The Strengths-Centric Approach to People Development By Dr. Sunil Maheshwari

“Follow your bliss, and the universe will open doors for you where there were only walls.” ― Joseph Campbell

1. Background Over the last three decades, a novel paradigm has emerged in people development. This new approach emphasizes the discovery, affirmation, and enhancement of the capabilities, interests, knowledge, resources, goals, and objectives of individuals, teams and organizations (Cederbaum & Klusaritz, 2009). It shifts the focus of development from correcting the numerous weaknesses of people towards actually nurturing and leveraging their finest individual strengths. This perspective draws upon the humanistic psychology approach that emphasizes the potential of the individual. The strengths approach entails a fundamental view of human beings as being capable of deep change and development, and embodies a holistic respect for the dignity and uniqueness of the individual. Min (2011) refers to strengths-based approach not only as a new intervening paradigm that runs counter to the deficit-focused approach, but also as a philosophical principle that addresses the basic demands of harmonious social existence. There is ample evidence that strengths-based leadership is outperforming traditional practices. Several studies illustrate the impact of strengths-based development on numerous outcomes - including productivity, employee engagement as well as confidence. 2. Strengths-versus Deficit based Approach Talent or organization development has constructed much of its theory and practice focusing on deficits, problems, and weaknesses. Sousa, Ribeiro & Rodrigues (2006) have stated that the dominant language in the present age is deficit-based. The foundation of OD has been the traditional problem-solving model, sometimes called a “positivistic”, “deficit” or “medical model” (Healy, 2005). In this paradigm, the OD specialist acts as the “expert” and usually designs the solution or intervention after an exploration of the system’s area of discomfort.

 

On the other hand, a central principle of the strengths-based approach is the notion of a system as the expert of its own situation. The strengths based approach values self-determination (the act of giving the client system the freedom to make choices at their work), empowerment (informed self-determination), inherent worth and dignity (respect for every human being). Identifying and affirming strengths is a key value stance of the new paradigm. The strengths philosophy is the understanding that individuals are able to gain far more when they expend effort to build on their greatest talents than when they spend a comparable amount of effort to remediate their weaknesses. When Gallup’s Donald Clifton was studying and testing speed-reading programs, he found readers who improved their speed from 90 words a minute to 150 wpm. But, there were also these strong readers who moved from 350 wpm up all the way to an amazing 3,200 wpm with the same instruction. The lesson to draw is that we can spend an inordinate amount of time to get from weak to good in our non-strength areas. However, the potential is almost limitless in our areas of strength. The strengths perspective has been demonstrated to be more effective that the deficit, problem-solving paradigm. Being able to access strengths effectively contributes not only towards the solution to an immediate problem, but may also help build internal capability to deal with future problems. The greatest human potential for growth also rests in our areas of strength. People report that working in their area of strength helps them hyper focus, as time seems to stand still during that period. When finished, one may feel tired but exhilarated at the same time. Nevertheless, incorporating the strengths approach is difficult since the problem-centered view is embedded in our social, cultural and professional context. OD professionals implementing strengths-based interventions must persist in emphasizing strengths throughout the journey. 3. Strengths and Talents Research indicates that between the ages of 3 and 15, the human brain organizes itself by strengthening the synaptic connections that are recurrently used. On the other hand, infrequently used synaptic connections are found to weaken over time. Another way of conveying this is that the roads with the most traffic get widened, while those that are rarely used fall into disrepair. After 15 years of age, an individual’s unique network of synaptic connections is found to remain stable. This does not imply that people are unable to refine their values and beliefs over time, or that they are impermeable to change in later years. Individuals are found to accomplish all of this, and even imbibe additional knowledge and skills along the way. Nevertheless, the greatest return on a person’s learning investment comes from a focus on the synaptic connections that were already strong in youth.

