The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 385–391

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Cognitions, Emotions, and Applications: Participants' Experiences of Learning aboutStrengths in an Academic Library

Allison Sharp a, Jeanine Williamson b,⁎a The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1015 Volunteer Boulevard, Office 404C, Knoxville, TN 37919, USAb The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1015 Volunteer Boulevard, Office 152, Knoxville, TN 37919, USA

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 865 974 9164.E-mail addresses: asharp9@utk.edu (A. Sharp), jwill

(J. Williamson).

0099-1333/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.02.008

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 31 July 2012Accepted 25 February 2013Available online 12 June 2013

Keywords:Positive psychologyAcademic libraries managementStrengths-based interventions

This study examined academic library employees' experiences during “strengths education,” a process oflearning about individual strengths during a positive psychology intervention. Participants took the CliftonStrengthsFinder test, attended a workshop, and then were interviewed about what they considered to bethe effects of the strengths training. The focus of the qualitative analysis was the interviewees' statementsabout the intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of learning about their strengths. We categorized andcoded these statements as cognitions formed, emotions experienced, and applications envisioned. Our find-ings raise interesting implications for job satisfaction and employee self-esteem, especially during times ofchange.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

In the context of change, academic library employees often expe-rience stress and some develop dissatisfaction with their jobs. For ex-ample, VanDuinkerken and Mosley, 2011 describe the emotionalresponses of “change-resistant” library employees, urging leadersnot to overlook the human factor in change management (2011). Em-ployees are likely to better withstand stress and change if they havepositive psychological attributes such as high self-esteem and job sat-isfaction. For instance, organizational-based self-esteem is linked to anumber of positive work-related consequences, including adaptabili-ty to change (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Job satisfaction is one facet ofhappiness at work that is inversely related to depression, anxiety, andburnout (Fisher, 2010).

One way to possibly increase positive attributes, including self-esteem and job satisfaction, is to engage in positive psychology inter-ventions such as educating employees about their strengths. Positivepsychology is a field of academic psychology that focuses on studyingpositive behaviors and experiences, rather than mental disorders, andit has been heralded as a potentially beneficial paradigm for academiclibrary administration (Quinn, 2005). Strengths-education for em-ployees has been a widely popular positive psychology techniquein management circles since the publication of books such as Now,Discover Your Strengths (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001) and TheStrengthsFinder 2.0 (Rath, 2007), but a review of the library literature

iamson@utk.edu

rights reserved.

found only one case study of this kind of intervention in a library set-ting (Jacobsen, 2010). Strengths-based development of employees hasbeen advocated by Gallup for its potential to increase employee en-gagement. Rath (2007, p. iii) states: “[O]ur studies indicate that peoplewho do have the opportunity to focus on their strengths every day aresix times as likely to be engaged in their jobs and more than three timesas likely to report having an excellent quality of life in general”.1

The purpose of our study is to expand the research base in positivepsychology interventions in academic libraries by investigatingstrengths education, a process during which library employees learnabout their strengths via aGallup inventory, the Clifton StrengthsFinder.We recognize that many factors complicate the understanding ofthe effects of strengths interventions on employees.While correlationalstudies such as Gallup's indicate statistically significant relationshipsbetween the variables under study, we utilize a qualitative semi-structured interview approach in order to describe the effects ofstrengths training in the library. When we use the term “effect,” wemean subjects' own statements on the ramifications of learning abouttheir strengths. Describing the personal consequences of strengths edu-cation may have implications for academic library administration, as itcould provide a rich understanding of employees' responses to thiskind of positive psychology intervention. In addition, we discuss somepotential connections in this case between the experience of strengthseducation (or the process of learning about one's strengths) and in-creased job satisfaction and self-esteem.

1 Emphasis original.

386 A. Sharp, J. Williamson / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 385–391

BACKGROUND

The present study investigates the experiences of academic libraryemployees who learned about their strengths after taking the CliftonStrengthsFinder. The library had undergone a reorganization a fewyears previously; thus the context was prime for an activity thatcould possibly increase morale, and aid with responses to change.

Nevertheless, the context and the re-organization were not thefocus of our study. This study is centered on the individuals' reportedpersonal effects of strengths training. We chose to focus on the individ-ual rather than the context because of the personal psychological im-portance of strengths development. While we believe that there areeffects of strengths education on organizational climate and satisfactionat the organizational level in academic libraries, these are harder to ob-serve than individual effects, which can be discussed by participants.

