1

Reflected Best Self Engagement at Work: Positive Identity, Alignment, and the Pursuit of

Vitality and Value Creation

Author’s Name

Laura Morgan Roberts

Author’s Affiliation

Antioch University

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter calls attention to the reflected best self as a conceptual anchor for understanding

how individuals might increase their extraordinary experiences at work. The construct of a

reflected best self is defined and situated in related discussions of identity development and

engagement at work. Identity processes for discovering one‘s reflected best self are described,

and four alignment-based pathways for activating the reflected best self at work are presented:

purposeful engagement, strength-based engagement, authentic engagement, and relational

affirmation. Studies in positive psychology, positive organizational scholarship, and

organizational behavior provide evidence for the potency of each of these four pathways for

promoting vitality and value creation at work. This chapter contributes to these literatures by

showing how the reflected best self is a conceptual anchor for understanding how individuals

might increase their extraordinary experiences at work.

Keywords: identity, positive identity, reflected best self, engagement, alignment, positive

organizational scholarship, strengths, authenticity, purpose, relationships

To appear in the Oxford University Press Handbook of Happiness (Chief editors Ilona Boniwell

and Susan David, Section editors Kim Cameron and Arran Caza).

Please do not circulate without the author’s permission.

2

Introduction

Being extraordinary does not necessarily mean obtaining a position of honor or glory or even of

becoming successful in other people‘s eyes. It means being true to self. It means pursuing our

full potential. -- Quinn & Quinn, 2002

A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be

ultimately happy. What a [hu]man can be, [s]he must be. -- Maslow, 1943

Did you bring your best self to work today? This question, infused with considerable

subjectivity, also elegantly captures a wide range of personal aspirations, motives and

evaluations regarding the experience of being extraordinary at work. Yet the notion of ―bringing

one‘s best self to work‖ has received more attention in the popular domain than it has in

scholarly examinations of happiness, fulfillment and performance at work. A plethora of self-

help, personal growth, and leadership resources encourages people to be their best self through

optimal thinking, relationship building, soaring on strengths, and living their best life. The

dearth of scholarly examinations of such claims limits understanding of the core elements of the

best self and leaves the construct of the ―best self‖ subject to various loose interpretations that

lack theoretical grounding. Moreover, many of the proclaimed tools and interventions for

becoming one‘s best self have not been scientifically validated or supported by extant empirical

research. The popularity of such books, articles and seminars indicates that the desire to become

one‘s best self is widely shared and deeply held by people across the globe. It is thus incumbent

upon scholars to establish the conceptual parameters, preconditions, and impact of becoming

one‘s best self. The topic of best self engagement is a topic ripe for scholarly investigation,

3

particularly within organizational studies. As positive organizational scholars, my colleagues1

and I have begun to explore the theoretical underpinnings of the mass appeal to become

extraordinary by engaging one‘s best self. We have examined what it means to bring one‘s ―best

self‖ to work and investigated the benefits of best self engagement for individuals and the

organizations in which they work. We have begun to identify the personal and situational factors

that enable and constrain best self engagement for individuals in work organizations.

The purpose of this chapter is to extend our work on best-self engagement, to situate the

reflected best self as a conceptual anchor for understanding how individuals might increase their

extraordinary experiences at work. We use the phrase, reflected best self, to signify that this form

of self construal is as much a product of others‘ reflected appraisals as it is of personal reflection

on lived experiences of being at one‘s best. In keeping with the overarching theme of this

Handbook, this chapter associates the reflected best self with happiness at work, whereby

happiness is a form of subjective well-being that is manifested through enhanced vitality and

value creation at work. I employ a deliberately broad frame on the manifestations of happiness at

work, given the varied definitions of the construct itself (Peterson, Park & Seligman, 2005).

Viewing happiness as an indicator of subjective well-being, I focus on optimal functioning, or

vitality within an individual, as well as the generative state of value creation, in which the

individual‘s vitality is externally directed to strengthen a social system. Given the importance of

multilevel theorizing about organizing and work, I place equal importance on vitality and value

creation as potentially related, but distinct indicators of personal and social well-being in work

organizations.

1 This chapter is written in acknowledgement and appreciation of the Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship

and my affiliated colleagues, with whom I have explored the theoretical and practical implications of best self

engagement: Brianna Caza, Jane Dutton, Emily Heaphy, Janet Max, Robert Quinn, Ryan Quinn, Shawn Quinn,

Steven Shafer, Gretchen Spreitzer, and Lynn Wooten.

4

In this chapter, I review organizational research on positive identity development and

alignment at work to illuminate critical pathways for reflected best self engagement that also

increase vitality and value creation. The chapter is organized as follows. First, I define the

construct of a reflected best self as presented in organizational research and situate the study of

the reflected best self in related discussions of development and engagement at work. Second, I

describe identity processes for discovering one‘s reflected best self, based on recent research on

the reflected best self and positive identity cultivation at work. Third, I present four alignment-

based pathways for activating the reflected best self at work: purposeful engagement, strength-

based engagement, authentic engagement, and relational affirmation. Studies in positive

psychology, positive organizational scholarship, and organizational behavior provide evidence

for the potency of each of these four pathways for promoting extraordinary outcomes at work.

This chapter contributes to these literatures by explaining how the reflected best self is a

theoretically useful construct for understanding how positive identity construction and alignment

increase vitality and value creation at work. I conclude with a discussion of future research

directions on the reflected best self and its impact on individual and collective well-being in

organizations.

The Reflected Best Self as a Theoretical Construct

The reflected best self (RBS) is a changing self-knowledge structure about who one is at

one‘s best. Specifically, it is ―an individual‘s cognitive representation of the qualities and

characteristics the individual displays when at his or her best‖ (Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer,

Heaphy & Quinn, 2005a, p. 713). The RBS is similar to a self-schema in that it is a cognitive

generalization, based on past experiences, that guides information processing. Yet, the RBS

differs from a self-schema by cutting across multiple domains and providing a template for

5

action (Roberts et al., 2005a). The reflected best self serves as an ―anchor and a beacon, a

personal touchstone of who we are and a guide for who we can become‖ (Roberts et al., 2005a,

p. 712). This means that the RBS represents a fusion of the reality of lived experience (who I

have been at my best) with the idealized sense of possibility for who one can be(come) when one

fully embodies his or her best self. Further, the RBS is a relational representation—an interaction

between one‘s self-schema and other‘s schema of the self. The RBS is reflects a person‘s

understanding of his or her best self, as informed by social experiences that have shaped his or

her sense of self as a valuable contributor to a social system. RBS construals vary in terms in

content and clarity, as each person‘s best self is unique, and some people are more cognizant of

their best self characteristics and are better able to articulate the conditions that invoke best self

episodes than are others (Roberts, Spreitzer, Dutton, Heaphy, Quinn & Caza, 2005b).

The RBS construal, or ―portrait‖ (Roberts et al., 2005a), is also a representation of an

action-oriented state of being that encompasses more than a catalog of competencies. The state

of being at one‘s best involves ―actively employing strengths to create value, actualize one‘s

potential, and fulfill one‘s sense of purpose, which generates a constructive experience

(emotional, cognitive, or behavioral) for oneself and for others‖ (Roberts et al., 2005a, p. 714).

Research on the RBS does not examine evaluative comparisons across people or attempt to

determine who is the best in a particular domain or task. The emphasis here is on the extent to

which any individual identifies with and activates his or her RBS in a given situation.

I am using the term ―reflected best self engagement‖ to describe the state of being in

which an individual knowingly activates his or her RBS. This use of the term ―engagement‖

draws upon Kahn‘s (1990) discussion of personal engagement as the expression of a particular

6

self during a given moment at work. It also draws upon the research on flow2, which is the

psychological state that accompanies highly engaging activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) when

one is working at full capacity (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) due to the optimal balance

of challenge and skill.