 

Talents are naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied. On the other hand, strength may be defined as the ability to provide consistent, near-perfect performance in a given activity (Buckingham and Clifton, 2001). Strengths are produced when talents are refined with knowledge and skill. A developmental approach revolving around strengths involves the identification of personal talents, and their subsequent integration into one’s action repertoire. As Steve Jobs advised the graduating students at Stanford University in 2004, “The only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking ……… Don’t settle !!” When a person is genuinely deploying one natural talents and strengths, it feels effective, easy and natural ���. Before the activity, one has a feeling of anticipation. The conduct of the activity is characterized by focus and inquisitiveness. After the activity, the experience is that of authenticity and fulfillment. Nevertheless, strengths are not exactly equivalent to the performance that may result from their deployment or otherwise. There are many activities that we may accomplish well, but nevertheless find them as a drain upon our energy. Such activities are more properly called as weaknesses. Irrespective of personal competence, “strength” is an attribute that strengthens the person when it is deployed while a “weakness” is an activity that appears to weaken the individual when engaged with. However, just as each individual possesses different strengths, so also people are unique in their weak attributes. Many such weak, dysfunctional behaviors are simply extreme manifestations of otherwise adaptive traits. For instance, excessive confidence turns into arrogance and prudence into risk-aversion, while unrestrained creativity can potentially take the shape and form of eccentricity and weirdness. These weaknesses need to be identified, suitably managed and prevented from turning into potential career de-railers. The strategies for managing one’s weakness range from accomplishing a baseline of minimum acceptable performance in the weak area to maximizing a strength to a level enough that it compensates for and overshadows the deficit. 4. Abilities underlying Strengths-centric Facilitation Strengths-based approaches value the capacity, skills, knowledge, connections and potential in individuals and communities. Strengths based development focuses on excellence as well as the human talents that drive proficiency and exceptional performance. Of course, focusing on strengths does not mean ignoring situational challenges, or naively portraying struggles as strengths.

 

Effective managers perform and deliver extraordinary results by discovering, developing, and celebrating what’s different about each person who works for them. They work in collaboration with their colleagues – guiding, enabling, facilitating and inspiring them to deliver the mandated results. Strengths-centric leaders build a culture of praise and encouragement that celebrates successes, rather than encouraging a milieu wherein complains about shortcomings and the punishment of the negatives is emphasized. But, what are the characteristics, qualities or personal attributes that help leaders, managers and facilitators to build a strengths-centric culture? The author of the present study postulates that three personal abilities provide optimal success in the facilitation of strengths-based development, as follows:

a) Connectedness

b) Positivity

c) Gratitude

Connectedness expands a person’s sense of self to include all of mankind and beyond. It takes away the sense of defensiveness that is inevitable when one feels separate from, and in opposition to, the rest of the universe. Once this happens, and the person begins to feel more secure, positivity develops. This helps the individual to perceive phenomenon in a constructive manner. Positivity translates into a faith in the larger process of life, and an understanding that all that happens in one’s life is for one’s own good. Once the person is conditioned to see the positive, the potential, the true and the good, gratitude arises. However, the development of positivity is contingent upon the person’s discriminative understanding of connectedness as a feature of life. Gratitude is looked upon as the act of acknowledging what we have in our lives and feeling thankful for the actions and efforts of an “other”. Gratitude is the shape that positivity takes in action and observable behaviour. Gratitude turns problems into gifts, failures into success, the unexpected into perfect timing, and mistakes into important events. Gratitude helps one to make sense of one’s past, and helps create a vision for one’s future. 4.1 Connectedness Connectedness is the first and primary ability that facilitates success in strengths-centric development. It is a sense of being a part of something larger than oneself. “Connectedness is a sense of belonging, or a sense of accompaniment. It is the word for the force that urges us to ally, to affiliate, to enter into mutual

