Measuring Success of Policies and Strategies

Human Performance, 27:183–205, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0895-9285 print/1532-7043 online DOI: 10.1080/08959285.2014.913592

The Role of Character Strengths for Task Performance, Job Dedication, Interpersonal Facilitation,

and Organizational Support

Claudia Harzer and Willibald Ruch University of Zurich

It was hypothesized that character strengths relate to job performance. Both constructs were investi- gated with respect to their currently known dimensions (i.e., 24 character strengths; job performance: task performance, job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, organizational support) to get a compre- hensive overview of their co-occurrence. Two samples, 318 and 108 employees, respectively, filled in measures assessing character strengths as traits and their usefulness at work, and the job performance dimensions. For Sample 2, also supervisors judged the employees’ job performance. Based on this set of two samples we show replicable associations between character strengths and job performance (self-reports and supervisory ratings). Furthermore, the number of individual strengths beneficial at work was related to job performance. These promising findings open a new field for research on human performance.

Researchers in the field of positive psychology postulate that morally positively valued personal- ity traits—character strengths—help people to flourish and lead them to good and right behavior (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The right behavior can be being productive or profitable (Peterson & Park, 2006), and therefore, it is hypothesized that the possession of specific character strengths is related to productive or profitable behavior at work (i.e., job performance). There is first empir- ical evidence that character strengths do matter at work. For example, character strengths are related to job satisfaction across different occupations (Peterson, Park, Hall, & Seligman, 2009; Peterson, Stephens, Park, Lee, & Seligman, 2010). The character strength “capacity to love and be loved” predicted cadets’ accomplishments as leaders (Peterson & Park, 2006). The applica- tion of strengths at work relates to various positive outcomes like increasing productivity (up to 12.5%) and decreasing turnover rates (up to 50%; cf. Hodges & Asplund, 2010).

Taking theory and first empirical evidence together, it is to be expected that character strengths are significantly related to job performance. To get a broader overview of how the character strengths and job performance co-occur, both constructs are examined with respect to their cur- rently known dimensions (i.e., 24 character strengths; four dimension of job performance: task performance as well as job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support as

Claudia Harzer is now in the Department of Psychology at the University of South Carolina. Correspondence should be sent to Claudia Harzer, University of South Carolina, Department of Psychology,

1512 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29208. E-mail: [email protected]

184 HARZER AND RUCH

dimensions of contextual performance1). Studying exclusively self-rating data can be criticized, as the relationships might be artificially inflated due to the common method variance (Doty & Glick, 1998) and single sample studies do not provide information on replicability of results. Therefore, a study was conducted including a total of two samples of employees (providing self-ratings in character strengths and job performance) and one sample of supervisors (pro- viding supervisory ratings in job performance for one of the employee samples) from various occupations.

This article presents the first results on the relationships between 24 character strengths as narrow, morally valued personality traits and four different dimensions of job performance. Data derived from two different samples are presented, showing replicable results regarding the corre- lations between character strengths and job performance. In doing so, this article introduces the character strengths as a new set of narrow personality traits that validly predict different aspects of job performance. Although, this article describes cross-sectional data, results may indicate spe- cific character strengths that (research on) personnel selection and human resource development might consider as predictors for job performance.

THE 24 CHARACTER STRENGTHS

The Values in Action (VIA) classification of strengths includes 24 character strengths defined as positively valued trait-like individual differences with demonstrable generality across different situations and stability across time that manifest in the range of individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). By definition, character strengths are widely rec- ognized and desired across cultures (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In addition, researchers have found empirical support indicating character strengths are observed and valued cross-culturally (cf. Biswas-Diener, 2006; Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2006). The 24 character strengths were derived from an extensive review of sources describing human strengths, which included liter- ature on good character (from psychiatry, youth development, philosophy, and psychology) and brainstorming in core groups of scholars (see Peterson & Seligman, 2004, for a detailed descrip- tion). To reduce the initial list of human strengths, 10 criteria were used to identify character strengths (see Peterson & Seligman, 2004, for a detailed description). For example, characteristics not valued across cultures (e.g., cleanliness, frugality, and silence) were excluded and redundan- cies were combined. Furthermore, character strengths are fulfilling (i.e., contribute to individual fulfillment, satisfaction, and happiness broadly construed), are morally valued (i.e., are valued in their own right and not for tangible outcomes they may produce; although strengths can and do produce desirable outcomes), and do not diminish others (i.e., elevate others who witness them, producing admiration, not jealousy). Table 1 shows the 24 character strengths included in the VIA classification and short definitions describing their core meaning.