The current chapter emphasizes how and why a person might express his or her RBS

during a given moment at work. There are two facets of reflected best self engagement at work:

discovery (i.e., composing a RBS portrait that increases the salience, clarity and identification

with one‘s RBS in a given moment) and alignment (i.e., deliberate attempts to act in accordance

with or embody one‘s RBS during a given moment). The next two sections will review each

facet of reflected best self engagement and its association with vitality and value creation at

work.

Discovering one’s Reflected Best Self: A Pathway for Positive Identity Construction

An RBS portrait is dynamic; it represents an ever-changing self-knowledge structure,

shaped by interactions with the social world that influence how one sees his or her RBS. My

colleagues and I have developed a theory of ―composing the reflected best self portrait‖ that

explains how ―positive jolts‖ catalyze people to change the content and increase the clarity of

their RBS portraits in work organizations (Roberts et al., 2005a). In the following section, I

expound upon this theory for becoming one‘s RBS with more recent research on cultivating

positive identities at work. This research helps to articulate how positive identity construction is

a central pathway in the process of discovering one‘s RBS; the process involves taking on the

self-identity of someone who is: a) a contribution to a social system and, b) optimizing one‘s

own potential.

2 Unlike the flow state, reflected best self engagement need not involve a loss of consciousness of time or self due to

total immersion in a task.

7

A positive identity is a self-view that a person deems valuable or desirable in some way.

Various theories of motivation and action in social systems purport that people have a

fundamental desire to construct more positive identities (for reviews, see Dutton, Roberts &

Bednar, 2010; Roberts & Creary, 2011). However, these theories construe positive identity in

various ways, based on differing assumptions about the essence and relevance of identity. Taken

together, psychological and organizational studies of positive identity have offered disjointed,

and sometimes competing, accounts of how and why people construct more positive identities at

work. Recent developments in this area of study have yielded more comprehensive theoretical

accounts of positive identity construction (Dutton et al., 2010; Dutton, Roberts & Bednar,

forthcoming; Roberts & Creary, 2011; Roberts & Dutton, 2009). Research in this domain lends

insight into the positive identity processes involved with reflected best self engagement at work.

Jolts, or discrepant or surprising events that cause people to pause and reflect on their

experience (Louis, 1980), trigger changes in self-knowledge structures like the RBS (Roberts et

al., 2005a; Spreitzer, 2006). Jolts can be positive, such as the birth of a child, or negative in

valence, such as job loss, and vary in magnitude. Certain jolts are likely to prompt the positive

identity changes involved in reflected best self discovery: affirmative jolts call attention to the

positive aspects of one‘s identity and enhance feelings of self-regard, while challenging jolts

make salient one‘s strength and capacity to exceed expectations.

Both affirmative and challenging jolts can prompt people to modify and enhance their

self-view by defining themselves as a meaningful contribution to a social system. For example,

the Reflected Best Self Exercise3 is an appreciative jolt; it provides people with ―contribution

stories‖ from work and non-work colleagues and family, and often surprises people with the

taken-for-granted nature of their own strengths and contributions (Roberts et al., 2005b). This

3 See www.bus.umich.edu/positive.

8

form of affirmation may help people to experience others‘ appreciation of their contributions,

thus enhancing their sense of significance within a social system. Challenging jolts also help

people to learn more about who they are at their best, by providing stretch opportunities that

reveal one‘s capacity to lead, endure or adapt in difficult situations (Roberts et al., 2005a). These

challenging jolts can also help people to develop a deeper sense of significance and capacity for

effective action, generally speaking.

Affirmative and challenging jolts may also prompt people to change the content or

increase the clarity of a RBS portrait to include more precise positive identity descriptors,

beyond the general notion of being someone of significance who makes meaningful

contributions to a social system. From a positive identity standpoint, these types of jolts may

help people to see themselves as virtuous and favorably regarded – two of the four prominent

bases of positive identity cultivation (Dutton et al., 2010). For example, contribution stories may

help to illuminate the specific virtues that are enacted when a person engages his or her RBS,

while also making salient feelings of appreciation, admiration and positive regard for another

person. Challenging jolts, such as extending oneself in an act of community service, can also call

forth the character strengths and virtues that reflect one‘s best self and thus promote positive

identity cultivation (Dutton et al., forthcoming).

It is important to acknowledge that people compose RBS portraits on a holistic canvas,

drawing from personal and professional experiences and incorporating both their past and

present (Roberts et al., 2005b). This holistic canvas displays action-oriented representations of

core features of one‘s RBS that may transcend domains. In other words, affirmative and

challenging jolts occur in multiple life domains, and raise awareness of how the core elements of

one‘s RBS may manifest in work-related tasks, in social outings, through civic engagement, and

9

with family. As such, the formation of a RBS portrait helps to reinforce a positive identity

structure, a third prominent base of positive identity cultivation (see Dutton et al., 2010); rather

than seeing oneself as fragmented or fractured, the RBS discovery process likely generates

complementarity and balance across life domains.

The fourth prominent base of positive identity cultivation, according to Dutton et al.

(2010), is the developmental perspective. The process of RBS discovery also reinforces the

cultivation of a more positive developmental identity, as one comes to see oneself as evolving,

maturing and adapting in a positive direction. An emphasis on discovering and embodying one‘s

RBS can promote self-actualization (Maslow, 1954), by providing concrete examples of

maximizing one‘s potential to create value and experience vitality. Reflected best self episodes

are peak moments, and reflecting upon them may increase awareness of one‘s capacity to

optimize his or her existence. Jolts that catalyze the discovery of one‘s RBS also provide an

alternate pathway for personal growth and professional development via constructive application

of strengths (Spreitzer, 2006).

Rather than focus on weaknesses, deficits or shortcomings, the reflected best self

discovery process features strengths as a platform for growth and development. An emphasis on

development is critical here; overused, inflated or insincere praise is often rejected (Spreitzer,

2006; Rath & Clifton, 2004) and can actually decrease well-being (Spreitzer, Stephens &

Sweetman, 2009), and people are, thus, reticent to focus on strengths when developing

themselves or others (Rath & Clifton, 2004). Leveraging strengths should be appropriately

understood as a viable means for learning about and developing oneself. However, leveraging

strengths is often considered to be only a means for fulfilling ambition and proving competence

in competitive environments. A learning orientation is more generative than a performance

10

orientation (Grant & Dweck, 2003). Greater understanding of the identity development processes

involved in RBS discovery may help to articulate how individuals, like groups, can grow from

good to great and develop in their areas of greatest strength.

Proposed impact of reflected best self discovery on vitality and value creation. The

RBS discovery process increases vitality through its links to positive affect and well-being.

Experimental research by King (2001) and Sheldon and Lyubormirski (2006) suggests that

writing about one‘s best possible future self (relative to writing about other topics) is more

greatly associated with immediate and long-term effects on positive mood, subjective well-being,

and illness prevention. The Reflected Best Self Exercise, which provides strength-based

feedback from professional and personal counterparts, also promotes vitality via enhanced

positive emotions. After receiving RBS feedback, young adults reported higher levels of positive

emotions in best self portraits and action plans than study participants who received strengths

feedback from only professional contacts and participants who received more traditional

(strength- and improvement-based) feedback (Spreitzer et al., 2009). Positive emotional states

are particularly important for enhancing vitality because they ―broaden-and-build‖ people‘s

thought-action repertoires, which facilitates the building of other resources and enhances well-

being (Fredrickson, 2001).

