ). Factor analysis reported a significant KMO value of this scale at the value of.77 (p<.05). The eigenvalue of 2,89 explained 48,2% of the variance and the scree plot indicated items loading on one factor. Cronbach s alpha was.783. Organizational Citizenship Behavior was measured with two different constructs. The scales used to measure organizational citizenship behavior were used for the employee questionnaire as well as the colleague questionnaire. Interpersonal facilitation was measured with three items taken from Van Scotter, Motowidlo and Cross (2000). An example question of the employee questionnaire is I praise colleagues when they are successful (1= totally not apply to me to 10= totally apply to me ). An example question of the manager questionnaire is this employee praises colleagues when they are successful (1= totally not apply to him/her 10= totally apply to him/her ). Job dedication was also measured with three items taken from Van Scotter, Motowidlo and Cross (2000). An example question of the employee questionnaire is I take initiative to solve problems at work (1= totally not apply to me to 10= totally apply to me ). An example question of the manager questionnaire is this employee takes initiative to solve problems at work (1= totally not apply to him/her 10= totally apply to him/her ). Factor analysis reported a significant KMO value of.689 (p<.05) and an eigenvalue of 2.56 that explained 42,6% of the variance. The factor analysis for the self-rated OCB measures indicated that some of the items loaded on two factors. As mentioned above, OCB covers the two constructs interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. However, the third item of interpersonal facilitation did also load (negatively) on the second factor, just as the three items of job dedication. Item two of job dedication did also load negatively in the second factor. Next to this, the loadings of the variables all loaded higher in one factor, than they did on the second. For this reason, there is chosen for a one factor self-rated OCB measure. The 15

16 Cronbach s alpha of the scale was.702. Deletion of item 2 does increase Cronbach s alpha, but due to the very little increase, the item is not deleted. The factor analysis for peer-rated OCB measure reported a significant KMO value of.596 (p<0.5) and an eigenvalue of 2.44, that explained 40.6% of the variance. Comparable to the self-rated OCB scale, the factor analysis indicated that some items load on two factors. Also in this case, due to the same reason mentioned above, a one factor peer-rated OCB measure was chosen. The Cronbach s Alpha of the peer-rated measure was.651. Item 6 increases Cronbach s Alpha, but due the very little increase the item was chosen not to be deleted. The control variables used in this study were gender (0= male, 1= female ) and the level of education (1= elementary to 5= academic ). These control variable were based of the research of Kidder (2002) that found significant results between gender and OCB and the study of Wahn (1998) that researched relations between gender, organizational commitment and job satisfaction, concepts that are closely linked to work engagement. The choice for education as a control variable is based on the research of Ng and Feldman (2009) that found a relation between education and OCB. Data Analysis To test the hypotheses of this study SPSS Statistics version 19 was used. First, the data were checked for missing values and mistakes. Missing values were excluded pairwise, meaning that a respondent was only excluded if the required data for a specific analysis was missing (Pallant, 2007). Negative formulated items were reversed and the scales reflecting the variables were formed. Next, the data was checked for abnormalities, linearity, outliers and the normality of the data were assessed. All variables were linear and also reasonably normally distributed, based on the skewness. In both the work engagement-scale (t1) and the OCB- scale (t3) an outlier was found. To rule out that these outliers influenced the research results, the analyses of the research were repeated without the two outliers. The same results were found when comparing for significance and model fit. For that reason was decided to keep the outliers in the analyses. To test the scales for reliability, the Cronbach s alphas and the inter-item correlations were checked. After testing for reliability, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted for all variables at all measurement points. This gave an indication about the direction and the strength of the relationships of the variables. 16

