report - amazon s3when we asked participants about their pre-existing knowledge and practice of...

T H E

2 0 1 6REPORT

THE Strengths CHALLENGE REPORT 2016 2

THE Strengths CHALLENGE:

CAN AN ELEVEN-MINUTE STRENGTHS HABIT HELP EMPLOYEES FLOURISH?

In February 2015, we discovered that there was a strengths revolution underway in American workplaces. Fed up with the lack of opportunities to do what they do best each day at work, bosses who undermine their confidence and jobs that drain their energy, employees had quietly started finding ways to discover their strengths and put them to work. In an independent poll1 of just over 1,000 American employees, representative of the US workforce, we found:

• While in 2001 only 2 out of every 10 people2 said they had the opportunity to do what they do besteach day at work, this number had increased to 5 out of every 10 people.

• 56% of employees can now name their top five strengths, compared to estimates a decade ago thatreported only one-third of employees3 could do this.

• 64% of employees now believe building on their strengths will make them more successful at work,compared to 63% in 20064 who believed they’d grow most in their areas of weaknesses.

Even when they had neither organizational nor supervisor support for focusing on their strengths, 49% of employees were now able to name their strengths and 26% were finding the opportunity to do what they do best each day at work.5

Why were they bothering? Echoing more than a decade of academic research5 the employees who were regularly developing their strengths at work reported feeling more engaged and energized in their jobs because they believed they were making a difference and their work was appreciated. Most importantly, 70% of these employees described themselves as flourishing at work over the last three months.

Based on these benefits we became intrigued about how we could make it easier and more effective for people to put their strengths to work. While much has been learned about the benefits of developing people’s strengths, there is a surprising lack of tested interventions to guide people’s approaches beyond completing a strengths survey and trying to use their strengths in “new ways”. One of the challenges we encountered for many employees trying to follow this advice, is that despite agreeing developing their strengths would probably be beneficial they were “too busy” to fit it in.


Appreciating the demanding workloads many employees are juggling, we started experimenting with busy-proof ways they could develop their strengths each day. In workshops and coaching sessions we began to introduce the idea of a daily 11-minute strengths habit that harnessed the natural neurological habit loop researchers have discovered6 of cue, routine and reward.

Anecdotal feedback suggested many people found this intervention helpful, so in August 2015 we decided to test it on a larger scale by inviting employees around the world to join us in a free one-week Strengths Challenge. Registering through the website www.strengthschallenge.com participants provided baseline data about their knowledge and use of strengths, performance and wellbeing before being guided step-by-step through the completion of the VIA Survey to register their top five strengths and then the creation of a cue, a routine and a reward to design their daily strengths habit. Online strengths coaches and free training resources were also provided to assist them if needed. Then, from the 21st to the 26th of August 2015, participants were encouraged to practice their habit each day and at the end of the week to answer the same questions about their knowledge and use of strengths, performance and wellbeing to see what impact, if any, the intervention may have had. More than 2,000 people across 70 different countries joined the Strengths Challenge.

DevelopCuriosity

ROUTINE

10 Minutes

REWARD

30 seconds

CUE

30 seconds


Our data suggested this intervention was effective, so we decided to re-test the same intervention. In March 2016 we again invited employees around the world to join us in a free one-week Strengths Challenge. Over 1,900 new participants joined the March 2016 Strengths Challenge, and followed the same procedures as the previous participants.

Based on the total sample of 3,998 people, this report provides a global snapshot of people’s knowledge and use of strengths, and the impact of the intervention itself. As there were no significant differences found on any measures between the two different samples the findings have been presented as collective learning.

Let us be clear at the outset, this information is not intended to be an empirically validated statement on strengths or the intervention tested. It is based on a self-selected sample that is not representative of the global workforce. There were no control groups against which the intervention was compared, meaning we could not control for placebo effect.

Instead it is our hope in sharing this report it will inspire and inform more rigorous academic research and analysis around these ideas. For example, some of the insights that have intrigued us included:

• The emerging patterns of strengths knowledge and use in different geographies, industries and company sizes. Why might New Zealand employees be leading the world when it comes to strengths development? What’s happening in the Science, IT and the Telecommunications, and Law, Finance and Business industries that is causing them to perform so poorly? What can large companies learn from small organizations about helping people set weekly goals around developing their strengths?