The RBS discovery process also increases vitality through the cultivation of more

positive identities. As people compose their best self portraits, they likely expand their set of

possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986) to incorporate newly discovered or confirmed virtues,

positive regard, and a general sense of a sense of self as a balanced, whole, self-actualizing,

meaningful contribution to a social system. The cultivation of each of these types of positive

identities (virtuous, esteemed, developing and balanced/complementary structure) has been

11

associated with enhanced well-being. Embodying certain character strengths and virtues (e.g.,

hope, zest, gratitude, love and curiosity) has a positive impact on life satisfaction (Park, Peterson

& Seligman, 2004a, 2004b). Increasing one‘s sense of self-regard (through personal self-worth

and through favorable evaluations from others) is associated with higher life satisfaction and

lower depression and hopelessness (Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine & Broadnax, 1994). Feelings of

personal growth and striving toward an optimal existence promote well-being (Ryan & Deci,

2000; Ryff, 1989; Waterman, 1993). Developing a more positive identity structure is particularly

important for increasing access to coping resources and building resilience in stressful situations

(Caza, 2007; Caza & Wilson, 2009; Thoits, 1983).

In addition to the increase in positive emotions, the RBS discovery process builds

relational resources. Relational resources, in the form of broader, more diverse or higher quality

relationships with others, fulfill human needs for belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;

Lawrence & Nohria, 2002) and are associated with better physical and psychological health

(Heaphy & Dutton, 2008; Ryff & Singer, 2001) and thriving at work (Spreitzer, Sutcliffe,

Dutton, Sonenshein & Grant, 2005). Spreitzer et al.‘s (2009) Reflected Best Self exercise field

experiment supported the contention that the best self discovery process builds social resources

by promoting the expression of love/attachment and kindness/generosity in RBS portraits. The

interpersonal interactions that help people to learn more about their valued contributions also

help to strengthen people with social support, trust, intimacy and feelings of being loved

(Hobfoll, Hall, Canetti-Nisim, Galea, Johnson & Palmieri, 2007; Roberts, 2007a). The related

positive identity effects of the best self discovery process that I described previously are also

likely to promote the building of such social resources that, in turn, can increase vitality (Dutton

et al., 2010).

12

Discovering one‘s RBS also equips individuals to create more value within their social

systems. Writing about one‘s best future self increases motivation to persist with self-concordant

goals (Sheldon & Lyubormirski, 2006). Composing RBS portraits increases a sense of agency,

such that people feel more confident in their ability to exercise control over events that affect

their lives (Roberts et al., 2005a; Spreitzer et al., 2009). Agency is important for sustaining

positive action (Bandura, 1989), and therefore serves as a critical resource for value creation. To

the extent that the RBS discovery and identity development process increases positive emotions,

it can also help people to exhibit resilience and optimism in the face of difficulty (Fredrickson,

2009), which can enable people to face challenging individual and group tasks. The building of

positive identities are also beneficial for social systems, when people act in accordance with self-

defined virtues and character strengths (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Peterson & Park, 2006), increase

openness to relationship-building across dimensions of difference (Dutton et al., 2010; Johnson

& Fredrickson, 2005), and exhibit more creativity at work (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks & Lee, 2008).

Activating one’s Best-Self: Alignment-Related Pathways

The second facet of reflected best self engagement at work is alignment: deliberate

attempts to act in accordance with or embody one‘s RBS during a given moment or within a

given context. The discovery process increases the salience, clarity and identification with one‘s

RBS in a given moment. As this self-understanding becomes clearer and refined, it is more

accessible as part of the working self-concept (Markus & Wurf, 1987), and thus more easily

activated or engaged in work situations. Yet people must still engage in deliberate action to bring

their best self to work. Not all work environments are conducive to one‘s RBS, and ego-

preservation desires often lead people to act in ways that undermine RBS engagement at work.

Conscious actors who place a higher priority on contribution than gratification are able to

13

achieve optimal states of functioning and leadership in organizations (Quinn, 2004; Cameron,

2008). Discovering one‘s reflected best self enables an individual to be a social architect – one

who co-creates the conditions in which the RBS can flourish. As Roberts et al. (2005a) state:

As people acquire a clearer sense of their competencies, this self-knowledge endows

them with sensibilities about the types of contexts that best facilitate the expression of

and appreciation for these strengths. In addition, as people revise their reflected best self

portrait, they are better able to design and detect situations that help them strengthen their

RBS. These sensibilities allow people to be better architects of the connections, the

places, and the tasks that enable their extraordinariness. Thus, we call individuals‘

proactive selection of settings, people, and tasks that draw on their strengths ‗social

architecting.‘ (p. 726)

While my colleagues and I introduced the idea of social architecting and suggested links

to becoming extraordinary, we did not fully develop an action-oriented framework for how

individuals might engage in social architecting to activate their reflected best selves. Next, I

build upon our initial propositions by detailing four key alignment-based pathways for activating

the RBS at work: purposeful engagement, strength-based engagement, authentic engagement,

and relational affirmation. These four pathways enable individuals to co-create the conditions

that enliven the RBS by increasing the degree of alignment between their RBS and their work

activities, context, and relationships.

Purposeful engagement at work. The first pathway for aligning one‘s RBS with work

activities is via strengthening one‘s connection to work-related tasks. I term this pathway

purposeful engagement at work, because it encompasses both the experience of work-related

tasks as meaningful and engaging, and the evaluation that work-related effort is worthwhile

according to personally held values. Purposeful engagement in work activates the RBS by

increasing motivation to put forth extra effort on work tasks and strive beyond mediocrity to

embody one‘s full potential for contributing and self-actualizing in the context of work.

14

Purposeful engagement in work is scientifically grounded in the study of motivation, job

design, task engagement, meaning, and work orientation. In accordance with expectancy theory

(Vroom, 1964; Porter & Lawler, 1968), motivation to put forth effort on work-related tasks is a

function of whether one believes that such effort will produce desired outcomes, and such

outcomes will be rewarded (intrinsically or extrinsically) in ways the individual values

personally. It follows that one will expend effort toward best self engagement at work if one

associates such effort with desired results and valued rewards. In 1975, Hackman, Oldham,

Janson and Purdy presented ―a new theory of job enrichment‖ that showed which kinds of jobs

were most likely to stimulate engagement and commitment by producing desired results and

rewards. This theory of job enrichment pointed to the importance of experienced meaningfulness

(―perceiving work as worthwhile or important by some system of values [s]he accepts‖),

experienced responsibility (believing ―[s]he is personally accountable for the outcomes of his [or

her] efforts‖), and knowledge of results (being ―able to determine, on some fairly regular basis,

whether or not the outcomes of his [or her] work are satisfactory‖) (Hackman et al., 1975, p. 58).

In the past decade, researchers of positive psychology and positive organizational

scholarship have devoted increased attention to the potency of purposeful engagement in work,

and the ways in which people derive deeper meaning, clearer purpose, and heightened

engagement from their work-related tasks. For example, research on work motivation, job design

and prosocial helping and giving behaviors consistently shows that (even remote) contact with a

beneficiary of one‘s work activities increases the meaningfulness of work and persistence and

productivity for workers in a variety of occupations, including call center employees, fundraisers

and lifeguards (see Grant, 2007; Grant et al., 2007; Grant & Parker, 2009 for examples).

Research on work orientation documents the benefits of taking on a calling orientation toward

15

work, defined, in a secular sense, as the belief that one‘s work contributes to the greater good and

makes the world a better place; those with calling orientations report higher levels of enjoyment

and satisfaction with work and life (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin & Schwartz, 1997;

Wrzesniewski, 2003). Moreover, people who pursue protean careers with a self-guided, adaptive,

self-actualizing approach also experience positive career outcomes (Hall, 2002; Ibarra, 2003).

Research on job crafting provides additional illustrative evidence for how social architects

deepen their sense of purpose at work, by actively altering and/or deriving meaning from the

tasks they perform and the relationships they build while performing such tasks (Berg,

Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2010; Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2007; Wrzesniewski, Berg &

Dutton, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). For example, a hospital cleaner defines her job

responsibility as creating an atmosphere for healing, and a project manager creates new methods

for database management to make his job more efficient and less repetitive.