 

relationships, to take strength and to grow through cooperative behavior” (Hallowell, 2003). The roots of the notion of connectedness lie in the German term Gestalt, which means “organic form”. Christian von Ehrenfels (1890) first used this term in the sense of an irreducible perceptual pattern, which sparked the school of Gestalt psychology. Living organisms do not perceive things in terms of their isolated elements, but as integrated perceptual patterns. These patterns are meaningful organized wholes, which exhibit qualities that may be absent in their parts. Connectedness refers to the non-existence of rigid boundaries in the universe, and in life. John Donne (1624 / 1994) expressed connectedness perfectly when he wrote “No man is an island; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind”. Connectedness is strongly supported by modern science. Capra (1996, pg 30) states, “Ever since Newton, physicists had believed that all physical phenomena could be reduced to the properties of hard and solid material particles. In the 1920s, quantum physics forced them to accept the fact that solid material objects of classical physics dissolve at the subatomic level into wave-like patterns of interconnections. In other words, subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, and can be understood only as interconnections, or correlations between things”. Further, Wheatley (1999, pg 8) writes, “In the new sciences, the underlying currents are a movement towards holism, towards understanding the system as a system and giving primary value to the relationships that exist among seemingly among seemingly discrete parts. When we view systems from this perspective, we enter an entirely new landscape of connections”. Capra (2002, pg 13) also argues “Living systems are organizationally closed, but materially and energetically open. They need to feed on continual flows of matter and energy from their environment to stay alive”. A little reflection shows this argument to be valid. All living beings exchange air with the surrounding atmosphere every moment. So, the earth’s atmosphere is in some measure a part of all living beings. Further, all plants and animals draw energy from the Sun for their sustenance. If our Sun were to cool down or disappear, all life on earth would immediately cease to exist. Thus, the sun also cannot be treated as separate from or unconnected with living beings. In their classification of talent themes, Buckingham and Clifton (2001) describe ‘connectedness’ thus: “We are individuals, responsible for our own judgments and in possession of our own free will, but nonetheless we are part of something larger. Call it the spirit, life force or collective unconscious; we gain confidence from knowing that we are not isolated from one another of from the earth and the life on

 

it. This feeling of connectedness implies certain responsibilities. If we are all part of a larger picture, then we must not harm or exploit others because we will be harming or exploiting ourselves. We need to be considerate, caring and accepting. 4.2 Positivity Frederickson (2009) coined the term “positivity” as an umbrella term that encompasses many distinct positive emotions. Joy, gratitude, serenity, interest, hope, pride, amusement, inspiration, awe and love are the emotions that make up the positivity palette. Frederickson’s “broaden and build theory” is the precursor to the concept of positivity. The theory holds that positive emotions “broaden” people’s momentary thought-action repertoires and lead to actions that “build” enduring personal resources (Frederickson, 2001). This framework attempts to answer the puzzle of how fleeting experiences of positive emotions produce lasting gains in strengths and well being. The first part of this theory is the broaden hypothesis, which states that positive emotions broaden perception, thoughts and action. Wadlinger & Isaacowitz (2006) tracked participants’ eye movements and found that induced positive emotion broadens visual search patterns, leading to increased attention to visual stimuli. Estrada, Isen and Young (1997) tested the effect of positive states on a wide range of cognitive outcomes, and demonstrated that positive emotions produce patterns of thought that are notably unusual (Isen et al, 1985), flexible and inclusive (Isen & Daubman, 1984), creative (Isen, Daubman & Nowicki, 1987) and receptive to new information (Estrada et al, 1997). Positive emotions have also been found to broaden social group concepts and break down the sense of “us versus them” (Dovidio, Gaertner, Isen, Rust & Guerra, 1995). The second part of this theory is the build hypothesis, which states that positive emotions build enduring personal resources over time. Lyubomirsky et al (2005) found that positive emotions lead to outcomes ranging from satisfaction at work, in relationships to physical health and effective problem solving. In a longitudinal study of college students coping with ordinary life problems, Frederickson & Joiner (2002) found that positive emotions correlated with the use of creative and broad-minded coping strategies. In another longitudinal assessment of college students before and after the September 11 attacks, Frederickson, Tugade, Waugh and Larkin (2003) found that positive emotions were associated with psychological resilience. Finally, in a direct test of the build hypothesis, Frederickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek & Finkel (2008) trained a randomly assigned group of working adults in loving-kindness meditation. After three weeks of practice, the meditators began reporting