1Sometimes a further dimension of job performance is discussed in literature, namely, counterproductive behavior, which has a negative value for the organizational effectiveness (e.g., Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). However, character strengths are classified as positive traits (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and are, thus, more likely related to positive behavior such as task and contextual performance. Therefore, it was decided not to investigate counterproductive behavior in the present research.

CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 185

TABLE 1 The 24 Character Strengths Included in the Values in Action Classification of Strengths

(Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and Short Descriptions Defining the Strengths

1. Cognitive strengths that entail the acquisition and use of knowledge–strengths of wisdom and knowledge • Creativity [originality, ingenuity]: Thinking of novel and productive ways to conceptualize and do things; includes

artistic achievement but is not limited to it • Curiosity [interest, novelty-seeking, openness to experience]: Taking an interest in all of ongoing experience for its

own sake; finding subjects and topics fascinating; exploring and discovering • Judgment & Open-Mindedness [critical thinking]: Thinking things through and examining them from all sides; not

jumping to conclusions; being able to change one’s mind in light of evidence; weighing all evidence fairly • Love of Learning: Mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge, whether on one’s own or formally;

obviously related to the strength of curiosity but goes beyond it to describe the tendency to add systematically to what one knows

• Perspective [wisdom]: Being able to provide wise counsel to others; having ways of looking at the world that make sense to oneself and to other people

2. Emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external or internal–strengths of courage

• Bravery [valor]: Not shrinking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain; speaking up for what is right even if there is opposition; acting on convictions even if unpopular; includes physical bravery but is not limited to it

• Perseverance [persistence, industriousness]: Finishing what one starts; persisting in a course of action in spite of obstacles; “getting it out the door”; taking pleasure in completing tasks

• Honesty [authenticity, integrity]: Speaking the truth but more broadly and presenting oneself in a genuine way and acting in a sincere way; being without pretense; taking responsibility for one’s feelings and actions

• Zest [vitality, enthusiasm, vigor, energy]: Approaching life with excitement and energy; not doing things halfway or halfheartedly; living life as an adventure; feeling alive and activated

3. Interpersonal strengths that involve “tending and befriending” others–strengths of humanity • Capacity to Love and Be Loved [short name: love]: Valuing close relations with others, in particular those in

which sharing and caring are reciprocated; being close to people • Kindness [generosity, nurturance, care, compassion, altruistic love, “niceness”]: Doing favors and good deeds for

others; helping them; taking care of them • Social Intelligence [emotional intelligence, personal intelligence]: Being aware of the motives and feelings of

other people and oneself; knowing what to do to fit into different social situations; knowing what makes other people tick

4. Civic strengths that underlie healthy community life–strengths of justice • Teamwork [citizenship, social responsibility, loyalty]: Working well as a member of a group or team; being loyal

to the group; doing one’s share • Fairness Treating all people the same according to notions of fairness and justice; not letting personal feelings bias

decisions about others; giving everyone a fair chance • Leadership: Encouraging a group of which one is a member to get things done and at the time maintain time good

relations within the group; organizing group activities and seeing that they happen

5. Strengths that protect against excess–strengths of temperance • Forgiveness & Mercy: Forgiving those who have done wrong; accepting the shortcomings of others; giving people

a second chance; not being vengeful • Modesty & Humility: Letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves; not regarding oneself as more special

than one is • Prudence: Being careful about one’s choices; not taking undue risks; not saying or doing things that might later be

regretted • Self-Regulation [self-control]: Regulating what one feels and does; being disciplined; controlling one’s appetites

and emotions

(Continued)

186 HARZER AND RUCH

TABLE 1 (Continued)

6. Strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning – transcendence/theological strengths • Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence [awe, wonder, elevation; short name: beauty]: Noticing and appreciating

beauty, excellence, and/or skilled performance in various domains of life, from nature to art to mathematics to science to everyday experience

• Gratitude: Being aware of and thankful for the good things that happen; taking time to express thanks • Hope [optimism, future-mindedness, future orientation]: Expecting the best in the future and working to achieve it;

believing that a good future is something that can be brought about • Humor [playfulness]: Liking to laugh and tease; bringing smiles to other people; seeing the light side; making (not

necessarily telling) jokes • Religiousness & Spirituality [faith, purpose]: Having coherent beliefs about the higher purpose and meaning of the

universe; knowing where one fits within the larger scheme; having beliefs about the meaning of life that shape conduct and provide comfort

Note. The character strengths are grouped together content-wise on a theoretical basis.