Strength-based engagement with work. The second pathway for aligning one‘s RBS

with work activities is via strength-based engagement. The exhortation to ―focus on strengths‖

has inspired scholars and practitioners across the globe to examine their own practices for

sources of individual and collective excellence. The focus on strengths is quite consistent with

the broader intention of becoming one‘s best self. As defined earlier, the RBS is activated when

one engages strengths in ways that promote vitality and value creation. Thus, strengths are at the

core of best self engagement.

Longitudinal research indicates that strength-based engagement has a more enduring

positive impact on subjective well being than merely reflecting on a best self episode (Seligman,

Steen, Park & Peterson, 2005). People who used their core strengths in new ways over a one

week period were more likely to display higher well-being outcomes six months later than were

16

people who wrote a best self story and re-read it every night for one week (Seligman et al.,

2005). This research suggests that merely reflecting on one‘s best self is not sufficient for long-

term enhancements to vitality; people also need to intentionally activate their best selves by

putting their strengths to work. Theories of human resource management, talent management,

and leadership development generally espouse that organizations should hire, promote and retain

individuals who possess the core competencies required to meet an organization‘s strategic aims.

In this light, strength-based engagement not only promotes RBS activation, it also enriches an

organization‘s reservoir of accessible human capital.

Yet research by the Gallup Institute indicates that individuals in the majority of countries

favor an emphasis on weaknesses rather than strengths as a fruitful area for individual

development and competency building. For example, in response to the question, Which would

help you to be more successful in your life – knowing what your weaknesses are and attempting

to improve them, or knowing what your strengths are and attempting to improve them?, only

41% of respondents in the USA, 38% in Great Britain, 38% in Canada, 29% in France, 24% in

Japan, and 24% in China favored the emphasis on strengths (Hodges & Clifton, 2004).

Moreover, in every country studied, an overwhelming majority of parents report that their

children‘s lowest grades on their report cards deserve the most attention. These statistics suggest

that many individuals and organizations prefer to focus their developmental efforts on areas of

weaknesses. In this context, the opportunity to develop into one‘s RBS by engaging strengths

may be neglected, overlooked or devalued in comparison to deficit reduction (Spreitzer, 2006).

While competency building is critical for developing well-rounded, capable contributors who

meet task requirements, researchers from the Gallup institute advocate that the greatest areas for

growth and contribution lie in identifying and utilizing one‘s core strengths.

17

The Gallup Institute and affiliated authors claim that ―the key to building a bona fide

strength is to identify your dominant talents and then refine them with knowledge and skills‖

(Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p. 30). This approach associates strengths with performance,

defining strength as ―the ability to provide consistent, near-perfect performance in a given

activity‖ (Clifton & Harter, 2003, p. 114). Researchers from the Gallup Institute report that,

among 1.7 million employees in 101 companies from 63 countries, only 20% agree or strongly

agree with the statement: At work, I have the chance to do what I do best everyday (Buckingham

& Clifton, 2001). People who do not exercise their strengths at work are less emotionally

engaged on the job, which means that they are more likely to report: dreading going to work,

having more negative than positive interactions with colleagues, treating customers poorly,

telling friends what a miserable company they work for, achieving less on a daily basis, and

having fewer positive and creative moments (Rath, 2007). However, people who do exercise

their strengths regularly at work are six times more likely to be engaged in their jobs and three

times more likely to report having an excellent quality of life in general (Rath, 2007). They also

claim fewer sick days, file fewer workers‘ compensation claims, and have fewer accidents while

on the job (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). These findings support a link between strength-based

engagement and vitality. Research by the Gallup Institute also indicates that strength-based

engagement promotes value creation. Organizations benefit when employees exercise their

strengths, showing 1.4 times higher productivity than typical organizations, lower turnover,

higher employee satisfaction, and higher customer satisfaction (Harter & Schmidt, 2002; Harter,

Schmidt & Hayes, 2002).

The Center for Applied Positive Psychology has also conducted empirical research on the

benefits of strength-based engagement. Researchers from this Center also define strengths in

18

terms of high performance, but add that energy is the second key element of strength. According

to Linley, Willars and Biswas-Diener (2010), ―the two key elements of a strength are delivering

a high level of performance and experiencing a sense of energy when you are doing it‖ (p. 67).

The Center for Applied Positive Psychology reports that using one‘s strengths is associated with

higher levels of energy and vitality (Govindji & Linley, 2007), less stress (Wood, Linley, Maltby

& Hurling, 2010), and greater goal achievement, which resulted in psychological need

satisfaction and increased happiness (Linley, Nielsen, Wood, Gillett & Biswas-Diener, 2010).

When managers emphasize strengths, employees experience higher levels of engagement (Rath,

2004) and performance (Stefanyzyn, 2007).

The Values in Action Institute (VIA) approaches the discussion of strengths-engagement

differently; rather than focus on performance-related strengths, they examine the character

strengths and virtues that promote vitality and value creation. Through global studies of

thousands of individuals of varying ages, researchers have used the VIA inventory to document

the prevalence of 24 strengths of character that cluster within six overarching categories: wisdom

and knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence (Peterson &

Seligman, 2004). Peterson (2006) quotes Thomas Jefferson at the beginning of his positive

psychology textbook chapter on character strengths: ―Happiness is the aim of life. [But] virtue is

the foundation of happiness.‖ (Jefferson, 1819). Research on the VIA supports Jefferson‘s claim.

Over 13,000 US, Swiss and German adults completed surveys of character strengths, orientations

to happiness (engagement, pleasure, and meaning) and life satisfaction, and the results revealed

that several character strengths independently predicted life satisfaction, and that love, hope,

curiosity, gratitude and zest were most highly linked to life satisfaction (Beerman, Park,

Peterson, Ruch & Seligman, 2007; Park et al., 2004). Peterson and Park (2006) discuss how

19

character strengths may also be a critically important resource for organizations. By leading

people to desire and pursue the good, or to do the right thing (Peterson & Park, 2006), character

strengths thus promote both vitality and value creation.

Authentic engagement at work. The first two pathways to increasing alignment –

purposeful engagement and strength-based engagement – align the RBS with work-related

activities. The third pathway, authentic engagement at work, aligns one‘s RBS with his or her

work context. Specifically, it examines the extent to which one‘s values and background are

consistent with one‘s expressed style and organizational culture. The authentic engagement

pathway is especially critical in diverse work settings, for people who are marginal or differ from

the majority or historically dominant group in a salient and meaningful way.

The authentic engagement pathway is grounded in the literature on authenticity and

inauthenticity in work organizations. Authenticity is an ideal that Western culture has recently

embraced with unprecedented force (Lietdka, 2008; Trilling, 2006). Yet empirical work on

authenticity in organizations is scant, and definitions of authenticity are broad and varied. The

bulk of conceptual and empirical research related to authenticity in organizations has actually

focused on the lack of authenticity, rather than ways in which authenticity is manifested and

supported.

Becoming more authentic involves increasing the subjective experience of alignment

between internal experiences and external expressions (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Erikson, 1995;

Harter, 2002; Kahn, 1992; Roberts, 2007b). Internal experiences include thoughts, feelings,

values and behavioral preferences; external expressions refer to outward behavior, including

verbal disclosures and nonverbal behavior, as well as displays such as attire and office décor

(Roberts, Cha, Hewlin & Settles, 2009). The authentic experience reflects an individual‘s gestalt

20

or overall feeling of having sufficiently communicated and acted upon his or her genuine internal

experiences in the workplace (Lietdka, 2008). In our review of authenticity, my colleagues and I

provide the following example: ―A professor need not express himself or herself in exactly the

same way with undergraduate business students as with a group of senior executives or with

academic colleagues in order to characterize those experiences as highly authentic. What matters

in each circumstance is whether the professor expresses those thoughts, feelings, values, and

preferences that he or she considers important and relevant in each relational context‖ (Roberts et

al., 2009, p. 152).