17 Next, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was executed; hence there was no random selection possible when dividing the respondents into the experimental and control groups. This analysis showed if there are possible significant differences between the groups at the baseline measurement (t1). To compare the groups over time, a mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted, with the experimental condition as between-subjects factor and time as a within-subject factor (Pallant, 2007) to investigate the effect of the strengths intervention on engagement and OCB over time. This analysis displayed whether there were changes in engagement over the three time periods. It also displayed the effectiveness of the strengths intervention on engagement, so if there is a difference between the group that took part in the intervention and the group that did not take part in the intervention. The analysis also tells whether the change in engagement over time is different for the two groups. The mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) will also be conducted with the selfand peer-rated measures of OCB to investigate the effect of the strengths intervention on OCB over time and between the two groups. After the ANOVA, three hierarchical multiple regressions were executed. The first regression was executed to test the moderating effect of proactive personality. Before conducting the regression, a grand-mean center for the variables group and proactive personality were made, meaning the variables were recoded into new variables by subtracting its overall mean. Next, group and proactive personality were computed into an interaction term. In the regression control variables gender and education level and baseline engagement (t1) were entered in block 1. In block 2 the grouping variable and proactive personality were entered. In the third block, the interaction effect of strengths intervention and proactive personality was entered. The second hierarchical multiple regression analysis were conducted to test the mediating effect of work engagement. The second regression contained the control variables, work engagement (t1) and self-rated OCB (t1) in block 1. In block 2, the grouping variable was entered. In block 3 in the regression work engagement (t3) was entered. According to MacKinnon, Fairchild and Fritz (2007) the model will be fully mediated when engagement completely explains the relation between strengths intervention and OCB and when there is a significant relation between strengths intervention and engagement. The model is partially mediated when the relation between strengths intervention and OCB is partially 17

18 explained by engagement and when OCB is still significantly predicted by the intervention when controlling for engagement. This second analysis is also executed with the peer-rated OCB measurements. In this regression, the self-rated OCB (t1) is replaced by peer-rated OCB (t1). The rest of the analysis is comparable to the analysis with the self-rated OCB variable. 18

19 Results Correlation analyses To investigate the strengths of the relationships between the variables strengths intervention (group), work engagement, OCB, proactive personality, gender and education a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used. Work engagement (t1) and self-rated and peer-rated OCB (t1) are positively significant correlated (r=.42, p<0.01; r=.27, p<0.05). According to Cohen (1988, pp.79-81, in Pallant, 2007) the strength of this relationship can be interpreted as medium. At the one month follow-up measurement (t3) the relation between work engagement and self-rated OCB (t3) was also a medium, positive significant correlation (r=.44, p<0.01). The strength of the relations between work engagement (t1) and self-rated OCB (t3) (r=.43, p<0.01) and between work engagement (t3) and self-rated OCB (t1) (r=.35, p<0.01) were both medium and positively significant. The peer-rated OCB (t1) measure and work engagement (t3) correlate significantly positive (r=.27, p<0.05). In contrast to the hypotheses described before, no significant correlations were found with regard to the strengths intervention. Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities & Correlations M SD N Alpha Gender¹ 0,34 0, Education² 4,11 0, ,24 *. 3. Strengths Intervention³ 0,45 0, ,07 0, Self-ratedOCB(t1) 7,60 0,76 71,70 0,14-0,01 0, Peer-rated OCB(t1) 7,51 0,86 62,70-0,02 0,02-0,05 0, Work Engagement(t1) 5,37 1,14 71,96 0,06 0,02 0,08 0,42 ** 0,27 *. 7. Self-rated OCB(t3) 7,45 0,72 57,65-0,13-0,10-0,01 0,59 ** 0,22 0,43 **. 8. Peer-rated OCB(t3) 7,53 0,65 50,65 0,18 0,04 0,11-0,10 0,67 ** 0,21 0, Work Engagement(t3) 5,29 1,05 57,95-0,01-0,02-0,05 0,35 ** 0,27 * 0,88 ** 0,44 ** 0, Proactive Personality 5,08 0,72 71,78-0,09 0,11 0,21 0,47 ** 0,12 0,33 ** 0,52 ** -0,12 0,24. *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). t1=post-test measurement, t3=one month follow-up. ¹ 0=male, 1=female. ²1=elementary =, 2=basic, 3=secondary, 4=higher, 5=academic. ³0=control group, 1=experimental group Proactive personality displays a significant, positive correlation with work engagement (t1) (r=.33, p<0.01) and self-rated OCB (t1) (r=.47, p<0.01). There is a strong positive correlation for proactive personality and work engagement (t3) (r=.52, p<0.01), indicating that high levels 19