The definitions in Table 1 highlight the closeness of the character strengths as positive traits to actual behavior. The character strengths included in the VIA classification differ from the per- sonality traits that emerged from the psycho-lexical approaches of personality (e.g., Angleitner, Ostendorf, & John, 1990; Norman, 1963). Within the Big Five tradition valued, desirable traits were excluded intentionally as Allport (1937) regarded character as being unnecessary to describe personality. Allport thought valued traits should be kept separate from personality and, therefore, separated personality and character. Irrespective of being more valued some strengths go beyond the traditional Big Five (especially those of transcendence and theological strengths)—maybe especially at the accentuated end of the traits. Character strengths fulfill 10 criteria that are not successfully applicable to personality traits. Some strengths do overlap with selected Big Five traits (maximum correlation .65 that is below internal consistencies of the scales measuring the strengths and traits, and that, therefore, indicated uniqueness of concepts despite overlapping aspects).

Interestingly, prior research indicates that morally valued behavior matters in the work context. For example, Schmidt and Hunter (1998) highlighted the role of integrity tests in the prediction of job performance. The VIA classification as a multidimensional approach of positive, morally valued traits now brings the advantage to study the relationships between positive individual differences (e.g., integrity, fairness, and persistence) and job performance in a more sophisticated way.

Personality manifests in behavior and therefore predicts behavior by definition (e.g., Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Pervin, Cervone, & John, 2005). As character strengths are personality traits this holds true for them as well. Hence, character strengths manifest in an individ- ual’s behavior (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and are, therefore, expected to relate to positive behavior in the workplace. Job performance can be seen as such a positive behavior in the workplace as it is defined as the aggregated value of the discrete behavioral episodes that an individual performs over a standard interval of time for the organization (Motowidlo, 2003).

CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 187

THE DIMENSIONS OF JOB PERFORMANCE

Job performance can be task-related (i.e., doing job-specific tasks) and context-related (e.g., coor- dination among team members, compliance with instructions), as both aspects account nearly equal amounts of variance in overall performance ratings (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995). Task performance is the in-role behavior as it is defined in job descriptions (Katz, 1964; Williams & Anderson, 1991). It refers to the transformation of raw materials into the goods and services that are the organization’s products (e.g., selling merchandise, operating a production machine, and teaching) and to activities like replenishing the raw materials to maintain the technical core (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Contextual performance is a set of interpersonal and volitional behaviors that support the social and motivational context in which organizational work is accom- plished. It does not contribute to the organization’s core processes but maintains or improves aspects in the organization necessary for the core to function well (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Contextual performance is also known as citizenship performance and extra-role behavior (e.g., Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001; Coleman & Borman, 2000; Williams & Anderson, 1991) and is similar (but not identical) to organizational citizenship behavior (Motowidlo, 2000). Job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organizational sup- port are distinguishable dimensions of contextual performance (cf. Borman et al., 2001; Coleman & Borman, 2000).

Job dedication (also labeled as conscientious initiative and job/task citizenship performance) means that an employee persists with extra enthusiasm to complete his or her own tasks suc- cessfully. It further refers to voluntarily carrying out tasks that are not formally part of the job, and to ask for challenging tasks (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Interpersonal facilitation (also known as personal support and interpersonal citizenship performance) includes helping and cooperating with others as well as assisting coworkers in performing. Thereby interpersonal facilitation helps to maintain the interpersonal and social context needed for effective task per- formance in an organizational setting (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Organizational support (also labeled as organizational citizenship performance) is the following of organizational rules and procedures, endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives (Borman et al., 2001; Coleman & Borman, 2000).

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE

In their theory about individual differences in task and contextual performance, Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmit (1997) highlighted that personality variables have a stronger associa- tion with contextual performance (dimensions) than task performance and task performance has a stronger association with cognitive ability variables. Nevertheless, they expected that traits have an impact on task performance as well and ability on contextual performance. In line with this theory, we expected stronger associations of the character strengths as posi- tive traits with the contextual performance dimensions than with task performance. However, substantial correlations between character strengths and task performance are expected as well. Behaviors

188 HARZER AND RUCH

such as volunteering, persisting, cooperating, and do forth are not likely to be strongly related to individual differences in knowledge, skills, and abilities. Instead, such behaviors are probably better predicted by individual differences in interpersonal skills and motivation. Thus, personality variables should be better predictors of contextual performance than of task performance. (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994, p. 476)

As character strengths are personality variables we transferred these assumptions to these positive traits.