The lack of authenticity bears substantial emotional and productivity costs for

individuals, work groups, and organizations. Suppressing negative emotions can help to meet

customer demands for cheerful service, but can also increase personal stress (Hochschild, 1983).

Suppressing ideas in order to conform to group norms can inhibit the creativity and cohesion

within a group, and may lead to poorer quality group decision-making (Argyris & Schön, 1978;

Avery & Steingard, 2008; Milliken, Morrison & Hewlin, 2003; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Van

Dyne, Eng & Botero, 2003). People who attempt to alter or mute their cultural expressions or

perspectives for the sake of assimilating into the organization‘s dominant culture may also

experience stress, diverting cognitive resources to cope with identity conflict (Bell, 1990; Bell &

Nkomo, 2001; Fried, Ben-David, Tiegs, Avital & Yeverechyahu, 1998; Hewlin, 2003; Higgins,

1989; Settles, 2006; Settles, Sellers & Damas, Jr., 2002; Tunnell, 1984). Assimilation may also

limit the quality of creativity and group decision-making (Ely & Thomas, 2001).

Authenticity, on the other hand, has been associated with fewer physical and depressive

symptoms, lower anxiety, lower stress, and greater subjective vitality (e.g., Lopez & Rice, 2006;

Ryan, LaGuardia & Rawsthorne, 2005). At least two theories may explain these links between

21

authenticity and well-being. First, according to self-perception theory (Bem, 1982), people

observe their own behavior and then draw inferences about who they are. As one behaves more

authentically, he or she is likely to take on the identity of an authentic person. Authenticity is

considered a virtue (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and viewing oneself as becoming more

authentic fosters a sense of virtuous identity development. Becoming more authentic can also

foster higher levels of self-regard, due to positive social feedback and norms regarding

authenticity (Roberts et al., 2009). As described earlier, positive identity development is

associated with vitality and value creation.

Second, when one behaves authentically, one‘s external expressions are aligned with

internal experiences, and one is likely to feel as though one is living in accordance with the

daimon – one‘s true, optimal self – which fosters eudaimonia (Ilies, Morgeson & Nahrgang,

2005; Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Waterman, 1993). As written elsewhere:

Eudaimonia is an optimal state of well-being that is characterized by feelings of

happiness, enjoyment, intense personal meaning, and direction in life that result from

living in accord with one‘s daimon [true, optimal self]... Living in accord with one‘s

daimon can increase positive evaluations of oneself and one‘s past (Maslow, 1968; Ryff,

1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995)... By enabling people to own and express their thoughts,

feelings, and values that can benefit others, authenticity can create a pathway through

which people are able to embrace and realize their potential to create value for

themselves and for the world (Roberts, 2007b). (Roberts et al., 2009, p. 157)

In other words, authentic engagement is also critical for discovering and activating the

RBS (when construed as the daimon), and stimulating even greater vitality and value creation.

Authentic engagement requires self-awareness and moral courage. To fully express one‘s

RBS, a person must be willing to engage with critical participation in life and to counter his or

her tendencies to suppress counternormative thoughts, feelings, values and behaviors. Critical

participation in life means understanding the context, questioning contradictions inherent in that

22

context, and then owning one‘s values and beliefs because they reflect one‘s personal

experience, not because they are socially or politically appropriate (Heidegger, 1962; Shamir &

Eilam, 2005).

―Moral courage is the behavioral expression of authenticity in the face of the discomfort

of dissension, disapproval or rejection‖ (O‘Bryne, Lopez & Peterson, 2000, as cited in Snyder &

Lopez, 2007, p. 225). Moral courage is required to remove masks, or public personae, that deny

internal experiences or deceive others about thoughts, feelings, values or behavioral preferences

in order to increase their stature, protect their image, or avoid conflict in relationships (Roberts et

al., 2009). For women and minorities, peeling off masks may involve displaying aspects of one‘s

cultural heritage, even when they do not conform to mainstream stylistic preferences, in order to

enhance authenticity and foster eudaimonia (Hewlin, 2003; Roberts, 2005; Roberts & Roberts,

2007). Authenticity may carry social costs for such women and minorities, for whom social

acceptance and career success are partially determined by how well they assimilate and conform

to their work environments by adopting the behaviors of white men (Bell, 1990; Bell & Nkomo,

2001; Kanter, 1977). In these circumstances, becoming more authentic means finding ways to

integrate one‘s gendered and cultural experiences into the values and practices of their work

environment, perhaps even drawing upon such aspects of one‘s background as a source of

strength that enhances the quality of one‘s work and relationships (Bell & Nkomo, 2001; Cha &

Roberts, in preparation; Roberts, 2007b).

Increasing authentic engagement is also a social process. People rely on social feedback

to understand and assess their own values, preferences, and actions; and others‘ perceptions of

one‘s alignment (or, ―sincerity‖ as Erikson [2005] and Trilling [2006] conceptualize it) indirectly

influence a person‘s beliefs about whether or not she is being true to herself (Roberts et al.,

23

2009). Thus, the process of becoming more authentic may also involve reshaping others‘

understanding of one‘s internal experiences or their acceptance of one‘s external expressions.

For example, leaders, who are subject to heroic, possibly unattainable, expectations of strength,

altruism, and the ability to meet followers‘ needs (Cha & Edmondson, 2006), may need to defy

or complicate other people‘s stereotypic, simplistic, and/or restrictive expectations of their role in

order to increase authentic engagement and activate the RBS (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Roberts

et al., 2009). In short, authentic engagement calls for people to engage in positive deviance, by

exhibiting ―intentional behaviors that depart from the norm of a reference group in honorable

ways‖ (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003: 209) in order to fully activate the RBS in work contexts.

Relational affirmation. I have heretofore reviewed alignment between the RBS and

work-related activities (purposeful engagement and strength-based engagement) and alignment

between the RBS and the work context (authentic engagement at work). The fourth alignment

pathway, relational affirmation, points to the critical role that relationships play in RBS

engagement. It is well-established that human beings have a pervasive drive to form and

maintain lasting, positive and significant interpersonal relations (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;

Lawrence & Nohria, 2002). Rejection, exclusion or being ignored leads to anxiety, grief,

depression, loneliness and jealousy, while acceptance leads to positive emotions of happiness,

elation, contentment, calm and personal growth (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Fletcher, 1998;

Kram, 1996). Therefore, in work organizations, individuals seek to form and maintain mutually

beneficial relationships with peers, superiors and subordinates to gain instrumental assistance

and social support (Dutton, 2003; Gersick, Bartunek, & Dutton, 2000; Higgins, 2001; Higgins &

Kram, 2001; Kram, 1996; Thomas, 1993).

24

As discussed in earlier segments of this chapter, positive relationships facilitate RBS

engagement in several ways. By positive relationships, I mean relationships in which there is a

true sense of relatedness and mutuality; one experiences giving and receiving, mutual caring, and

safety in times of distress (Roberts, 2007a). A positive relationship enhances the quality of life

for all parties (Gabarro, 1987; Luft, 1984; Miller & Stiver, 1997). All parties in the relationship

experience themselves as being ―better off‖ and being better people as a result of the

relationship.