 

higher daily levels of various positive emotions compared to those in the waitlist control group. After eight weeks, meditators showed increases in a number of personal resources, including physical wellness, agency for achieving important goals, ability to savour positive experiences, and quality of close relationships. Analyses suggested that these changes in resources were attributable to the increases in the daily positive emotion made possible by meditation. Optimism is closely associated with positivity. Lionel Tiger (1979) defined optimism as a mood or attitude associated with a positive expectation about the social or material future. Scheier and Carver (1992) define dispositional optimism as the global expectation that good things will be plentiful in the future, and bad things scarce. A growing body of literature confirms that people who are disposed to hold positive expectations for the future respond to difficulty or adversity in more adaptive ways than people who hold negative expectations. 4.3 Gratitude Gratitude is the third ability that contributes to success with strengths-centric development. Gratitude refers to the feeling of thankful for what we have in our lives, and acknowledgment of the actions and efforts of an “other”. Watkins, Van Gelder and Frias (2009) state that “an individual experiences the emotion of gratitude when he (or she) affirms that something good has happened to him (or her) and recognizes that someone else is largely responsible for this benefit. Emmons (2007) conceives of gratitude in two stages. The first stage is the acknowledgement of goodness in one’s life. The second stage is the recognition that the source(s) of this goodness lie at least partially outside the self. Thus, gratitude is more than a feeling. It requires a willingness to recognize (a) that one has been the beneficiary of someone’s kindness, (b) that the benefactor has intentionally provided a benefit, often incurring some personal cost, and (c) that the benefit has value in the eyes of the beneficiary. Grateful individuals tend to be emotionally stable, agreeable, self-confident but less narcissistic, and non-materialistic (McComb, Watkins & Kolts, 2004). Grateful people have been found to show more intrinsic religious motivation, but less extrinsic religiosity (Watkins, Woodward et al, 2003). Because positive affect enhances one’s ability to see meaningful relationships and thus, meaning in life (King, Hicks, Krull & Del Gaiso, 2006), gratitude may even enhance religiosity. Gratitude is found to have an immense potential for enhancing personal happiness. Correlations of trait gratitude with emotional well-being confirmed that grateful people tend to be happy people. Park, Peterson & Seligman (2004) found that of the 24 Value in Action (VIA) strengths, gratitude fell behind only hope and zest in predicting subjective well-being. In three studies, Emmons & McCullough (2003) found that a simple practice of counting one’s blessings enhanced several

 

subjective well-being measures compared to control conditions. Gratefulness promotes pro-social behaviour. Watkins, Schier et al (2006) found that gratitude is associated with pro-social tendencies, while inhibiting anti-social urges. In two studies, Barlett & DeStenno (2006) found that gratitude inductions enhanced an individual’s likelihood to engage in pro-social behaviour toward a benefactor or stranger. In a series of studies, Dun & Schweitzer (2005) showed that experimental inductions of gratitude enhanced trust. 5. Strengths-based Individual development Research has proven that the best way to develop people is to identify the ways in which they most naturally think, feel, & behave as unique individuals and build on it. At the individual level, strengths-based development involves three stages:

a) Identify the person’s unique set of talents and abilities b) Build strengths by supplementing these talents with requisite knowledge and

skills c) Deploy the strengths in actual practice to derive performance effectiveness

in conjunction with personal fulfillment.