Interested in pursuing research on strengths training in the library,we applied for and were awarded an internal library grant, the FacultyResearch Incentive Program (FRIP). We purchased 23 copies ofStrengthsFinder 2.0 from Amazon.com for an approximate cost of$400. We utilized the many training tools available on the GallupOrganization's web site, since our funding did not allow for the hiringof an official consultant. Perhaps future researchwill include the use ofa professional facilitator.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Our research questions were refined during the course of the study,as sometimes happens in qualitative inquiry (Dey, 1993), but after sev-eral passes through the interview data, we decided to focus on subjects'statements about the intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences ofknowing about strengths. We were interested in subjects' statementsabout themselves and their statements about others vis-à-vis thestrengths training process. As the Methods section describes, we devel-oped the categories of cognitions formed, emotions experienced, and ap-plications envisioned related to strengths education.

LITERATURE REVIEW

POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND STRENGTHS-BASED INTERVENTIONS

Positive psychology is a fairly recently developed branch of psy-chology that changes the focus of psychology from a disease/healingperspective to one where strengths are built upon and made stronger.For an example of a positive psychology approach in libraries, seeSullivan's work on Appreciative Inquiry (Sullivan, 2004). This ap-proach uses inquiry to discover what an organization is doing well,rather than what needs improving.

Dr. Martin Seligman is one of the earliest and most prolific aca-demic psychologists promoting positive psychology. As Seligman(2002) states, “The aim of positive psychology is to catalyze a changein psychology from a preoccupation only with repairing the worstthings in life to also building the best qualities in life”. Negativityleads to a narrow view of the world that focuses in on threats andprepares individuals for a fight or flight response. It leads to aself-protective reaction. Positivity, on the other hand, allows individ-uals to take in a wide view of the world around them, increasing theirawareness of new ideas (Isen, 2002). Positive emotions can also in-crease our personal development. Frederickson states that positiveemotions lead to the temporary expansion in thoughts and actions,which in turn leads to an increase in development of personal re-sources, which then leads to growth and transformation throughthe upward spiral of emotion, cognition, and action.

For example, joy, through play, can strengthen social support net-works and through creativity can lead to the production of art andscience or to creative problem solving in day-to-day life. Increased

social support, artistic and scientific productions, and successfulproblem-solving experiences are all relatively enduring outcomesof joy and may contribute to personal transformation and devel-opment. This, in turn, may lead to more positive emotions.

[(Frederickson, 2002)]

Increased productivity is associated with positive emotions. It hasbeen suggested, however, that being positive isn't always a goodthing. Happy people tend to overestimate their own abilities, whereas“depressed realists” often view their abilities more realistically(Aspinwall, 1991).

STRENGTHS DEVELOPMENT

Positive psychology has led to the development of the sub-specialty of strengths-based psychology (Carr, 2004). In jobs wherepeople report a high level of satisfaction, distinguishing features arethat there is a good fit between the individual's strengths and theirjob duties, they have some autonomy in their position, and their jobis doing some social good (Warr, 2007).

A strength is defined as “the ability to provide consistent,near-perfect performance in a given activity” (Hodges & Clifton,2004). Strengths development is based upon the idea that ratherthan trying to develop what an individual performs poorly, that indi-vidual should focus on developing his or her natural strengths. It de-cries the notion that everyone should be well rounded, saying insteadthat people all have innate talents around which they can focus ondeveloping our knowledge and skills, becoming extraordinary inthat area. This is contrary to what the majority of people in the UnitedStates, United Kingdom, Canada, France, China, and Japan believe. In aGallup poll, people were asked if they would be more successful ifthey improved on their weaknesses, or if they improved upon theirstrengths. Most felt they should work on their weaknesses in orderto be more successful (Hodges & Clifton, 2004). Research hasshown, however, that knowledge and the development of strengthslead to higher levels of success. A study in a high school comparedtwo groups of students over a four-year period. One group hadstrengths training, while the other group served as the controlgroup. The strengths group had fewer absences per student, fewertardies per student, and higher GPAs than the control group (Harter,1998). A similar study among college students showed that strengthstraining improved retention and GPAs (Williamson, 2002). In theworkplace, strengths training also shows positive results. A studyconducted at the Toyota North American Parts Center California(NAPCC) showed that employees who underwent basic strengths in-tervention increased their productivity by 6%, where those whounderwent intensive strengths training improved their productivityby 9% (Connelly, 2002).