• The impact strengths knowledge and use has on people’s feelings of engagement and energy at work. How this influences their belief that what they are doing makes a difference, whether they are respected and appreciated, and their likelihood to describe themselves as flourishing over the previous three months. Why does an organization’s support make this more likely? How can managers improve person-task fit? Why should employees think about setting weekly goals around their strengths?

• How did a daily 11-minute strength habit improve outcomes for roughly a third of our participants?Why did having a meeting with their supervisor improve their outcomes? How did participating in this intervention positively impact people’s perceptions of their organization?

We are continuing to collect data three months and six months after the intervention to see what else we can learn and will share this data as it is available. We are also running the Strengths Challenge again in 2016 to see what else we can learn. For more visit www.strengthschallenge.com.


OUR Sample

Across the two time periods, overall the sample was predominantly comprised of women (80%) with varied ages, though approximately 56% of the sample was 35-55 years old. The majority of participants were from Australia and North America (total 57%), with only approximately 10% of participants coming from Asia, South America, and Africa combined (see appendix). Most participants were from predominantly white, wealthy, Western, English speaking countries. When asked about their highest educational qualifications, the overwhelming majority had completed postgraduate university level studies (77%), with only a small number completing high school only (10%), or not at all (1%). It should be noted explicitly that this is not a representative sample, globally or locally (in Australia), and the questionnaire took the form of a poll rather than a standardised, validated scale.

Most of the participants were in full-time employment (63%), while some worked part-time (12%) and others were self-employed (15%). Participants worked at companies of various sizes, with a good spread between small, medium, and large businesses, though there was a skew towards large businesses (with >500 employees, 28%).

The demographic data between the 2015 and 2016 samples did not differ significantly, and so samples were combined for greater power of analysis. There were only 66 participants who participated in both rounds of data collection. Because these participants only constituted a small percentage of the entire sample, their multiple responses were treated independently.

Participants by Age Group

18-2435-4445-54

55-64

65+

Didn't Answer

Age Group Freq

15610341233

624

94

857

3.9%

25.86%

30.84%

15.61%

2.35%

21.44%


Company Size by Employees

Participant Education Status

FreqCompany Size

609324479

594

609

238

1145

Didn’t Answer

Medium (51-250)

Micro (2-10)

Small (11-50)

Sole Employee

Medium-Large (250-500)

Large (500+)

15.23%

8.1%

11.98%

14.86%15.23%

5.95%

28.64%

FreqEducation Status

57412218

3103

208

Didn’t complete high school

Didn’t Answer

Completed Bachelor level

Completed PostGrad

Completed high school

1.43%

10.31%

5.45%

77.61%

5.2%


Participant Employment Status

Industry

FreqEmployment Status

2521146469

39

598

121

104

Full Time

Self Employed

Part Time

Retired

Other

Student

Didn’t Answer

63.06%

3.65%

11.73%

14.96%

0.98%

3.03% 2.6%

FreqIndustry

1109618328

241

321

309

283

Education

It, Science & Telecomms

Government

Entertainment

Health

Law, Finance & Business

Manufacturing, Mining & Land

Other

Didn’t Answer

628

74

26.36%

15.8%

8.39%6.16%

8.21%

7.9%

7.24%

16.06%

1.89%


Country

Freq

5821310311

999

156

243

397

Country

OtherUnited States

Canada

Australia

New ZealandUnited Kingdom Asia/

Africa/Sth America

14.56%

32.77%

7.78%

24.99%

3.90%

6.08%

9.93%


A GLOBAL STRENGTHS Snapshot

Employees and Their Strength-based Skills

When we asked participants about their pre-existing knowledge and practice of strengths skills, results were mixed. Most people could name their strengths at the beginning of the study (67%), though only a very small number of participants set goals each week based on their strengths (17%). About half of the participants could name the strengths of five of their co-workers. A little over a quarter of participants reported they did not have the opportunity to do what they did best at work (26%). Only 9% of participants strongly agreed that they did have this opportunity, indicating there is great room for improvement here. These numbers remained consistent between the 2015 and 2016 samples.