20 of proactive personality are associated with high levels of work engagement at time of the one month follow-up. The baseline measurements of work engagement and self- and peer-rated OCB and the follow up measurements work engagement (t3) and self-rated OCB (t3), are positively significant. Table 1 displays means, standard deviation, reliabilities and correlations of all study variables. Multivariate analysis of variance Since random sampling was not used in this research, there had to be checked whether there were significant differences between the experimental and control groups at baseline level (t1). This was done by conducting a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The Box s test, Levene s test and Wilks Lambda did not violate the assumptions. Results indicate that the groups did not differ on self- and peer-rated OCB, work engagement and proactive personality (F(4,57)=1.46, p=.23; Wilks Lambda=.91; partial eta squared=.09). When the results for the variables were considered separately, there were also no significant differences in self-rated OCB (F(1,60)=.05, p=.83, partial eta squared=.00), peer-rated OCB (F(1,60)=.15, p=.70, partial eta squared=.00), work engagement (F(1,60)=.30, p=.59, partial eta squared=.01) and proactive personality (F(1.60)=3.92, p=.05, partial eta squared=.06). Mixed between-within subjects analyses of variance Three mixed between-within subjects analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to assess the effect of the strengths intervention on participants scores on work engagement and on OCB and the peer-ratings on OCB across two time periods. The first ANOVA investigated the differences between groups on scores on work engagement over time. There was no significant interaction between time and group (F(1,55)=.06, p=.80, Wilks Lambda=1.00, partial eta squared=.00). The main effect of time was also not significant (F(1,55)=2.53, p=.12, Wilks Lambda=.96, partial eta squared=.04). The main effect comparing the experimental and control group was not significant (F(1,55)=.09, p=.77, partial eta squared=.00), indicating that there were no significant differences in scores on work engagement between the groups. The second ANOVA investigated the differences between groups on self-rated OCB scores over time. The interaction between time and group was not significant (F(1,55)=.07, p=.79, Wilks Lambda=1.00, partial eta squared=.00). The analysis also showed no significant results for time (F(1,55)=3.63, p=.06, Wilks Lambda=.94, partial eta squared=.06). The main effect comparing the groups on the scores on self-rated OCB was not significant (F(1,55)=.00, p=.98, 20

21 partial eta squared=.00), indicating no significant differences between groups on self-rated OCB. The third ANOVA investigated the differences between the experimental and control groups measures on peer-rated OCB over time. There was no significant interaction between time and group (F(1,47)=2.82, p=.10, Wilks Lambda=.94, partial eta squared=.06) using a two-tailed significance level. However, because hypothesis 5 is stated in a certain direction, a one-tailed significance level may be used. In that case the significance level is divided by two and the differences between the peer-ratings of OCB over time are significant. The main effect of time is not significant (F(1,47)=.78, p=.38, Wilks Lambda=.98, partial eta squared=.02). The main effect comparing the peer-ratings on OCB was not significant (F(1,47)=.03, p=.87, partial eta squared=.00), implicating that there are no significant differences between groups concerning peer-rated OCB. Table 2, figures 1, 2 and 3 show the scores on work engagement, self-rated and peer-rated OCB across the two time periods. Table 2. Scores on Work Engagement, Self-rated OCB and Peer-rated OCB for the groups across two time periods Time period Group Mean Std. Dev. N Work Engagement t1 Control group 5,42 1,09 32 Experimental group 5,36 1,03 25 Work Engagement t3 Control group 5,33 1,00 32 Experimental group 5,23 1,12 25 Self-rated OCB t1 Control group 7,60 0,82 32 Experimental group 7,63 0,67 25 Self-rated OCB t3 Control group 7,46 0,64 32 Experimental group 7,44 0,82 25 Peer-rated OCB t1 Control group 7,56 0,88 26 Experimental group 7,36 0,97 23 Peer-rated OCB t3 Control group 7,48 0,71 26 Experimental group 7,54 0,