Donald O. Clifton, widely known as the father of strengths-basedpsychology, partnered with Gallup to study and measure the factorsinstrumental in success. They created the StrengthsFinder measure,which is a 177 paired item survey designed to identify the areaswhere a person has the most potential to develop their strengths.Now known as Clifton's StrengthFinder, Gallup cites several studiesthat have tested the validity and reliability of the measure (Asplund,Lopez, Hodges, & Harter, 2007).

LIBRARY RELATED

There is a dearth of literature on strengths within a library envi-ronment; however, a 2010 article in Library Journal gives an overviewof strengths training in a public library system. In this article, Jacobsendiscusses the reactions and the enthusiasm that their workers experi-enced when participating in strengths development. They used theofficial StrengthsFinder Training, which included a Gallup trainer,and administered the test to middle and upper managements. The

387A. Sharp, J. Williamson / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 385–391

results were so positive that Jacobsen's library found the money toadminister the test to all library employees, although they usedpeer training instead of the Gallup trainer. Solana County Library ad-ministrators and supervisors have used the strengths informationlearned to appoint employees to appropriate committees and work-ing groups where their strengths would be used effectively. Theyhave also used it to reassign duties of unfilled positions, so employeesare working in their areas of greatest strengths (Jacobsen, 2010).

ORGANIZATIONAL BASED SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem is an attribute one would expect to increase as a result ofstrengths-based interventions, and thiswas the case for someparticipantsin our study. Organizational-based self-esteem, or self-esteem tied to awork context, has important consequences. Pierce and Gardner reviewedthe literature on organization-based self-esteem and concluded:

The literature reveals that organization-based self-esteem haspositive relationship with intrinsic work motivation, job and ca-reer attitudes (e.g., satisfaction, organizational commitment andidentification), behavioral intentions (e.g., turnover and ethical),and constructive work-related behaviors (e.g., in- and extra-roleperformance, adaptation to change, retention, mentoring).

[(Pierce & Gardner, 2004)]

In academic libraries, organizational-based self-esteem is impor-tant since employees must increasingly adapt to change. Changemanagers in academic libraries must overcome negativity on thepart of employees (e.g., Cuillier, 2012), and high self-esteem wouldlikely facilitate the positive attitudes, behaviors, and adaptation tochange that Pierce and Gardner reported. Self-esteem is a relativelyunderstudied phenomenon in academic libraries, with a search of Li-brary Literature retrieving just a few articles, such as Waters (1989)and Hill (1990).

JOB SATISFACTION

Since job satisfaction can decrease during organizational change,interventions on the part of academic library administrators to in-crease job satisfaction could be beneficial, given the importance ofthis attribute for a number of work-related outcomes (Fisher, 2010).Workplace satisfaction contributes to not only the general wellbeing of the employee, but the well-being of the organization.Workers who are engaged have a strong, energetic identificationwith their work and feel enthusiasm, pride, inspiration, and arechallenged by their work (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008).Employers “need employees who feel energetic and dedicated, andwho are absorbed by their work” (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Bakkeret al., 2008).

In academic libraries, job satisfaction has been studied in relationto a number of external contextual factors, such as working environ-ment, wages, etc. (Islam & Islam, 2011); and personal factors, such asrelationships with co-workers and the opportunity to learn new skills(Leysen & Boydston, 2009). Thus there are multiple aspects of workthat can create a satisfying job. A study of academic cataloging librar-ians found that the most important facets of workplace satisfactionwere the benefits package, being involved in work-related decisions,being treated fairly, having good relationships with coworkers, hav-ing the support of the administration (for the department), havingopinions respected and considered, being informed about current is-sues in the department, and having the opportunity to learn newskills (Leysen & Boydston, 2009). Although this study is specific tocataloging librarians in ARL libraries, it reflects common themes ofrespect, inclusion, learning opportunities, and relationships being es-sential to job satisfaction.