Participants' Use of Strengths

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Top 5 Strengths Opportunities To Use Weekly Goals

Agree Neutral Disagree

66.73%

12.56%

20.71% 26.36% 64.03%

64.03%

18.91%

18.88%

54.75%


Managers and Organizations' Support for Strengths

Managers and Organizations

We also looked at how managers and organizations were supporting the strengths of their employees, finding that while employers were doing well, they certainly had room to improve. The majority of participants’ supervisors hadn’t had a meaningful discussion about their strengths in the last three months (75%), though over half the participants felt they were respected and valued for their strengths at work (64%). Only 43% of people felt as if their organization was committed to building the strengths of its people. Organizations wanting to stand out from the crowd should take note of this, and encourage supervisors to engage with their employees’ strengths systematically, which would also indicate organizational commitment. Again, the data remained consistent between the 2015 and 2016 samples.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Manager Conversation Committed Organization Respected & Valued

Agree Neutral Disagree

24.79%

41.42%

61.43%

21.86%

16.68%

25.16%

33.42%

17.88%

57.33%


Geographical Analysis

When we looked at where our participants came from, we found some differences in strengths development and wellbeing outcomes depending on the participants' country. It’s important to remember as we review these results – particularly for less wealthy nations - that our participants were predominantly well educated, full-time employees.

Across both samples, New Zealand remained high performing, leading the rest of the pack in relative characteristics. Their participants were the most likely to say that they had the opportunity to do what they did best at work each day (62% vs. avg. 54%), to have had a meaningful discussion about their strengths with their supervisor (35% vs. avg. 25%) and to agree their organization was committed to building strengths (53% vs. avg. 41%). All of these strengths-based leads (within employee and employers) seem to have led to an increase in wellbeing, as New Zealand participants were the most likely to say they felt respected and valued at work (67% vs. avg. 61%), were engaged and energized at work (58% vs. avg. 50%) and the second most likely to agree they felt like they were flourishing at work over the past three months (40% vs. avg. 34%).

Australian participants did slightly better than average when it came to having opportunities to do what they do best at work each day (57%), and agreeing that their organization was committed to building strengths (44%). Australians sat around the average when it came to setting weekly goals to use their strengths (16%), being able to name the strengths of their co-workers (48%), and having had a meaningful discussion about their strengths with their supervisor (26%). Like the New Zealand participants, Australians were more likely than the rest of the sample to say they felt respected and valued at work (64%), and were engaged and energized at work (55%).

The South African and US participants also did well, but were not quite realizing the same wellbeing benefits.

South African participants sat around average for knowing their strengths (65%) and led just slightly in front of the average for being able to name the strengths of their co-workers (53%). They did better than average when it came to the opportunity to do what they do best each day at work (60%), setting weekly strength goals (19%) and were the second highest rated country when it came to agreeing that their organization was committed to building strengths (50%). They scored amongst the lowest of all countries, however, when it came to having had a meaningful discussion about their strengths with their supervisor (19%). Despite these generally strong results, instead of exceeding the wellbeing averages, like their New Zealand and Australian counterparts, they also sat around the average for feeling respected and valued at work (58%), engaged and energized (51%) and for describing themselves as flourishing at work (36%).

US participants largely followed the average on every measure, which is to be expected as they constituted 33% of the sample. However, the New Zealand and Australian results suggest that some additional focus on strengths measures may help to improve some of the wellbeing benefits academic researchers have associated with strengths development.


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Average United States Canada AustraliaNew Zealand South Africa United Kingdom

66.7

366

.59

64.1

067

.17

66.6

765

.08

60.9

1

54.7

554

.70

52.8

857

.06

61.5

459

.52

51.4

4

17.0

318

.11

16.9

916

.12

14.1

0 19.0

510

.29

49.7

050

.08

50.6

447

.95

51.9

253

.17

48.1

5

24.7

924

.09

26.9

225

.93

34.6

219

.05 25

.93

19.9

0

41.4

241

.36

35.5

8 43.5

452

.56

50.0

045

.27

Top 5Strengths

WeeklyGoals

ManagerConversation

Colleagues'Strengths

CommittedOrganization

OpportunitiesTo Use

The United Kingdom and Canada, on the other hand, each tell a different story.