In the talent identification phase, individuals increase their level of self-awareness in order to claim particular themes of talent. There are several ways that traces of talents can be identified, including spontaneous reactions, yearnings, rapid learning, and satisfaction (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). Spontaneous reactions are subconscious, immediate responses to a given situation. These glimpses of talent may be observed in a person who naturally takes charge of a situation without being asked to do so, or in a student who willingly volunteers to stay after class to help a fellow student with the homework. Yearnings may also provide clues to talent. A passion for a new hobby, a need to keep things neat and tidy, and a desire to learn a new language could be indications of talent. Examples of rapid learning, whether it is in a new role at work, geometry class, or violin lessons provide markers for talent. Finally, deriving positive satisfaction from an activity may provide clues to talent. If someone enjoys the process of planning a family reunion, reading a technical paper, or giving a speech to a large audience, chances are that they are appealing to one or more of their talents. In the strengths-building phase, individuals acquire complementary knowledge and skills that can turn a potential ability into a proven strength. For instance, a talent for empathy may be transformed into a strength in career counseling by the acquisition of conceptual approaches to counseling (knowledge) as well as ability

 

to frame/ask probing or appreciative questions (skill). For instance, the celebrated golf player Tiger Woods began to play game at 2 years of age. He displayed an acute ability at a young age to excel at the sport. Recognizing his talents, Tiger’s father coached the young boy intensively. With perseverance and discipline, Tiger mastered the various golf skills such as pitching, putting, swinging, chipping etc. He developed tremendous strength in playing the game of golf, which eventually propelled him to his current status as a champion. Finally, individuals deploy their strengths in order to engage and excel by aligning the head, the hand and the heart in fulfilling their mandates. They create value for their teams by rising above conflict in order to arrive at synergy through a constructive and integrative approach. The resulting engagement and alignment promotes service and delivery excellence leading to customer delight, enhanced revenue and stakeholder satisfaction. The individual is then able to tie these successes back to his/her personal themes of talent. 6. Positive Impact of Strengths-centric Interventions Strengths-based development has been linked to positive outcomes in a variety of studies across a range of domains. It has been linked to increases in employee engagement and hope, which have been in turn linked to positive business outcomes including profitability, turnover, safety, and customer satisfaction (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). 6.1 Impact on Productivity The Toyota North American Parts Center in California (NAPCC), comprised of 400 employees on 54 work teams, undertook a strengths-based initiative with an objective to build effective work teams (Connelly, 2002). The intervention began with warehouse associates completing the Gallup StrengthsFinder to identify their themes of talent. Many lunchtime learning sessions were conducted to answer any questions and to deliver StrengthsFinder results to individual associates. Next, NAPCC managers attended a four-day course designed to introduce them to the theory and practice of managing themselves and their teams according to their strengths. Finally, warehouse associates at NAPCC came together for a half-day team-blend session designed to move individuals from thinking about their own strengths to thinking about the strengths of their team members in order to optimize team relationships and performance. Within a year of the intervention, per-person-productivity at the warehouse increased by 6%. These results were in sharp contrast to the previous three years,

 

when quarterly productivity figures varied either positively or negatively by less than 1%. Further, two teams who underwent a more intensive strengths-based developmental program realized a 9% productivity increase over a period of just six months. 6.2 Impact on Employee Engagement Many strengths-based developmental interventions have led to a quantifiable impact on the levels of employee engagement, and have been meaningfully linked to performance outcomes including customer satisfaction, productivity, profit, employee turnover, and accidents (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). While several studies have shown linkages between strengths-based development and the entire employee engagement metric, one employee engagement item in particular, “opportunity to do what I do best,” has a strong conceptual relationship to strengths-based development. This item also has strong research evidence linking it to success, defined as above the median performance within one’s company, across work units. A meta-analysis of over 10,000 work units and over 300,000 employees in 51 companies indicates that work units scoring above the median on the “opportunity to do what I do best” item have 38% higher probability of success on productivity measures and 44% higher probability of success on customer loyalty and employee retention (Harter & Schmidt, 2002). To further illustrate the impact of strengths-based development on employee engagement and business outcomes, Clifton & Harter (2003) reviewed data from 65 organizations, all of which were involved in employee engagement interventions. A study group consisted of four companies who had utilized strengths-based development and a control group was made up of 61 organizations that had not. The study group exceeded the control group on employee engagement from the first to the second year, and even more dramatically so from Year 2 to Year 3. Utility analyses, conducted to determine the difference between the study and control groups, yielded an increase in annual per employee productivity of more than $1,000. An example of an increase in employee engagement in response to strengths-based development was also found at the St. Lucie Medical Center in Florida (Black, 2001). This 150-bed hospital employed 700 nurses, clinicians and support staff. High turnover and low morale were barriers to the hospital’s success. It was then decided to study the talents of the all the hospital employees across functions, through structured talent inventory interviews. Teams were then constituted in a manner that facilitated each employee in flourishing according to individually innate talents.