Relationships are a conduit through which people discover their RBS, as they foster the

exchange of contribution feedback and provide a context for sensemaking about how a person

creates value in a given context (Roberts et al., 2005). These feedback exchanges can also

sharpen one‘s understanding of core strengths and how to leverage them effectively. Social

interactions can inform and affirm one‘s sense of purposeful engagement at work, by deepening

the sense of significance and meaningfulness of work in promoting a greater social good (Grant,

2007; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Social feedback is also important for authentication

(Roberts et al., 2009); through social interactions, people receive validation of identity claims,

which then enhance the shared experience of being known and understood for one‘s authentic

RBS. Further, social resources, as a subset of social capital (Coleman, 1988) or relational wealth

(Leana & Rousseau, 2000), enable people to cope and adapt to challenges (Fredrickson, 2001)

and may, therefore, strengthen a person‘s resolve to confront challenges to authenticity with

moral courage and to exhibit positive deviance. For example, certain members of organizations

accrue idiosyncrasy credits due to their status within a group that allow them greater freedom to

express differences and deviate from norms (Estrada, Brown & Lee, 1995). As another example,

research shows how mentoring relationships, social identity affinity groups, networks, and

25

community organizations bolster minorities‘ authentic engagement (Bell, 1990; Bell & Nkomo,

2001; Blake-Beard, Murrell, & Thomas, 2007; Thomas & Gabarro, 1999).

Thus, positive relationships enable people to learn more about their RBS and provide the

inspiration and social support for RBS engagement at work. The fourth alignment pathway of

relational affirmation builds upon this proposition. Relational affirmation refers to the act of

enhancing another person‘s sense of being known and understood for what he or she contributes

to a relationship and to the social environment more generally. When both parties in a

relationship feel that they are known and understood, they are more likely to trust, respect and

like one another (Cole & Taboul, 2004; Kahn, 2007; Miller & Stiver, 1997; Polzer, Milton &

Swann, 2002; Swann, Polzer, Selye & Ko, 2004). When people feel known, understood and

affirmed, they are also more likely to proactively seek performance feedback because they have

fewer impression management concerns (Ashford, Blatt & Van de Walle, 2003), and to trust that

positive and negative feedback is accurate and well-intended (Cohen, Steele & Ross, 1999).

Even visualizing close, positive relationships makes people more receptive to additional

feedback about newly discovered performance and intellectual deficiencies (Kumashiro &

Sedikides, 2005).

People can increase RBS engagement by cultivating affirming relationships, which is a

process of mutual discovery. As people act with intention to affirm another person‘s RBS, they

open the pathway for their own contributions to manifest more powerfully in a given context. In

the words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,

In a real sense all life is interrelated. All [people] are caught in an inescapable network of

mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever effects one directly affects all

indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you

can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the inter-related

structure of reality.

26

Respectful engagement is a powerful signal of affirmation; it indicates one‘s willingness to be

present or fully there (Kahn, 1990), as well as a genuine desire to form a connection (Dutton,

2003; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). The quality of that connection, and the enduring nature of

affirmation, may also depend on people‘s capacity for perspective taking. Perspective taking

fosters relational affirmation by helping people to recognize external circumstances that can lead

to failure and to acknowledge the internal characteristics that enable another‘s success (Galper,

1976; Parker & Axtell, 2001; Regan & Totten, 1975). Perspective-taking also helps people to see

more commonalities between themselves and others, and thus reduces the likelihood of

stereotyping (Davis, Conklin, Smith & Luce, 1996; Galinsky, Ku & Wang, 2005; Galinsky &

Moskovic, 2000). Adopting another‘s perspective also enables one to learn which aspects of the

other‘s identity are most valued and to affirm those aspects of identity (Roberts, 2007a; Swann et

al., 2004).

Relational affirmation can also take place through the exchange of strength-based

feedback. A Gallup poll demonstrates the importance of affirmation in the workplace: only 1%

of employees whose managers focused on strengths reported active disengagement with work;

22% of those whose managers focused on weaknesses reported active disengagement; and 40%

of those who reported their managers ignored them also indicated that they were actively

disengaged from their jobs (Rath, 2007). The previous section on strength-based engagement in

this chapter reviews the costs of active disengagement.

The amount of positive feedback, relative to negative feedback, also determines

important relational and well-being outcomes. Research on positive emotions, relationships and

well-being reveals that human flourishing is predicted by a ratio of 3:1 for positive to negative

affect (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). In work teams, the ratio of three positive to one negative

27

statements between team members predicts the highest levels of performance (Losada &

Heaphy, 2004; Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). Outside of the work context, Gottman‘s (1994)

study of marriages also reports that couples who exchange five times as many positive to

negative verbal and nonverbal signals during a 15 minute interaction are more likely to remain

married than couples who display a 1:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions. There is an

upper limit, however; if the positive outweighs the negative by a factor of 13 or more, there may

be harmful effects on individuals and relationships (Fredrickson, 2009). Based on this finding,

affirming relationships do not require that one refrain from any ―negative‖ exchange, but that the

positive outweigh the negative by a factor of 3 to 9. Cultivating affirming relationships in this

way can promote vitality via enhanced self-esteem, positive emotions, and resilience for RBS

engagement, while also promoting value creation through the establishment of affirming social

practices that enliven others‘ reflected best selves.

Future Research

As stated at the beginning of this chapter, the question of bringing one‘s best self to work

generates a host of questions for scholarly investigation. This chapter has drawn upon research in

organizational behavior, positive psychology and positive organizational scholarship to define

the reflected best self as a socially constructed self-construal, to describe four pathways for RBS

engagement, and to offer several theories and empirical studies that support the potency of RBS

engagement in promoting generativity in organizations. However, many of these proposed links

call for additional empirical testing to further explore the boundary conditions and mechanisms

by which RBS engagement facilitates such positive outcomes.

The relationship between challenging jolts, affirmative jolts and positive identity

construction should be further examined. Event sampling techniques might allow for

28

investigations of the source, timing, magnitude and impact of jolts that people experience on a

daily basis, with respect to cultivating the RBS and other types of potentially related positive

identities (i.e., seeing oneself as virtuous, favorably regarded, whole, balanced, and growing or

adapting in a positive direction). The alignment pathways proposed should be examined for their

unique and combined impact on RBS engagement, vitality and value creation. A scale of RBS

engagement should be developed, and survey research should be used to test the strength of

relationships between RBS engagement and purposeful engagement, strength-based engagement,

authentic engagement, and the cultivation of affirming relationships at work. There may also be

additional alignment pathways and types of jolts that were not mentioned in this chapter. While

extant research (e.g., the Gallup Institute surveys) collects data on ―doing what you do best at

work everyday,‖ further investigation is required that expands beyond this strength-based

construal of the RBS to also include the other alignment pathways (i.e., purposeful engagement,

authentic engagement, relational affirmation) that are prominently featured in positive

psychology and positive organizational scholarship.

Despite the wealth of evidence substantiating the claims that RBS engagement promotes

well-being and performance, it is important to identify the boundary conditions for such

relationships. For example, using strengths in new ways appears to have a stronger impact on

vitality than does using strengths with intention or merely reflecting on a single best self episode.

A combination of RBS awareness (i.e., discovering one‘s best self) and situated action (i.e.,

being at one‘s best more often) may have the most potent and durable impact on vitality and

value creation. This proposition should be examined with experimental research methodologies.

Value creation often requires personal and situational changes. A sense of self as

―becoming‖ (i.e., positive identity development) and the motivation to grow and develop oneself

29

in areas of strength and weakness (i.e., make one‘s best self even better) may be critical for

gaining the maximal benefit from RBS engagement. Qualitative research may be best suited for

capturing narratives of growth in one‘s RBS. Critics of strength-based engagement and relational

affirmation often (mis)construe positive scholarship as promoting narcissism and complacency.

It is important to determine the personal and situational characteristics that foster eudaimonia, or

self-optimization with RBS engagement, versus those that foster hedonism or pleasure-seeking.

This chapter has focused primarily on the individual‘s actions in (co)creating the

conditions in which the RBS is activated at work. The question, ―did you bring your best self to

work today?‖ implies that the individual plays a central role in RBS engagement. Yet the

research on affirming relationships indicates that significant others can enable (or inhibit) RBS

engagement, the research on purposeful engagement suggests that job design might impact RBS

engagement, and the research cited on authentic engagement establish that the culture of the

work environment also influences RBS engagement. Multi-level analyses would allow

researchers to parse out the effects of individual characteristics (e.g., positive identity

descriptors, personal agency), leader behaviors (e.g., strength-based feedback, provision of

developmental opportunities), and organizational context (e.g., job design, organizational

culture, diversity and inclusion of minorities) on RBS engagement and other psychological and

performance-related outcomes.