UK participants were slightly above the average when it came to agreeing their organization was committed to building strengths (45%) and sat around the average when it came to having had a meaningful discussion about their strengths with their supervisor (26%) and being able to name the strengths of their co-workers (48%). But when it came to knowing their own strengths (61%), having an opportunity to do what they do best each day at work (51%) and setting weekly strengths goals (10%) they consistently sat below the average, suggesting that while they do have organizational support, employees either don’t feel empowered, don’t know how or are unwilling to draw more upon their strengths currently. Perhaps they simply don’t feel the need to, as when it came to feeling respected and valued at work (60%), engaged and energized (51%) and flourishing (36%) they also sat around the average. Although we would argue, that as the New Zealand results may suggest, there is much the UK could improve when it comes to these outcomes.

Canadian participants sat around the average for knowing their own strengths (64%), an opportunity to do what they do best each day at work (53%), setting weekly strength goals (17%), being able to name the strengths of their co-workers (51%) and having had a meaningful discussion about their strengths with their supervisor (27%). But they were the least likely to agree their organization was committed to building strengths (36%), suggesting Canadian workplaces have much to gain by being more explicit in their support for the steps their managers and employees have already taken to be more strengths-focused. Canadians were also among the least likely to agree that they felt respected and valued (57%), engaged and energized (46%) and to describe themselves as flourishing (30%).

Developed Nations Strengths Use


20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

Engaged &Energized

Respected &Valued

ConsistentlyFlourishing

Average United States Canada AustraliaNew Zealand South Africa United Kingdom

50.7

848

.03

46.1

554

.95 58

.33

49.2

150

.62

52.6

4

61.4

359

.47

56.7

364

.36 67

.31

57.9

460

.08

65.4

9

34.9

234

.24

29.1

7 32.5

339

.74

35.7

136

.21

44.0

8

Perhaps most surprising of all was the findings in South America, Asia and Africa. As these samples numbered around 200 participants each, at first we combined their findings expecting that due to the developing state of workplaces in many of the countries included in these continents, that they would fall below the sample. We were pleasantly surprised to see that instead they met or exceed the average on every measure. So we separated their results to see what was happening.

We found that while participants in Africa were more likely to agree their organization was committed to building strengths (45%), and sat around the average for an opportunity to do what they do best each day at work (56%), setting weekly strength goals (18%), being able to name the strengths of their co-workers (50%). They were much less likely to agree they could name their own strengths (64%) or that they’d had a meaningful discussion about their strengths with their supervisor (17%). But while they were also less likely to agree they felt respected and valued at work (56%), they sat on average when it came to feeling engaged and energized (51%) and were one of the most likely countries to describe themselves as flourishing at work (38%).

Developed Nations Strengths Use


We also found that participants in Asia were the most likely to set weekly strengths goals (20%), and sat around the average when it came to being able to name their strengths (64%), being able to name the strengths of their co-workers (48%), and slightly below average when it came to having had a meaningful discussion about their strengths with their supervisor (21%). But they were below average when it came to agreeing that their organization was committed to building strengths (37%) and were the least likely to agree they had the opportunity to do what they do best each day at work (47%). And while they were the least likely to describe themselves as feeling engaged and energized at work (45%), they sat just slightly below the average for agreeing they were respected and valued (59%) but just above the average when it came to agreeing that they were flourishing at work (38%).

Finally, we found that participants in South America were the second most likely to set weekly strengths goals (19%) and sat around the average when it came to have the opportunity to do what they do best each day at work (54%). They were below the average when it came to being able to name their strengths (63%) or the strengths of their co-workers (40%), and were the least likely to agree that they’d had a meaningful discussion about their strengths with their supervisor (17%) or that their organization was committed to building strengths (35%). Yet they sat around the average when it came to describing themselves as feeling engaged and energized (52%), slightly above average for feeling respected and valued at work (65%) and were the country most likely to agree they’d been flourishing at work over the last three months (46%).

