This document summarizes a study on the effects of a strengths intervention training on employee well-being. The training was designed to help participants identify and develop their strengths over a 4.5 hour session. The study used a sample of 129 working adults and measured outcomes like positive affect, life satisfaction, and burnout before and after the intervention. The results showed that the strengths training increased participants' positive affect and psychological capital, but did not significantly impact life satisfaction, work engagement, or burnout. The conclusions were that focusing on strengths can enhance general well-being and psychological resources, but may not directly influence work-related forms of well-being. Limitations included the convenience sample and size of training groups.

1. M.C. Meyers
M. van Woerkom
Amsterdam, July 2014
The effects of a strengths
intervention on employee well-
being, psychological capital,
engagement & burnout

2. “Strengths are potentials for excellence” (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011)
STRENGTHS & INTERVENTIONS
A strengths intervention helps
participants to identify their strong
points (whatever they may be) and
encourages them to develop and use
their strengths.
(based on Quinlan et al., 2012)

3. • One afternoon: 4 ½ hours
• Groups of 40-45 participants
• 2 professional trainers
• Diverse work forms
Aims
• Visualize ideal future
• Plan how strengths can be used to realize this future
• Understand which resources can help in putting strengths to work
OUR STRENGTHS TRAINING

4. BENEFITS OF USING STRENGTHS

5. Participating in the strengths-based training increases…
1. positive affect
2. life satisfaction
3. psychological capital
4. work engagement
5. burnout
…of working people
HYPOTHESES

6. Group T1
(pre)
Intervention T2
(post)
T3
(1 month)
Intervention
Experimental
Group
(N = 66)
x x x -
Waitlist Control
Group
(N = 63)
x - x x
RESEARCH DESIGN
6
Convenience sample of working adults working in diverse sectors
N = 129 (filled in all three questionnaires)

7. • Satisfaction with Life Scale SWLS (Diener et al., 1985)
• Positive and Negative Affect Schedule PANAS – PA scale (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988)
• Psychological Capital
• Life-Orientation Test – Revised LOT-R (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994)
• New General Self-Efficacy Scale NGSE (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001)
• Adult State Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1996)
• Brief Resilience Scale (Smith et al., 2008)
• Utrecht Work Engagement Scale–9 UWES-9 (Schaufeli, Bakker, Salanova,
2006)
• Utrecht Burnout Scale UBOS-A (Schaufeli & van Dierendonck, 2000)
MEASURES

8. RESULTS: POSITIVE AFFECT
Wilk’s Lambda = .91,
F(2,126) = 6.56, p <.01,
partial eta squared = .09

9. RESULTS: PSYCAP
Wilk’s Lambda = .95,
F(2,121) = 3.24, p <.05,
partial eta squared = .05

10. RESULTS: SWLS
Wilk’s Lambda = .99,
F(1,142) = 1.25, p =.27,
partial eta squared = .01

11. RESULTS: ENGAGEMENT
Wilk’s Lambda = .99,
F(1,135) = 1.23, p =.27,
partial eta squared = .01

12. RESULTS: BURNOUT
Wilk’s Lambda = 1.0,
F(1,138) = 1.23, p =.99,
partial eta squared = .00

13. • Working on strengths enhances general well-being & psychological
capital
• PsyCap seems to be an important predictor of other positive
work-related outcomes, such as performance (Luthans et al.,
2008)
• No evidence for a positive effect on work-related forms of well-being
(engagement and burnout was found)
• there are a number of possible explanations, for instance the
lengths of the training
CONCLUSION

14. Limitations
• Convenience sample
• Big training groups
• Possible confounding factors
Future Research
• Conduct training with employees from 1-2 organizations
• Add more follow-up measurements (3/6/9/12 months)
• Optimize strengths interventions
LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH

15. Contact: m.c.meyers@uvt.nl
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR ATTENTION!