However, we did not expect all character strengths to be related to all dimensions of job performance. As different character strengths relate to different patterns of positive behavior, it was expected that different character strengths are associated with different dimensions of job performance. Therefore, more detailed hypotheses about the relationships between single charac- ter strengths and the job performance dimensions were formulated. First, across different occu- pations, task performance may be especially correlated with perseverance and self-regulation, as these character strengths help finishing work tasks. In addition, honesty is expected to corre- late with task performance, because it assists judging the quality of one’s work in an authentic way and contributing one’s share with integrity. This behavior seems to be generally profitable at work, whereas other character strengths like religiousness do not seem to relate to profitable behaviors by content. Second, the interpersonal (e.g., kindness) and civic strengths (e.g., team- work) directly refer to human interaction in groups and in dyads. Therefore, these strengths should strongly relate to interpersonal facilitation and organizational support. Third, as job dedi- cation entails persisting with extra enthusiasm, job dedication is expected to profit from character strengths like perseverance and self-regulation because they assist persistence. Furthermore, job dedication includes asking for new and challenging tasks, and therefore relations to bravery, curiosity, and love of learning are also expected to strongly relate to job dedication. Bravery may go along with venturing on difficult task. Curiosity and love of learning enable the interest in new assignments.

Furthermore, there may be both direct and indirect associations between the 24 character strengths and the four dimensions of job performance. Character strengths can be ranked for each individual with respect to how central they are to the person. Peterson and Seligman (2004) pos- tulated that most people have between three and seven core or “signature” strengths that are most central. Signature strengths are the ones that “a person owns, celebrates, and frequently exercises” (p. 18). Especially those activities congruent with the individual’s signature strengths are fulfill- ing and most valued (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In line with this, Park and Peterson (2007) reported that “people most valued . . . a job . . . congruent with their own particular strengths of character” (i.e., their signature strengths, p. 299). Signature strengths come with a package of 10 criteria (see Peterson & Seligman, 2004). For example, after applying a signature strength, one feels invigorated rather than tired. Furthermore, people applying a signature strength learn new information more quickly, and so forth. This allows predicting that people will perform better at work when applying their signature strengths. Therefore, we assumed an impact of the degree of congruence between the job tasks and the individual signature strengths (i.e., the usefulness of signature strengths for doing the job tasks) on the dimensions of job performance. This congru- ence should not be confused with but might be similar to the fit between a person and the work as often highlighted in psychological research as being decisive for job performance (e.g., Caplan, 1987; Kristof, 1996).

CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 189

In the present research the operationalization of the degree of congruence between the job tasks and the individual signature strengths was based on the employee’s self-description and the description of the job regarding the character strengths. For the description of the job, it will be of interest how useful (i.e., the degree of being beneficial vs. detrimental) character-strengths- related behavior is for the completion of the work tasks. Character-strengths-related behavior might not always be useful for completing the work tasks. For example, too much curiosity when governing very sensitive data might go along with too much time spent reading individual entries (i.e., nosiness; Peterson, 2006). For the description of the employee, his or her individual signa- ture strengths are of relevance. The individually determined degree of the congruence between the job tasks and the individual signature strengths is defined as the number of the individual’s signature strengths that are beneficial at work (cf. Harzer & Ruch, 2012, 2013, for a very similar approach). Thus, congruence is in degrees. When there is “congruence,” there is variation in both the strengths and in the applicability.

AIMS OF THE PRESENT STUDY

This article aimed at investigating the relationships between the 24 character strengths and the four dimensions of job performance. Specific character strengths were expected to relate to spe- cific dimensions of job performance as both refer to specific behaviors; character strengths to behavior in general and job performance to behavior at work. Two independent samples were studied to test for the replicability of the results. Furthermore, performance ratings in the sec- ond sample were based on self-reports as well as supervisors’ judgments on task performance, job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support. The combination of super- visory ratings for the dimensions of job performance and self-ratings of character strengths was used to control for inflated correlations due to common method variance (Doty & Glick, 1998), as utilizing only supervisory ratings or self-descriptions may lead to inflated correlation coefficients between the dimensions of job performance and the character strengths. A great interest was taken in the results, which could be found across the two samples as well as across self-reports and supervisory ratings of the dimensions of job performance.