Asia, Africa, and South American Countries

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

South America Asia AfricaAverage

Top 5Strengths

Colleague’sStrengths

WeeklyGoals

ManagerConversation


Respected &Valued

Engaged &Energized

OppotunitiesTo Use


66.7

362

.50

63.6

461

.88

54.7

553

.91

46.8

5 55.6

3

17.0

318

.75

19.5

817

.50

49.7

040

.63

48.2

547

.50

24.7

917

.19

20.9

816

.88

41.4

235

.16

37.0

645

.00

50.7

851

.56

44.7

648

.75 61

.43

64.8

458

.74

56.2

5

34.9

2 46.0

938

.46

38.1

3

So what do we make of these geographical findings? Again it’s important to remember that this sample represents a highly educated segment of the population who are generally engaged in full-time work. While the status of strengths awareness and use in different geographies is interesting to observe, as the academic research would suggest, while it may impact wellbeing outcomes for employees like feeling engaged, appreciated or flourishing at work, it is certainly not the only factor. In fact our African, Asian and South American samples, although small, hint at how economic and cultural factors may meditate the impact of strengths interventions in different cultures.


Industry Analysis

We also wanted to look at how industries differed, so we compared people depending on what sector they worked in.

People in Education and Health responded most positively overall, with Education in particular showing the highest rates of positive responses. Participants from the Education sector were the most likely to able to name their top five strengths (71% compared to avg. 67%), to have the opportunity to use those strengths each day at work (63% compared to avg. 55%) and to set weekly goals around their strengths - although this was only very slightly larger than the average score (18% compared to avg. 17%). They sat slightly above the average when it came to agreeing that their organization was committed to building strengths (45% compared to avg. 41%) and slightly below the average for having had a meaningful strengths conversation with their supervisor (23% compared to avg. 25%). They were more likely to feel engaged and energized at work (59% compared to avg. 51%), to feel respected and valued (68% compared to avg. 61%) and to describe themselves as flourishing at work over the last three months (40% compared to avg. 35%).

Though not quite as remarkable, people in the Health industry still responded more positively than average. Participants in Health were more likely to agree they had the opportunity to do what they do best each day (58%) and to be able to name the strengths of their co-workers (52%), while sitting at or just slightly below the average for being able to name their strengths (63%) and setting weekly strengths goals (17%). They were the least likely to agree they’d had a meaningful strengths conversation with their supervisor (21%) and amongst the lowest to agree their organization was committed to building strengths (37%). They sat around the average when it came to feeling engaged and energized at work (50%), to feeling respected and valued (62%) and to describing themselves as flourishing at work over the last three months (33%).

The Entertainment industry was seen as the most committed organizations to building their people’s strengths (48%) and this was supported by meaningful strengths conversations with supervisors (33%), knowledge of their own strengths (69%), of their co-workers strengths (59%) and the setting of weekly strengths goals (16%). However, participants were still generally struggling to find opportunities to do what they do best each day at work (45%). They were less likely to feel engaged and energized (45%), respected and valued (55%), or flourishing at work (34%).

Those in the IT, Science and Telecomms industries, as well as those in the Law, Finance and Business industries, all reported less positively.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

70.9

863

.28 66

.77

68.7

564

.29

59.7

762

.5866

.73

63.4

257

.76

50.7

745

.00

43.1

740

.98

43.5

6

54.7

5

17.5

817

.41

14.7

716

.25

12.4

213

.91 17

.79

17.0

3

48.3

0 51.5

549

.23

58.7

546

.89

42.1

158

.28

49.7

0

22.7

821

.21

31.3

832

.50

22.0

522

.93

25.1

5

24.7

9

44.6

136

.72

40.0

047

.50

32.3

041

.35

34.9

7

41.4

2

Education Health GovernmentEntertainment It, Science & Telecomms Law, Finance & Business


Average

Top 5Strengths

Colleagues'Strengths


ManagerConversation

WeeklyGoals

OpportunityTo Use

In the IT, Science and Telecomms industries, participants sat around average for being able to name their strengths (64%) and those of their co-workers (47%). They were significantly below the average though for having the opportunity to do what they do best each day (43%) and having had a meaningful strengths conversation with their supervisor (22%). They were also the least likely to set weekly strengths goals (12%) and to agree their organization was committed to building strengths (32%). They were also much less likely to feel engaged and energized at work (38%), to feel respected and valued (55%) and to describe themselves as flourishing at work over the last three months (28%).