 

Just two years into the strengths-based development and employee engagement intervention, St. Lucie’s employee turnover had declined by almost 50% and the employee engagement scores had jumped to the top quartile of Gallup’s database. Furthermore, the hospital’s percentile ranking amongst its peers jumped by 160% in patient satisfaction. 6.3 Impact on Educational Outcomes Strengths-based developmental interventions have also been shown to positively impact educational outcomes. Gallup researchers conducted a four-year study at a Midwestern United States urban high school from 1994-1997 (Harter, 1998). These studies involved training a random selection of teachers to administer talent-based interviews to incoming freshmen in each of the four years of the intervention. Following the interviews, the teachers provided individualized feedback to the students, highlighting their patterns of strongest talent identified through the interviews. The research team tracked absenteeism, tardiness, and grades for all of the students associated with the study during this important first semester of high school. Weighted average effect size correlations were calculated to measure the impact across the four years of the semester-long strengths-based interventions. Meaningful differences were observed between the study group of 807 students and the control group of 841 students on all the three outcome measures. The study group had 3.8 fewer days absent per student, 0.78 fewer times tardy per student, and grade point averages of 0.15 units higher than the control group. 7. Conclusion All humans, in some way, have a need to feel useful and to achieve a sense of significance in their lives. People have a need for respect and approval, as well as a desire to contribute to the development and success of other human beings and of the institution to which they belong. Strength-centric leaders encourage and empower others, and seek to illuminate their abilities and strengths - with a concurrent focus on developing these capabilities and actualizing their maximum potential. This strengthens the individual’s belief in his/her potential, and contributes significantly to organizational effectiveness. The best career advice to give to the young is, “Find out what you like doing best, and get someone to pay you for doing it.”

― Katharine Whitehorn

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

REFERENCES: Hallowell, E.M. (2003) Connectedness, in Finding the Heart of the Child: Essays on Children, Families, and Schools by

Edward M. Hallowell and Michael G. Thompson. Braintree, MA: Association of Independent Schools in New England

Ehrenfels, C. von (1890) "Über 'Gestaltqualitäten'", Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, 14, 242-92, Eng. trans. in Barry Smith (ed.), Foundations of Gestalt Theory, Munich and Vienna: Philosophia, 1988, 82-117.

Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor/Doubleday Books

Wheatley, M. (1999) Leadership and the New Science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Donne, J. (1624 / 1994). Devotions upon emergent occasions: The complete poetry and selected prose of John Donne. New York: Modern Library

Buckingham, M & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, Discover Your Strengths. New. York: The Free Press.

Capra, F. (2002). The Hidden Connections: A Science for sustainable living. New York: Random House

Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity: Groundbreaking research reveals how to embrace the hidden strength of positive emotions, overcome negativity, and thrive. New York: Crown.

Wadlinger, H.A. & Isaacowitz, B.M. (2006). Positive affect broadens visual attention to positive stimuli. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 89 – 101

Estrada, C.A., Isen, A.M., & Young, M.J. (1997). Positive affect facilitates integration of information and decreases anchoring in reasoning among physicians. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 72, 117 – 135

Isen, A. M., Johnson, M.M.S., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G.F. (1985). The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1413-1426.

Isen, A.M., & Daubman, K.A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1206 – 1317.