Interestingly, Albanese (2008) noted that dissatisfaction among ac-ademic librarians is associated with low salaries, while high satisfactionis most associatedwith helping students, not earning a high salary. Thisis consistent with Alan Bernstein's Herzbergian analysis of academiclibrarian job satisfaction. Frederick Herzberg's Motivation-HygieneTheory states that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposites ona continuum, and therefore eliminating dissatisfaction does not auto-matically improve satisfaction. Meeting lower level needs (hygiene)like earning a good salary, decreases dissatisfaction, while meetinghigher level needs (motivation) like having autonomy increases jobsatisfaction (Bernstein, 2011). Bernstein looked specifically at whetherfaculty rank affected job satisfaction, and while librarians reported itas important, it was not a significant factor in their satisfaction. Therewas a correlation between the “belief in the direct involvement of li-brarians with the educational mission of their institution” (Bernstein,2011).

This study describes individual responses to strengths traininghaving to do such job-satisfying factors as positive work relationshipsand using one's skills (Warr, 2007). These factors are only a smallsubset of “happiness at work” (see Fisher, 2010 for an in-depthdiscussion), but they are important ones.

METHODS

We recruited 23 subjects from two public services departments ina large Southern United States university for strengths training, ofwhom eleven people agreed to be interviewed. We determined thatthis number was sufficient since most qualitative interviews have5–25 subjects, and since this number seemed enough for the purposeof our study and the data had reached a point of saturation where nonew themes were appearing (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).

The strengths training procedure consisted of administering theClifton StrengthsFinder to the voluntary participants and givingeach participant a copy of the book, The StrengthsFinder 2.0, andthen providing a group informational session about strengths. Duringthe informational session, we defined what a strength was, asked par-ticipants to share their strengths on a grid, and led a discussion. In thediscussion, we asked participants if there were any surprises in thestrengths listed in their strengths reports; what the grid revealedabout organizational strengths; and how strengths knowledge couldhelp people to work together. We espoused ideas that were alignedwith those of the developers of the StrengthsFinder. For example,we repeated Rath's(2007) assertion that the StrengthsFinder has apositive approach, rather than a negative one.

Wedid not record the strengths profiles for this study, nor didwe re-cord what was said during the informational session, owing to confi-dentiality concerns, but Appendix A shows the 34 strengths measuredby the Clifton StrengthsFinder. For those participants who agreed tobe interviewed, we gave a semi-structured interview, which consistedof 9 questions and follow-up questions. Because we were interested insubjects' statements on the effects of strengths education, we askedquestions about outcomes, such as, “Has learning about strengthschanged your view of yourself?” and “Do you anticipate that knowingabout your strengths will be useful?”

The questions were open-ended in form, but no doubt presupposedthat there were likely to be outcomes or effects of strengths training.We believed that this trade-off between focusing and presuppositionwould be acceptable due to the purpose of our study, whichwas to cap-ture participants' statements on the effects of the process of strengthseducation. We hoped that our process would provide insight into howparticipants viewed strengths training in its role as an intervention.The interview protocol is given in Appendix B.

After transcribing the interviews, we coded them using the pro-cess of developing categories described by Dey. We went throughseveral iterations, beginning with a general survey of the data andeventually created broad categories of processes present in subjects'

388 A. Sharp, J. Williamson / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 385–391

statements about effects of learning about their strengths. These wereforming cognitions, experiencing emotions, and envisioning applications.Dey's (1993) description of category formation includes the processesof splitting (dividing broad categories) and splicing (forming broadercategories from smaller categories). To illustrate an instance of splic-ing, we formed the broader emotions category after noticing individ-ual emotions such as surprise and disappointment. After we noticedthe emotions category, we realized that there were also analogouscognitions and applications categories. All three broad categories rep-resent sub-categories of “processes engaged in as a result of strengthseducation.”

As mentioned in the introduction, in alignment with our researchquestions, we focused on intrapersonal and interpersonal effects ofstrengths education.

ANALYSIS

COGNITIONS

Learning about strengths triggered a number of cognitions inparticipants about themselves. We define cognitions as products ofintellectual processes or the processes themselves (e.g., learning, in-vestigating, confirming, critical thinking, etc.). One type of intellectualprocess that participants engaged in when considering learning aboutstrengths was wondering. Participants wanted to investigate furtherabout their own strengths. “View of self, um the Strategic, that wasonly fifth, but still, there [sic] has made me wonder a bit about that.That's an area I could investigate more.”