It is also important to develop a deeper understanding of people‘s varying levels of

tolerance for being out of alignment with their best selves. Not all people work because it is their

calling; many derive a sense of purpose from the ability to provide financially for one‘s family.

Yet if a job requires the underutilization of strengths, the suppression of valued identities, or

frequent interactions with toxic, uncivil coworkers, the amount of money that one earns may not

30

be sufficient to override the deleterious impact on RBS engagement, vitality or value creation.

There are likely individual differences in the valuation of each area of alignment with the RBS.

Finally, the importance of voice is evident in the authentic engagement pathway to RBS

activation. Ironically, some critics of positive organizational scholarship contend that this project

of enabling people to bring their best selves to work may be a form of subtle exploitation. When

bringing one‘s best self becomes an organizational requirement, it may feed into a performance

culture of seeking status enhancements and rewards, rather than the intrinsic motivation of self-

actualization, pursuing the daimon, and maximizing contributions. It is thus important that

organizations recognize people materially and immaterially (e.g., through appreciation,

developmental opportunities) for RBS engagement, but that each individual maintains the

freedom and autonomy to self-determine his or her optimal level of RBS engagement in the

service of promoting vitality and value creation.

31

References

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423-1436.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashford, S.J., Blatt, R. & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A

Review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29,

773-799.

Avery, D., & Steingard, D. (2008). Achieving political trans-correctness: Integrating

sensitivity and authenticity in diversity management education. Journal of Management

Education, 32, 269-293.

Avolio, B., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root

of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist,

44, 1175-1184.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Beerman, U., Park, N., Peterson, C., Ruch, W., & Seligman, M. (2007). Strengths of

character, orientations to happiness and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2,

149-156.

Bell, E. L. (1990). The bicultural life experience of career-oriented black women. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 11, 459-477.

Bell, E. L., & Nkomo, S. M. (2001). Our separate ways: Black and white women and the

struggle for professional identity. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Bem, D. (1982). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, 6. New York: Academic Press.

Berg, J., Dutton, J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2007). What is job crafting and why does it

matter? Theory to practice briefing. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Positive Organizational

Scholarship, Ross School of Business.

Berg, J.M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to

challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 31, 158-186.

32

Blake-Beard, S., Murrell, A.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2007). Unfinished business: The

impact of race on understanding mentoring relationships. In B. Rose-Ragins and K. Kram

(Eds.), Handbook on Mentoring, Sage Publications.

Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. New York: The

Free Press.

Cameron, K. (2008). Positive leadership: Strategies for extraordinary performance. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Caza, B. B. (2007). Experiences of adversity at work: Toward an identity-based theory of

resilience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Caza, B. B., & Wilson, M. G. (2009). Me, myself, and I: The benefits of work-identity

complexity. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and

organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution,

and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 57-78.

Cha, S. E., & Roberts, L. M. (2010). Navigating race: Asian American journalists‘

engagement of identity-related resources at work. Manuscript under review, McGill University

and Antioch University.

Cheng, C., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Connecting the dots within: Creative

performance and identity integration. Psychological Science, 19, 1178-1184.

Clifton, D.O. & Harter, J.K. (2003). Investing in strengths. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton and

R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler.

Cohen, G., L., Steele, C., & Ross, L. (1999). The Mentor‘s dilemma: Providing critical

Feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1302-1318.

Cole, T. & Taboul, J.C. (2004). Non-zero-sum collaboration, reciprocity, and the

preference for similarity: Developing an adaptive model of close relational functioning. Personal

Relationships, 11, 135-160.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal

of Sociology, 94: 95-120.

Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. 1994. Collective self-esteem and

psychological well-being among White, Black, and Asian college students. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5): 503-513.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:

Harper & Row.

33

Davis, M., Conklin, L., Smith, A., Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective-taking on the

cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70, 713-726.

Dutton, J. (2003). Energize your workplace: How to create and sustain high quality

connections at work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high quality connections. In K. S.

Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of

a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. S. (2010). Pathways for positive identity

construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources.

Academy of Management Review, 35, 265-293.

Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. S. (in press). Prosocial practices, positive

identity, and flourishing at work. In S. I. Donaldson, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & J. Nakamura

(Eds.), Applied positive psychology: Improving everyday life, schools, work, health, and society:

Working Draft.

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity

perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229-

273.

Erikson, R. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic

Interaction, 18, 121-144.

Estrada, M., Brown, J., & Lee, F. (1995). Who gets the credit? Perceptions of

idiosyncrasy credit in work groups. Small Group Research, 26, 56-76.

Fletcher, J. (1998). Relational practice: A feminist reconstruction of work. Journal of

Management Inquiry, 7(2), 163-186.

Fredrickson, B. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive emotions in positive

psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56:

218-226.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity: Groundbreaking research reveals how to embrace

the hidden strength of positive emotions, overcome negativity, and thrive. New York: Crown.

Fredrickson, B., & Losada, M. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of

human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678-686.

Fried, Y., Ben-David, H. A., Tiegs, R. B., Avital, N., & Yeverechyahu, U. (1998). The

interactive effect of role conflict and role ambiguity on job performance. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 71, 19-27.

34

Gabarro, J.J. (1987). The dynamics of taking charge. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press.

Galinsky, A., Ku, J., & Wang, C. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap:

Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group processes and intergroup

relations, 8, 109-124.

Galinsky, A., & Moskovic, G. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype

expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 78, 708-724.

Galper, R.E. (1976). Turning observers into actors: Differential causal attributions as a

function of ―empathy‖. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 328-335.

Gersick, C., Bartunek, J., & Dutton, J. (2000). Learning from academia: The importance

of relationships in professional life. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1026-1044.

Gottman, J. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail... and how you can make yours last.

New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Govindji, R., & Linley, P. A. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being:

Implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists. International Coaching

Psychology Review, 2, 143-153.

Grant, A. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial

difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393-417

Grant, A.M., Campbell, E.M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007).

Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on

persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 53-67.

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541-553.

Grant, A.M., & Parker, S.K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of

relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 317-375.

Hall, D. T. (2002). Careers in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job

enrichment. California Management Review, 17, 57-71.

Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C.R. Snyder and S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of

positive psychology: 382-394. New York: Oxford University Press.

35

Harter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2002). Employee engagement, satisfaction, and business-unit-

level outcomes: A meta-analysis. Gallup Technical Report. Lincoln, NE: Gallup, Inc.

Harter, J., Schmidt, F., & Hayes, T. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between

employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.

Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Positive social interactions and the human body at

work: Linking organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33, 137-162.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time, (J. MacQuarrie and E. Robinson, Trans.).

London: SCM Press.

Hewlin, P. F. (2003). And the award for best actor goes to…: Facades of conformity in

organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 28, 633-656.

Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people

to suffer? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 22 (pp. 93-

136). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Higgins, M. C. (2001). Changing careers: The effects of social context. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 22, 595-618.

Higgins, M., & Kram, K. 2001. Reconceptualizing mentoring at work; A developmental

network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 264-288.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hodges, T. & Clifton, D. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In P.A. Linley

and S. Joseph (Eds.), International handbook of positive psychology in practice: From research

to application. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons.

Ibarra, H. (2003). Working identity: Unconventional strategies for reinventing your

career. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Illies, R., Morgeson, F., & Nahrgang, J. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic

well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373-394.

Johnson, K. J., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2005). ‗We all look the same to me‘: Positive

emotions eliminate the own-race bias in face recognition. Psychological Science, 16: 875-881.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and

disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human

Relations, 45, 321-349.