Law, Finance and Business respondents painted a similar picture. They were less able to name their own strengths (59%), had the lowest rates of feeling like they had the opportunities to do what they do best (41%) setting weekly strength goals (14%) and being able to name the strengths of their co-workers (42%). They were also less likely to have had a meaningful strengths conversation with their supervisor (23%) or to agree their organization was committed to building strengths (41%). Finally, they had the lowest rates of feeling engaged and energized (37%), respected and valued (53%) and were the least likely to describe themselves as flourishing at work (27%).

Global Industry Strengths Use


Company Size Analysis

We were interested in whether the size of one’s company affected how people’s strengths were engaged and what wellbeing was like for people in small and large companies. Sole employees responded more positively across the board, while generally, larger companies (those with more than 500 employees) struggled.

Notably, people in smaller companies were better at naming the strengths of their colleagues, were more likely to have had meaningful conversations with supervisors about strengths, and were more likely to feel valued and respected. These don’t necessarily apply to sole employees, obviously.

The most pronounced differences were in people’s ability to feel as though they had the opportunity to do what they did best, with a 77% positive response rate from sole employees, and only 62% in medium companies, compared to an average of 58%. Additionally, while 71% of sole employees reported feeling engaged and energized at work, only 45% of people in medium and large companies did. The average for this was 55%.

Education Health GovernmentEntertainment It, Science & Telecomms Law, Finance & Business


Average

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Engaged &Energized

Respected &Valued


59.4

549

.66

50.4

645

.00

37.5

837

.22

39.8

8

50.7

8

68.2

461

.72

57.8

555

.00

54.6

653

.01

53.9

9

61.4

3

40.4

532

.93

30.4

6 33.7

528

.26

27.0

734

.36

34.9

2

Global Industry Wellbeing Outcomes


Company Size Analysis

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Sole Employee Micro (2‐10) Small (11‐50)Medium (51-250) Medium-Large (250-500) Large (500+)Average

WeeklyGoals

Top 5Strengths

ManagerConversation


Engaged &Energized


Respected& Valued


OpportunitiesTo Use


PUTTING PEOPLE’S Strengths TO WORK

Of our total sample, 39% of participants agreed they felt engaged and energized in their work, while 11% strongly agreed with this statement. Those who indicated they were engaged and energized at work were also much more likely to report consistently flourishing over the last three months. This suggests a relationship between consistent flourishing in general, and feeling engaged and energized at work, meaning that benefits to one affect the other.

Flourishing over the last 3 months by Engagement

Engaged Not Engaged

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

49.0

6

26.1

1

12.9

1

1.13

0.86 8.

33 29.0

1 41.5

1

20.2

7

1.89

Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree StronglyDisagree

Given the focus in most organizations on improving employee engagement and wellbeing, we wanted to understand what impact, if any, developing people’s strengths might have on these outcomes.

Opportunity to Do What You Do Best

The strongest relationship by far was having the opportunity to do what they did best at work each day – to use their strengths. 80% of those who strongly agreed they felt engaged and energized also agreed or strongly agreed that they had this opportunity at work.


Of Energized/Engaged group, having the opportunity to do what they do best at work

80%

20%

Yes No

Supervisor Support

A pattern emerged across all the wellbeing measures: feeling engaged and energized, respected and valued, making a difference, and flourishing at work. We put all the different factors into a model looking at what had the greatest impact. ‘Having the opportunity to do what they did best each day at work’ consistently had the strongest effect on wellbeing, yet only about 50% of participants felt they had this opportunity. This question is really constructed from two perspectives:

These questions speak to well-tested theories of person-task fit, as well as more intuitive ideas like taking the initiative, working independently, and trusting them to do their job. It is within the power of both the employer and employee to collaboratively increase this felt opportunity to do their best. Having a look at the chart below, one can easily see the combined benefit of having both the opportunity to do what they did best at work AND having had a recent strengths-based conversation with their supervisor. This supports our US findings and other academic research 7, 8 on the important role managers play in helping people to develop their strengths.

Does your supervisor help give you these opportunities, reviewing your strengths and matching you to tasks you’ll excel at?

Are you personally able to see opportunities to utilize your strengths at work autonomously?