Some participants experienced new awareness. They learned theyhad strengths that they were surprised they possessed. “I guess it'smade me more aware. I didn't know that one of the (I don't remem-ber which strength is was) sort of conflicted with a lot of the feelingswe were having with the [reorganization], so that was somethingthat sort of stood out to me. I don't think I would have noticed itotherwise.”

A similar kind of new learning was present in participants whosaid they gained an enhanced view of themselves. “Not really, hasn'tchanged it [the view of the participant's self], but maybe enhancedit, you know. I already felt like I was strong in those areas, but thenreading what the interpretation is, maybe broader interpretation ofthat kind of strength than I would have had.”

Another process participants experienced was understanding—they had an explanation now for behavior they engaged in. “Itexplained to me why I have this compulsion to get information andget it together and present it and keep it up to date. That wasgood.” Or, “I think it has helped me to perceive that you can be intel-lectual and still have different styles within your thinking. I do see thedifferences now that I've read about it and thought about it.”

Similarly, some participants confirmed strengths they alreadyknew they possessed. However, when participants did not seestrengths in the list that they expected, or when there were strengthsin the list that did not match up with their view of themselves, theyexperienced cognitive dissonance accompanied by the emotions ofconfusion and surprise. “Um, well actually it's confirmed some thingsthat I thought, but uh a few things were surprising in that they didn'tshow up. And the thing is that some of the categories that thestrengths were in, I'm not sure that section applied to work causeyou can interpret the words in different ways.”

Perhaps due to the presupposition implied in our question, “Haslearning about strengths changed your view of yourself, and if so,how,” all participants mentioned some cognition they had as an effectof the strengths education process.

There was one other kind of cognition participants described, thatis, critical thinking about strengths. Participants were aware of a type-casting or pigeonholing potential of learning about strengths. “I guessif you focus too much on what those top five were, you can pigeonhole

yourself and think that maybe I won't try this cause that wasn't one ofmy strengths. So I think you could be self-limiting if you chose to lookat it that way. I think that could be a disadvantage.”

Other cautions about learning about strengths that participantsgave were that people might be over-confident; they might usetheir strengths in an unethical way; and that they should not passoff work; and that they should not let themselves be totally definedby their strengths profiles. “Any of this has to be taken with a grainof salt. You can't ignore the other characteristics of your personality.You want to focus on strengths maybe, but you don't want to dothat so exclusively that you don't develop any of those other skills.… If you think about that too much, are you pigeonholing yourselfand not letting yourself explore areas that may be outside of thosestrengths that you might find really stimulating and grow into?”Also, “you don't want it to totally define you. It's just one way oflooking at your personality.”

Participants' cognitions were similar when discussing other peo-ple. For example, participants gained new awareness of others'strengths from the process. Some noted that many in the groupshared strengths. For example, one staff member noted in the inter-view that many staff and librarians share the Input trait (a gift forcollecting and organizing information). “I would have been shockedif the reference professionals had not had Input and things like that.I would have been shocked, but I wasn't shocked. It reinforced whatI expected.” Or, “I knew one of my coworkers is very strong in peopleskills. I knew [that person] was, but now I know for sure that [thatperson] is. That's big for me. It has let me know that others, my co-workers, some of my coworkers also have that same strengths that Ido. That's kind of nice.”

Also, similar to above, a theme was understanding others as a re-sult of learning about strengths. For example, the presence or absenceof a trait in other people “explained” to some participants why theyfound relationships with these others difficult.

The participants engaged in active analytical thinking in attemptingto understand others after learning about strengths. They philosophizedabout or critically analyzed strengths in relation to other people, mak-ing the following sometimes different philosophical assertions: peoplesometimes think they have strengths that others are unaware of; peo-ple have different strengths; people share strengths; there is sometimesa departmental mentality; strengths have to do with individuals, notdepartments. Overall, there were fewer instances of cognitive disso-nance when participants considered the strengths of others. Therewas only one instance where an individual was surprised by thestrength of another. In addition to the category of analytical thinking,one participant described thinking actively about strengths duringmany interactions after the strengths training.

EMOTIONS

Pleasure was a common emotional theme in many interviews. Theinterviewees frequently said that they were pleased with theirstrengths, regardless of whether or not they were expected. Almost allparticipants felt a sense of positivity and increased self-confidence. “Ithink it was a nice positive for me personally to think that I havestrengths. I guess I could say changing my perspective gave me a posi-tive boost.” Also, “…it makes me think that potentially someone willgive me the chance, or if I got the chance that I could fulfill that role,and that I generally underestimate myself.”