22 Figure 1. Plot differences in work engagement between groups over time Figure 2. Plot differences in self-rated OCB between groups over time 22

23 Figure 3. Plot differences in peer-rated OCB between groups over time Hierarchical multiple regression analyses Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to assess the ability of the strengths intervention to predict levels of engagement and OCB, after controlling for gender and education. The first analysis assessed the moderation effect of proactive personality on the relation between the strengths intervention and engagement. Gender, education and the baseline measurement of work engagement were entered in the first step, explaining 77,5% of the variance of work engagement. After entering of proactive personality (β= -.05, p=.52) and the strengths intervention (β= -.11, p=.11) variable at step 2, the total variance explained was 79,0% ( R²=.02, p=.17). After entry of the interaction variable of proactive personality and strengths interventions (β=.07, p=.77) the total variance explained by the modal as a whole was 79,0%, F(6,50)=31,34, p<.001. This means the interaction effect does not explain additional variance in work engagement ( R²=.00, p=.77). The results described above reject hypothesis 2. As table 3 shows, the hierarchical multiple regression analysis does not result in a significant effect of the strengths intervention on work engagement. This is consistent with the results of the ANOVA. For this reason, hypothesis 1 is rejected. 23

24 Table 3. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis Work Engagement and moderating effect Proactive personality Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 b SE β b SE β b SE β Gender¹ -0,12 0,15-0,05-0,12 0,15-0,05-0,11 0,15-0,05 Education² -0,03 0,09-0,02-0,02 0,09-0,02-0,03 0,09-0,02 Work engagement 0,81 0,06 0,88* 0,83 0,06 0,91* 0,82 0,07 0,90* Strenghts Intervention³ -0,22 0,14-0,11-0,23 0,14-0,11 Proactive personality -0,07 0,10-0,05-0,05 0,11-0,04 Interaction Intervention and Proactive personality 0,07 0,23 0,02 R² R² F 60.71* Dependent variable; Work engagement (t3) Note: b=unstandardized regression coefficient, SE= standard error, β= standardized regression coefficient *p <.001 ¹ 0=male, 1=female. ²1=elementary =, 2=basic, 3=secondary, 4=higher, 5=academic. ³0=control group, 1=experimental group To test whether work engagement is a mediating variable in the relation between the strengths intervention and OCB, a second hierarchical multiple regression analyses was conducted. The mediation is assessed using the method of Mc Kinnon, Fairchild and Fritz (2007). The first step of the method is assessing the direct effect between the strengths intervention and work engagement. As described above, there is no significant direct effect. In step 2, a regression a conducted. In step 1 of the regression gender, education, self-rated OCB baseline and work engagement baseline were entered, explaining 43,7% of the variance of selfrated OCB(t3). When entering the strengths intervention variable (β=-.02, p=.88) in step 2, the variance explaining self-rated OCB did not change. In step 3, when the work engagement (t3) scale (β=-.28, p=.22) was entered, the total variance explaining self-rated OCB (t3) was 45,4% ( R²=.02, p=.22). Work engagement (t3) did not have a significant effect on self-rated OCB (t3). There was also no significant effect of the strengths intervention on self-rated OCB (t3). Because there were no significant relationships between the independent variable and the mediating variable and between the mediating variable and the dependent variable found, there cannot be a mediating effect of a third variable. When conducting the hierarchical multiple regression analysis with the peer-rated OCB measures, there were also no significant results found as can be seen in table 4. In step 1 of the regression analysis with the peer-rated OCB measures gender, education, peer-rated OCB baseline and work engagement baseline were entered, explaining 48,2% of the variance of peerrated OCB (t3). In step 2 the strengths intervention variable (β=.13, p=.25) was entered, 24