Isen, A.M., & Daubman, K.A., & Nowicki, G.P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122 - 1131

Estrada, C.A., Isen, A.M., & Young, M.J. (1997). Positive affect facilitates integration of information and decreases anchoring in reasoning among physicians. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 72, 117 – 135

Dobidio, J. & Gaertner, S., Isen, A., Rust, M. & Guerra, P. (1995). Positive affect and the reduction of intergroup bias. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C.A. Insko (eds.), Intergroup Cognition and Intergroup Behaviour (pp. 337 – 366). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum

Lyubomirsky, S.L., King, L., Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 813 – 855

Fredrickson, B.L. & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172 – 175

Fredrickson, B.L. “The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden and Build Theory of Positive Emotions.” American Psychologist Special Issue, 56 (2001), 218 – 226

Fredrickson, B.L., Tugade, M.M., Waugh, C.E., & Larkin, G. (2003). What Good are Positive Emotions in Crises? A Prospective Study of Resilience and Emotions Following the Terrorist Attacks on United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365 – 376

Fredrickson, B.L., Cohn, M.A., Coffey, K,, Pek, J. & Finkel, S.M. (2008). Open Hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through medication build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045 – 1062

Tiger, Lionel (1979). Optimism: The Biology of Hope. New York : Simon and Schuster

Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1992). Affects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201-228

Watkins, P.C., Van Gelder, M. & Frias, A. (2009). Furthering the Science of Gratitude. In S.J. Lopez & C.R. Snyder (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp 437 – 444). New York: Oxford University Press

Emmons, R.A. (2007). Thanks!: How the new science of gratitude can make you happier. New York : Houghton Mifflin

McComb, D., Watkins, P., & Kolts, R. (2004). Personality predictors of happiness : The importance of gratitude. Presentation to the 84th Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association, Phoenix, AZ

 Watkins, P.C., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts , R.D. (2003). Gratitude and happiness: The development of a

measure of gratitude and its relationship with subjective wellbeing. Social Behavior and Personality, 31,431-452.

King , L. A., Hicks, J.A., Krull, J.L., & Delgaiso ,A.K.(2006). Positive affect and the experience of meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90 ,179-196.

Emmons, R.A., & McCullough, M.E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An empirical investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377 – 389

Park, N. , Peterson, C.,& Seligman, M.E.P.(2004). Strengths of character and wellbeing. Journal of Social and Clinical psychology, 23, 603-619.

Watkins, P.C., Scheer, J., Ovnicek, M., & Kolts, R.B. (2006). The debt of gratitude: Dissociating gratitude and indebtedness. Cognition and Emotions, 20, 217 – 241

Bartlett, M.Y., & De Steno, D. (2006). Gratitude and Pro-social behaviour. Psychological Science, 17, 319 – 325

Dunn, J.R. & Schweitzer, M.E. (2005). Feeling and Believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 736 – 748

Connelly, J. (2002). All together now. The Gallup Management Journal, 2(1), 13-18.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.

Harter, J.K., & Schmidt, F.L. (2002). Employee engagement, satisfaction, and business-unit-level outcomes: Meta-analysis. Princeton, NJ: The Gallup Organization.

Clifton, D.O., & Harter, J.K. (2003). Strengths investment. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 111-121). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Black, B. (2001). The road to recovery. The Gallup Management Journal, 1(4), 10-12.

Harter, J.K. (1998). Gage Park High School research study. Princeton, NJ: The Gallup Organization.

Cederbaum, J., & Klusaritz, H.A. (2009). Clinical instruction: Using the strengths- based approach with nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education, 48, 8, 422–428.

Min, T. (2011). The client-centered integrative strengths-based approach: Ending longstanding conflict between social work values and practice. Canadian Social Science, 7(2), 15–22.

Sousa, L., Ribeiro, C., & Rodrigues, S. (2006). Intervention with multi-problem poor clients: Towards a strengths-focused perspective. Journal of Social Work Practice, 20(2), 189–204.

Healy, K. (2005). Social work theories in context: Creating frameworks for practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.