In many instances, the strengths also validated the participant insome way, either through justifying their work or behavior, or both.“So, behind the scenes, I am a representative of the library, and I ap-preciate the fact that I have been trusted with tasks like that, whicharen't completely normal at my level.” Another participant said, “Ifeel more justified in reading. Sometimes our annual reports looklike they're based on activity and you can't really say reading andgathering information” but now I know that it's one of my strengths.

389A. Sharp, J. Williamson / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 385–391

Some employees who participated expressed feeling encouragedby knowing their own strengths, and even the strengths of others. “Ithink it helped me see some talents that I really wasn't aware of.And how I could build on those talents. It was encouraging.”However,as mentioned above, some participants expressed disappointmentthat expected strengths weren't in their top five. “There are some tal-ents that I probably wish I had that didn't come up on this.”

Participants also expressed pleasure in knowing the strengths oftheir coworkers. “I was very pleased that Input showed up as beingthere on so many people who work here, because I think it's almosta pre-requisite for libraries.” Participants were also pleased with thefact that people were willing to share their strengths, and participantsenjoyed getting to know one another. There was a general feeling ofpositivity associated with knowing the strengths of fellow em-ployees; for example, learning about strengths confirmed oneperson's “high opinion” of his colleagues. One interviewee said thatknowing others' strengths would benefit coworker relationships.“You get closer to the coworker… if there is a wall between you, itbreaks it.” One however, expressed surprise at another's strengths,expecting to find a different combination of strengths more in linewith their opinion of the person.

APPLICATIONS

In addition to having cognitions and experiencing emotions aboutlearning about strengths, participants described potential applica-tions of knowing about strengths. Some of the envisioned applica-tions were personal in nature. First, participants saw strengths as away of making contributions at work, such as participating more ingroup meetings or taking on more responsibility. “Hmm. I guessthat uh wanting to have of to seek a role that takes on more respon-sibility. Say, hey I have this piece of paper that shows I can take onproblem-solving responsibilities. … You know, I don't know, it kindof makes me think that potentially someone will give me the chanceor if I got the chance that I could fulfill that role and I generally under-estimate myself.”

Others saw learning about strengths as being useful for personalactivities, such as long-term career planning, participating in job in-terviews, and life activities outside of the job. On the other hand,other participants saw learning about strengths as not havingresulted in actions based on a change in their view of themselves.“View of self, well it has, some of the results were surprising, so inthat way it changed, but I don't know that I've employed any ofthe other than the ‘look at that. What? Look at that, or thinkabout that.’”

Participants also described interpersonal applications of learningabout strengths. Knowing about strengths could provide a quickway of understanding others, and it could also allow tailoring of inter-actions with others. “If I ammeeting someone new who has taken thetest it could be a quick way of assessing where we have similarstrengths and where we might have different viewpoints. It mightbe a quick way of understanding a new person and allowing that per-son to understand me a bit better, so I can see where it could be veryuseful. Or I say new people, but someone in another department, but Idon't interact with that person. It could allow us to perhaps empa-thize with each other and a bit faster in the way of how we scoredon the test. I personally thought it was great fun to see how otherpeople did, and I was very pleased that almost everyone was willingto share.” Or, “It's given more insight into the coworker personalitiesthan I maybe had before from just interacting with them, by thinkingabout their strengths you kind of say, well maybe I could interact in away that would be more effective with that person.”

Some participants said that learning about strengths also could fa-cilitate teamwork and helping one another. “I think talking moreabout strengths… could be a very positive thing. I think it's a goodidea to help people build on their strengths instead of focusing on

their weaknesses… I think it makes sense and it can really help getthe work done in a more positive way, but create an atmosphere ofhelping each other and growing together. That could be important.”

Participants saw the potential of using either similar strengths orcomplementary strengths to achieve a work project goal. “It was in-teresting to see where we all overlapped, so where we could come to-gether as a really, really strong unit in some ways, but it was alsointeresting to note where the differences were and who had them be-cause I think that maybe when you're working on a project…youmight know who's going to bring what different types of things tothe table in a larger group like that. So I would say, yeah, probablyit's giving you more insight into the individuals in the group.” Or,“just knowing ahead of time, maybe the complementary strength[may be useful]… knowing that not everyone has the same strengthsor the same combination of strengths, so really having an eye to thatwhere we can work together as two people or as an entire team onsomething.”