25 explaining 49,9% of the variance of peer-rated OCB (t3) ( R²=.02, p=.25). When entering work engagement (t3)(β=.37, p=.14) in step 3, the total variance explaining peer-rated OCB (t3) was 52,7% ( R²=.03, p=.14). Tables 4a and 4b show the results of the regression analyses with selfand peer-rated OCB as dependent measures. The results above reject hypothesis 3, stating that work engagement would be a positively related to self-rated or peer-rated OCB. Also, there are no results that indicate the hypothesized mediation effect (H4). Table 4a Hierarchical multiple regression analysis Self-rated OCB and mediating effect work engagement Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 b SE β b SE β b SE β Gender¹ -0,31 0,16-0,20-0,30 0,16-0,20-0,29 0,16-0,19 Education² -0,04 0,10-0,04-0,04 0,10-0,04-0,03 0,10-0,04 Self-rated OCB(t1) 0,50 0,11 0,53* 0,50 0,11 0,53* 0,50 0,11 0,53* Work engagement(t1) 0,14 0,07 0,22 0,14 0,07 0,22-0,02 0,15-0,03 Strenghts Intervention³ -0,02 0,15-0,02 0,02 0,15 0,02 Work engagement(t3) 0,19 0,16 0,28 R² R² F 10.08* 7,92 6,92 Dependent variable; self-rated OCB(t3) Note: b=unstandardized regression coefficient, SE= standard error, β= standardized regression coefficient *p <.001 ¹ 0=male, 1=female. ²1=elementary =, 2=basic, 3=secondary, 4=higher, 5=academic. ³0=control group, 1=experimental group Table 4b Hierarchical multiple regression analysis Peer-rated OCB and mediating effect work engagement Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 b SE β b SE β b SE β Gender¹ 0,27 0,16 0,20 0,26 0,16 0,19 0,28 0,16 0,21 Education² -0,02 0,10-0,02-0,02 0,10-0,02-0,01 0,10-0,01 Peer-rated OCB(t1) 0,50 0,09 0,67* 0,51 0,09 0,68* 0,50 0,09 0,66* Work engagement(t1) 0,01 0,07 0,02 0,00 0,07 0,01-0,18 0,14-0,32 Strenghts Intervention³ 0,17 0,15 0,13 0,23 0,15 0,17 Work engagement(t3) 0,23 0,15 0,36 R² R² F 9,29 7,78 7,06 Dependent variable; Peer-rated OCB(t3) Note: b=unstandardized regression coefficient, SE= standard error, β= standardized regression coefficient *p <.001 ¹ 0=male, 1=female. ²1=elementary =, 2=basic, 3=secondary, 4=higher, 5=academic. ³0=control group, 1=experimental group 25

26 Discussion The aim of this study was to find out whether a strengths intervention has a positive effect on an employees work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. The study also investigated to what extent having a proactive personality influenced the relation between the intervention and work engagement. This led to the following research question: To what extent is the relation between strengths interventions and organizational citizenship behavior mediated by engagement, and to what extent is the relation between strength intervention and engagement moderated by proactive personality? This question was answered with help of respondents (N=71) working at a Dutch construction company, placed in either the control group (N=39) or in the experimental group (N=32) that received the strengths intervention. In contrast to the studies of Minhas (2010), Meyers and Van Woerkom (in press), and Clifton & Harter (2003), there were no significant results found supporting the hypothesis that participating in a strengths intervention is related to higher work engagement. Many studies about strengths interventions (Seligman et al., 2005; Seligman, 2002; Wood et al., 2011) has found evidence regarding the actual use of strengths and its effect on well-being rather than the process of identifying and developing strengths. This study focused on the process on identifying, developing and helping employees use their strengths and not only on the actual use of strengths in the workplace. This because of the reason that it might not have been possible for participants to even use their strengths in the workplace. This could explain why this study has not found evidence for the relation between the strengths intervention and engagement, while the research mentioned above did find significant results. However, the study of Biswas-Diener et al. (2011) does indicate that there are negative consequences of strengths use that could explain the results of this study. In their study, Biswas-Diener et al. (2011) state that especially when people experience setbacks or failures when using their strengths in their work, they could feel disappointed or disengaged. However, this was only the case with employees who think that their strengths are stable entities that cannot be altered. It could be that the intervention of this study failed to convey employees that strengths can be developed and refined, and that the effect of Biswas-Diener et al. (2011) could have been a reason for the fact that this study did not find a significant positive effect between the intervention and work engagement. 26