36

Kahn, W. A. (2007). Meaningful connections: Positive relationships and attachments at

work. In J. E. Dutton & B. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a

theoretical and research foundation, p. 189-207. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

King, L. A. (2001). The health benefits of writing about life goals. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 27, 798–807.

Kram, K. (1996). A relational approach to career development. In D. T. H. a. Associates

(Ed.), The career is dead – Long live the career (pp.132-157). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Kumashiro, M., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Taking on board liability-focused information:

Close positive relationships as a self-bolstering resource. Psychological Science, 16(9), 732-739.

Lawrence, P. R., & Nohria, N. (2002). Driven: How human nature shapes our choices.

San Francisco, Jossey Bass.

Leana, C. R., & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.). (2000). Relational wealth. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Liedtka, J. (2008). Strategy-making and the search for authenticity. Journal of Business

Ethics, 80, 237-248.

Linley, P. A., Nielsen, K. M., Wood, A. M., Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener, R., (2010).

Using signature strengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and

well-being, and implications for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology

Review, 5 (1), 8-17.

Linley, A., Willars, J., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). The strengths book. Coventry, UK:

CAPP Press.

Lopez, F., & Rice, K. (2006). Preliminary development and validation of a measure of

relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 362-371.

Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of positivity and connectivity in the

performance of business teams: A nonlinear dynamics model. American Behavioral Scientist, 47,

740-765.

Louis, M. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in entering

unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 226-251.

Luft, J. (1984). Group process: An introduction to group dynamics. Mayfield Publishing

Company.

Markus, H. & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9): 954-969.

37

Markus, H, Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological

perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York, Harper and Row.

Miller, J.B., & Stiver, I.P. (1997). The Healing connection: How women form

relationships in therapy and life. Boston: Beacon Press.

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of

employee silence: Issues that employees don‘t communicate upward and why. Journal of

Management Studies, 40, 1453-1476.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change

and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706-731.

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C.R. Snyder &

S.J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology (p. 89-105). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

O‘Bryne, K.K., Lopez, S.J., & Peterson, S. (2000, August). Building a theory of courage:

A precursor to change? Paper presented at the 108th Annual Convention of the American

Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2003). Virtues and organizations. In K. S. Cameron, J. E.

Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new

discipline (pp. 33-47). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004a). Strengths of character and well-being.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603-619.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004b). Strengths of character and well-being: A

closer look at hope and modesty. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 628-634.

Parker, S., & Axtell, C. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of

employee perspective-taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1085-1100.

Peterson (2006). A primer in positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life

satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25-41.

Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2006). Character strengths in organizations. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27, 1149-1154.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook

and classification. New York: Oxford University Press.

38

Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swann, W. B. (2002). Capitalizing on diversity:

Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 296-324.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial Attitudes and Performance.

Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Quinn, R.E. (2004). Building the bridge as you walk on it: A guide for leading change.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Quinn, R.E. & Quinn, G.T. (2002). Letters to Garrett. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rath, T. (2007). Strengthsfinder 2.0. New York: Gallup Press.

Rath, T., & Clifton, D. (2004). How full is your bucket? Positive strategies for work and

life. New York: Gallup Press.

Regan, D.T., & Totten, J. (1975). Empathy and attributions: Turning actors into

observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 850-856.

Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing faces: Professional image construction in diverse

organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 30, 685-711.

Roberts, L. M. (2007a). From proving to becoming: How positive relationships create a

context for self-discovery and self-actualization. In Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (2007).

Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. (pp. 29-

46). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roberts, L. M. (2007b). Bringing your whole self to work: Lessons in authentic

engagement from women leaders. In B. Kellerman & D. L. Rhode (Eds.), Women and

leadership: The state of play and strategies for change (pp. 329-360). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Roberts, L. M., Cha, S. E., Hewlin, P. F., & Settles, I. H. (2009). Bringing the inside out:

Enhancing authenticity and positive identity in organizations. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton

(Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research

foundation, p. 149-169. New York, NY: Routledge.

Roberts, L.M., & Creary, S. (2011). Positive identity construction: Insights from classical

and contemporary theoretical perspectives. In K. Cameron and G. Spreitzer (Eds.), Handbook of

Positive Organizational Scholarship, Oxford Press.

Roberts, L. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Exploring positive identities and organizations:

Building a theoretical and research foundation. New York, NY: Routledge.

39

Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E. D., & Quinn, R. E. (2005).

Composing the reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in

work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 712-736.

Roberts, L.M. & Roberts, D.D. (2007). Testing the limits of antidiscrimination law: The

business, legal, and ethical ramifications of cultural profiling at work. Duke Journal of Gender

Law & Policy, 14, 369-405.

Roberts, L. M., Spreitzer, G., Dutton, J., Quinn, R., Heaphy, E., & Barker, B. 2005b.

How to play to your strengths. Harvard Business Review, 83(1): 74-80.

Ryan, R., LaGuardia, J., & Rawsthorne, L. (2005). Self-complexity and the authenticity

of self-aspects: Effects on well being and resilience to stressful events. North American Journal

of Psychology, 7, 431-448.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2001. On happiness and human potential: A review of

research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 141-166.

Ryff, C. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.

Ryff, C., & Keyes, C. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 719-727.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2001). Emotion, social relationships, and health. New York,

NY US: Oxford University Press.

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology

progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410-421.

Settles, I. H. (2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand Black women‘s

racial and gender identities. Sex Roles, 54, 589-601.

Settles, I. H., Sellers, R. M., & Damas, Jr., A. (2002). One role or two? The function of

psychological separation in role conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 574-582.

Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). ―What‘s your story?‖ A life-stories approach to

authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395-417.

Sheldon, K., & Lyubormirski, S. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive emotion:

The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves. The Journal of Positive

Psychology, 1, 73–82.

Snyder, C.R., & Lopez, S.J. (2007). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical

explorations of human strengths. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

40

Spreitzer, G. (2006). Leadership development lessons from positive organizational

studies. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 305-315.

Spreitzer , G.,& Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive

deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 828-847.

Spreitzer, G., Stephens, J.P., & Sweetman, D. (2009). The Reflected Best Self field

experiment with adolescent leaders: exploring the psychological resources associated with

feedback source and valence. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 331-348.

Spreitzer, G. M., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J. E., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A

socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16: 537-549.

Stefanyszyn, K. (2007). Norwich Union changes focus from competencies to strengths,

Strategic HR Review, 7, 10-11.

Swann, W. B., Polzer, J., Seyle, D. & Ko, S. (2004). Finding value in diversity:

Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management

Review, 29(1).

Thoits, P. A. (1983). Multiple identities and psychological well-being: A reformulation

and test of the social isolation hypotheses. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 174-187.

Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 169-194.

Thomas, D. A., & Gabarro, J. J. (1999). Breaking through: The making of minority

executives in corporate America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Trilling, L. (2006). Sincerity and authenticity (the Charles Eliot Norton Lectures) (New

Ed. edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tunnell, G. (1984). The discrepancy between private and public selves: Public self-

consciousness and its correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 549-555.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and

employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359-1392.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal

expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 64, 678-691.

Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., & Hurling, R. (2010). Use of positive

psychological strengths leads to less stress and greater self-esteem, vitality, and positive affect

41

over time: A three-wave longitudinal study and validation of the Strengths Use Scale.

Unpublished manuscript. Coventry, UK: Centre for Applied Positive Psychology.

Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In Cameron, K. S., Dutton,

J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new

discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C. R., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and

callings: People‘s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21-33.

Wrzesniewski, A., Berg, J.M., & Dutton, J.E. (2010). Turn the Job You Have into the Job

You Want. Harvard Business Review, 88, 114-117.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as

active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179-201.