Appendix C shows a chart of the research findings.

DISCUSSION

The results stimulate intriguing hypotheses concerning the role ofstrengths training in promoting self-esteem and job satisfaction, al-though no statistical generalizations can be made about a singlecase. In particular, the data coded above within the intrapersonalemotion categories of pleasure and encouragement suggest thatfor some participants at least, there was a perceived growth inself-esteem as a result of the strengths training. Participants tendedto be bolstered in their confidence and pleased with what theylearned or confirmed about themselves. As we discussed in the litera-ture review, self-esteem can help with adapting to change, so it is pos-sible that strengths education would help with change management inacademic libraries. While the library's organizational context – itsre-organization a few years previously – was not the focus of study,we hypothesize that strengths education would help academic libraryemployees dealing with change.

The data also suggest interesting ideas concerning job satisfaction.One factor associated with job satisfaction is positive, high-quality re-lationships with co-workers (e.g.,Warr, 2007) and the participantsshowed an increasing satisfaction with co-workers as a result oflearning about their strengths. Some were pleased to note similarstrengths, others to pair complementary strengths, and others stilljust to understand their co-workers better, all of which should con-tribute to higher-quality relationships with co-workers. An additionalfacet in job satisfaction is the ability to use one's skills (Warr, 2007).Since strengths training encourages people to focus on what they dowell, it promotes the use of skills. Awareness of these strengthsgives some participants the confidence to use their skills, as well asawareness of ways in which they might exercise strengths.

LIMITATIONS

While the study raised interesting implications for employeeself-esteem and job satisfaction, there were limitations. First, thestudy was small in scale and limited to a particular context (a largeSouthern U.S. academic library). Second, we chose as our focus the in-dividual perspective, rather than contextual factors. This left out in-teresting pieces of the puzzle, and future study should considerorganizational, as well as individual, effects of strengths-training. Ad-ditionally, although we are quite interested in, and knowledgeableabout the Clifton StrengthsFinder and strengths training, future re-search would benefit from having a professional trainer from Gallupoffer the intervention, not only because of their expertise, but also be-cause of their neutral, outsider status.

390 A. Sharp, J. Williamson / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 385–391

CONCLUSION

Academic library administrators are often faced with employees'strong emotional responses when change is introduced (VanDuinkerken& Mosley, 2011). Job satisfaction can plummet, with possible effects onthe well being of the employees and productivity. This study describedthe personal experiences of academic library employees during learningabout their strengths in a positive psychology intervention. The datashow a variety of reported intrapersonal and interpersonal responsesto strengths training. It seemed that for some individuals, self-esteemrose and factors associated with job satisfaction, such as positive rela-tionships and the opportunity to use skills, were promoted as a resultof this intervention. More confirmatory research is clearly neededafter this preliminary, hypothesis-generating study. Also, future studiescould examine the ramifications of strengths training in other contexts,aswell as paymore attention to organizational, rather than just individ-ual, effects.

APPENDIX A

Strengths, with very brief descriptions.

Achiever

works hard Activator takes action Adaptability is flexible Analytical applies reasoning Arranger organizes well Belief demonstrates core values Command makes decisions Communication good with words Competition wants to win Connectedness looks for links Consistency treats people the same Context uses history to understand the present Deliberative makes careful decisions Developer cultivates others' potential Discipline structured Empathy senses others' feelings Focus stays on track Futuristic inspired by visions of the future Harmony seeks agreement Ideation finds connections between ideas Includer accepting of others Individualization recognizes unique qualities of others Input collects information Intellection introspective and intellectual Learner desires to learn and improve Maximizer promotes personal and group excellence Positivity contagious enthusiasm Relator has close relationships with others Responsibility takes ownership of what they say they will do Restorative resolves problems Self-Assurance confident Significance wants to be recognized as important Strategic creates alternative solutions Woo connects with others

Adapted from “Brief Theme Descriptions” by Gallup, Inc.,StrengthsFinder.

APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Has learning about strengths changed your view of yourself? If so,how?