Supervisor Conversations and Opportunity to do Best at Work

0%

Neither BothSupervisorOnly

OpportunityOnly

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Percentage Engaged and Energized

69.66

31.93

84.28

Organizations Matter

Organizational support was also important, as those who strongly agreed their organization was committed to building the strengths of its people made up 38% of those engaged and energized, compared to 6% of those who weren’t.

Weekly Strength Goals

Though most people did not set weekly strength goals, 26% of those who agreed they felt engaged and energized did, compared to only 8% of those who were not engaged and energized. Though we can’t infer causation here, the results that those who set weekly goals were three times as likely to be strongly engaged and energized at work suggests an effect here. This is an encouraging finding, given there is so much room for improvement in getting people to create strength habits through weekly goals, and leads us well into our intervention study.


Impact For Managers & Organizations

There was general improvement in the participants’ likelihood of having a meeting with their supervisor, with 39% marking an improvement over the course of the intervention. There was some improvement in ratings of organizational commitment to fostering strengths. We believe this is reflective of the invitation to organizations and managers to use the Strengths Challenge for their teams.

Engaged - Set Goals? Not Engaged - Set Goals?

26.01%

73.99%

Yes No Yes No

7.77%

92.23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Supervisor Conversation Committed Organization

24.79%

36.50%41.42%

51.67%

Before After


BECOMING MORE STRENGTH Focused

We asked participants who completed the intervention to complete a follow-up questionnaire, so we could see how they improved. This intervention involved first naming their Top 5 (signature) strengths according to the VIA Strengths Survey, then designing a strength habit lasting approximately 11 minutes. This habit consisted of a:

• 30 second ‘Cue’ which triggered the habit (e.g. arriving at work)

• 10 minute ‘Routine’ (e.g. Reading a new interesting article, for Curiosity Strength)

• 30 second ‘Reward’ (e.g. Getting a morning coffee).

We challenged participants to create this habit and use it each day for a week. This process was supported by suggested cues, routines, and rewards, as well as the well-trafficked Challenge Forums moderated by the researchers. Participants were reminded of the habit they created for the Strength Challenge and encouraged to complete it via email. Participants could change their habits online when they wanted.

Of the 3998 initial sample participants, 389 completed the 11-minute habit exercise and did the follow-up questionnaire (9% response rate). When demographic proportions were compared, the follow-up sample were statistically similar enough to the initial sample to allow comparison (in terms of gender, age, industry breakdown, etc.).

Participants' Strengths

Our sample had similar top strengths to the VIA general population statistics (after sampling thousands of participants): Honesty, Judgement, Kindness and Fairness all featured highly. The second most commonly cited strength was Love of Learning, though perhaps this was because such a high proportion of our sample came from the Education industry. Self-Regulation was the least cited top strength – perhaps this was why only 9% of our initial sample followed through with the intervention and follow-up questionnaire!


Development of Strengths Skills

When reviewing strength skills and whether the intervention improved these, there was general improvement in all areas, though some more than others. 40% improved their ability to name their own strengths, 38% their feeling of having the opportunity to do what they did best each day and a majority 61% were better at setting weekly strength-based goals. This was the critical area suggested above to have one of the largest effects on wellbeing.

Strengths Skills Before & After

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Top 5Strengths

OpportunitiesTo Use

WeeklyGoals

Before After

74.2

9

59.3

8

19.5

4

51.6

7

77.6

387.4

0

Impact on Wellbeing

Across the board, roughly a third of participants improved in their reporting of wellbeing measures, including feeling engaged and energized (37%), making a difference (30%), respected and valued (30%), and flourishing (38%). Simply looking at breakdowns of what percentage Strongly Agreed or Agreed to the wellbeing statements before and after the intervention, we can see consistent increases in every area in the graph below.


Wellbeing at Work Before & After

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Engaged &Energized

Making ADifference

Respected &Valued


Before After

53.7

3

38.0

5

54.2

464.5

2 75.0

6

71.9

8

76.0

9 84.5

8

Longitudinal Impact

Sixty-six people participated in the survey twice, in both September 2015 and February 2016. Though this isn’t enough people to draw any significant conclusions from, we can look at the changes in their responses to learn what difference the repeated intervention could have made for them.

Improved or Remained Stable (%)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Top 5Strengths

OpportunityTo Use


ManagerConversation

Respected& Valued

Making ADifference


Engaged &Energized


WeeklyGoals

83.3

3

83.3

3

75.7

6

68.1

8

72.7

3

75.7

6

83.3

3

80.3

0

87.8

8

80.3

0

Improvements seem consistent across the board, but especially with the setting of weekly goals (40% improvement) and feeling like they were flourishing at work (39% improvement).


83.33

83.3375.76

68.18

72.73 75.7683.33

80.3087.88

80.30

CONCLUSION

The intervention we used here was an individualized one, and for the most part, positive results reflected that. Though there was not much impact on how the individuals viewed their organization, this is perhaps expected, due to the individualized nature of the experiment. What was a pleasant surprise though was the increase in conversations with supervisors. This potentially indicates how employees who are strengths-educated and focused will initiate conversations by themselves with their managers, to then gain the benefits in wellbeing mentioned earlier.

Benefits to wellbeing were across the board, as mentioned, perhaps in large part due to the increase in opportunity to do what they did best at work, the factor we identified as most impactful in our sample. Overall, this intervention was beneficial and not very intrusive, improving both strength-skills and wellbeing. With the trends indicated here, positive psychology researchers should further investigate the findings using more standardized measures and representative samples.


ABOUT THE Authors

Michelle McQuaidMichelle McQuaid is a best-selling author, workplace wellbeing teacher and playful change activator. With more than a decade of senior leadership experience in large organizations around the world, she’s passionate about translating cutting-edge research from positive psychology and neuroscience, into practical strategies for health, happiness, and business success.

An honorary fellow at Melbourne University’s Graduate School of Education, she blogs for Psychology Today, Huffington Post and Live Happy and her work has been featured in Forbes, the Harvard Business Review, the Wall Street Journal, Boss Magazine, The Age and more.

She holds a Masters in Applied Positive Psychology from the University of Pennsylvania and is currently completing her PhD in Appreciative Inquiry under the supervision of David Cooperrider.

To learn more about Michelle visit www.michellemcquaid.com

The VIA InstituteBased in the USA, the VIA Institute on Character is a nonprofit organization that empowers people worldwide with knowledge of their unique character strengths.

Our mission is to advance the science and the practice of character.

We aim to fill the world with greater virtue—i.e. more wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence. One very important way we do this is by offering our VIA survey free of charge across the globe – and since our inception in 2001, more than 2 million people in 193 countries and 20 languages have taken it.

VIA strengths are being used in classrooms, board rooms, offices, playgrounds, places of worship, clinical settings, homes, sports fields, and many other places. Lives are being improved. Businesses are becoming more successful. Teams are thriving.

For more visit www.viacharacter.org

Live HappyLive Happy is a new lifestyle publication unlike any other on newsstands today. Weaving the science of positive psychology through inspiring content, relatable stories, and sage advice, we help readers discover their personal journey of happiness.

For more visit www.livehappy.com


REFERENCES

1. McQuaid, M. and VIA Institute (2015) The 2015 Strengths @ Work Survey. Retrieved 1 March, 2015, from http://www.michellemcquaid.com/strengthssurvey.

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

3. Hill, J. (2001). How well do we know our strengths? Paper presented at the British Psychological Society CentenaryConference, Glasgow, Scotland.

4. Buckingham, M. (2007). The strengths engagement track: A benchmark study of 65 high performing teams. Retrieved 14February, 2015 from http://www.tmbc.com/assets/sc/go/WhitePaper.pdf.

5. McQuaid, M. and Lawn, E. (2014) Your Strengths Blueprint: How To Feel Engaged, Energized & Happy At Work. Melbourne,Victoria: Michelle McQuaid Pty Ltd.

6. Orbell, S., & Verplanken, B. (2010). The automatic component of habit in health behavior: habit as cue-contingentautomaticity. Health Psychology, 29(4), 374.

7. Corporate Leadership Council. (2004). Driving performance and retention through employee engagement. Washington, DC:Corporate Executive Board.

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

report - amazon s3when we asked participants about their pre-existing knowledge and practice of...

Documents