2. Has learning about strengths changed your view of your job activ-ities or duties? If so, how?

3. Has learning about strengths changed your view of yourco-workers? If so, how?

4. Are there ways that you can anticipate that knowing aboutstrengths will be useful? If so, how?

5. What are some disadvantages of knowing about strengths?6. Has learning about strengths changed your view of your depart-

ment? If so, how?7. Has learning about strengths changed your view of other depart-

ments? If so, how?8. Are there other ways that learning about strengths has changed

your perspective?9. Do you have any interest in participating in further short work-

shops on strengths?

APPENDIX C. FINDINGS

Intrapersonal

Interpersonal

Cognitions

Wondering Confirming New awareness Understanding Enhancing one's view Active analytical thinking Understanding Confirming one's strengths Cognitive dissonance Critical thinking about strengths

Emotions

Pleasure Pleasure Validation Positive Encouragement Disappointment

Applications

Contribute at work Understand others Use in personal activities Tailor interactions Inaction Teamwork

Help one another

Pair complementary Strengths to achieve goals

REFERENCES

Albanese, A. R. (2008). Take this Job and love It. Library Journal, 133(2), 36–39.Aspinwall, L. G. (1991). The effect of upward and downward social comparisons on affect,

self-evaluation, and expectations of future success.Asplund, J., Lopez, S. J., Hodges, T., & Harter, J. K. (2007). The Clifton StrengthsFinder 2.0 tech-

nical report: Development and validation (G. Consulting, trans.): Gallup consulting.Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged em-

ployees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2),147–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.515.

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: Anemerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22(3),187–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649.

Bernstein, A. (2011). A Herzbergian look at academic librarians and job satisfaction.from, http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/glq/vol48/iss3/3

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

Carr, A. (2004). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and human strengths. London:Brunner-Routledge.

Connelly, J. (2002). All together now. The Gallup Management Journal, 2(1), 13–18.Cuillier, C. (2012). Choosing OUR futures … Still! Journal of Library Administration,

52(5), 436–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2012.700806.Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. Lon-

don: Routledge.Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at work. International Journal of Management Reviews,

12(4), 384–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00270.x.Frederickson, B. L. (2002). Positive emotions. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),Handbook

of positive psychology (pp. 120–134). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Harter, J. K. (1998). Gage Park High School research study. Princeton, NJ: The Gallup

Organization.Hill, N. C. (1990). Self-esteem: the key to effective leadership {reprinted from Admin-

istrative Management Ag '76}. [Book Parts]. Developing Leadership Skills, 57–59.Hodges, T. D., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In A.

Linley, & S. Joseph (Eds.), International handbook of positive psychology in practice:From research to application (pp. 256–268). New York: Wiley.

Isen, A. M. (2002). A role for neuropsychology in understanding the facilitating influ-ence of positive affect on social behavior and cognitive processes. In C. R. Snyder,& S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 528–540). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Islam, M., & Islam, S. (2011). Job satisfaction of university library employees: A study oftwo university libraries in Bangladesh. Business Information Review, 28(3),184–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266382111417206.

Jacobsen, T. L. (2010). Showing our strengths. Library Journal, 135(15), 28–31.Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research

interviewing (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

391A. Sharp, J. Williamson / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 39 (2013) 385–391

Leysen, J. M., & Boydston, J. M. K. (2009). Job satisfation among academic cataloger li-brarians. College and Research Libraries, 70(3), 273–297.

Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizationalcontext: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal ofManagement, 30(5), 591–622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.10.001.

Quinn, B. (2005). Enhancing academic library performance through positive psycholo-gy. Journal of Library Administration, 42(1), 79–101.

Rath, T. (2007). Strengths finder 2.0. New York: Gallup Press.Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy.

In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3–12). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, M. (2004). The promise of appreciative inquiry in library organizations. LibraryTrends, 53(1), 218–229.

VanDuinkerken, W., & Mosley, P. A. (2011). The challenge of library management lead-ing with emotional engagement. from, http://site.ebrary.com/id/10470383

Warr, P. B. (2007). Work, happiness, and unhappiness. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Waters, D. H. (1989). The effect of new technology on prestige, self-esteem and socialrelationships of university library employees. [Article]. LASIE, 20, 16–22.

Williamson, J. (2002). Assessing student strengths: Academic performance and persistenceof first-time college students at a private, church affiliated college. (Ph.D.). MountVernon Nazarene University.