One might argue against the usage of self-ratings for the dimensions of job performance. Nevertheless, they help to study the nomological network of the associations between charac- ter strengths and job performance, as they provide information on the pattern of associations (cf. Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). Due to the common method variance (Doty & Glick, 1998), relationships between self-rated variables describe the upper bound of correla- tions. Nevertheless, we expected the pattern of correlations between the character strengths and the dimensions of job performance to be the same across rating sources of job performance but numerically smaller coefficients for the correlations between the supervisory ratings of job performance and the self-rated character strengths.

Furthermore, agreement of self-reports and supervisory ratings of the dimensions of job per- formance should be satisfactory to show that self-reports and supervisory ratings are measures of the same performance construct. Variance in the ratings of job performance is usually restricted, for example, because of personnel selection (i.e., those who cannot perform certain behavior are selected out), vocational training, and interventions on the job (LeBreton, Burgess, Kaiser,

190 HARZER AND RUCH

Atchley, & James, 2003). Interrater correlation is, therefore, doubted to be “a proper measurement of reliability” (Kasten & Nevo, 2008, p. 180) as correlation-based estimates of rating similarity are attenuated (LeBreton et al., 2003). Hence, interrater reliability can be low when manifest agreement among raters is high (Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992). LeBreton et al. (2003) recom- mended the rwg proposed by James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) as a noncorrelational index of rating similarity. The rwg as index for interrater agreement was used in a number of other studies (e.g., Biemann, Cole, & Voelpel, 2012; Hendricks & Payne, 2007; Marks, 2009). Accordingly, rwg was utilized in the present study to examine the agreement of self-reports and supervisory ratings of the dimensions of job performance.2

The purpose of this study was threefold. First, we evaluated the amount of shared variance between character strengths and job performance to examine the conceptual overlap between these two groups of constructs. Second, we examined the relationships between each of the 24 character strengths and task performance, job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organi- zational support to test the hypotheses and to get a general overview of the relationships on a more exploratory level. Third, we studied the indirect relationships between character strengths and the dimensions of job performance by means of the intercorrelations between the number of the individual’s signature strengths that are beneficial at work and the dimensions of job performance.

METHODS

Participants

Sample 1 consisted of 318 German-speaking employees (71 men, 247 women) from various occu- pations like sales personnel, engineers, career counselors, and office workers. Largest groups (n ≥ 10) were 22 teachers and 14 nurses. The mean age of the total sample was 41.46 years (SD = 10.41, range = 18–64 years). Participants were highly educated; 169 indicated having a master’s degree and 19 a doctor’s degree, 66 finished an apprenticeship, 38 finished the A-level and 25 finished secondary school (one missing). Participants had part-time jobs of at least 50%, up to full-time work (M = 90.58, SD = 16.32; n = 221 had 100% of employment). Mean job tenure was 8.73 years (SD = 8.92).

Sample 2 consisted of 108 German-speaking employees (40 men, 68 women) and their 108 supervisors (74 men, 34 women) from various occupations like sales personnel, engineers, computer scientist, career counselors, and office workers. Largest groups of employees were four lawyers, four teachers, four police officers, and four case workers. The employees’ mean age in sample 2 was 41.88 years (SD = 10.84, range = 21–62 years). They were highly educated, as

2The rwg by James et al. (1984) has been criticized. For example, the assumption of the uniform null distribution (without bias; answering options have the same probability to be selected due to random response pattern) as the referring distribution for random answers was questioned (e.g., Brown & Hauenstein, 2005; Kotzlowski & Hattrup, 1992; LeBreton et al., 2003). A (moderately) skewed null distribution was suggested to take into account that effects of vocational training and personnel selection lead to an upward bias in performance ratings (LeBreton et al., 2003). Therefore, we utilized the moderately skewed null distribution (with bias referring to effects of vocational training and personnel selection, which lead to an upward bias) as a lower bound estimate of agreement and the uniform null distribution as the upper bound estimate of agreement (also cf. Kotzlowski & Hattrup, 1992).

CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 191

48 indicated having a master’s degree and eight a doctor’s degree; 33 finished an apprentice- ship and 13 the A-level (six finished secondary school). Employees had part-time jobs of at least 50% up to full-time work (M = 90.33, SD = 15.74; n = 70 had 100% of employment). Mean job tenure was 9.34 years (SD = 8.53). Their supervisors’ (74 male, 34 female) mean age was 45.93 years (SD = 8.16, range = 25–73 years). The mean for the rating of how well they know the employees (1 = not at all to 5 = partially to 9 = very well) was 6.63 (SD = 1.09, range = 5–9). That indicated that the supervisors knew the employees well and were therefore able to judge their behavior at the workplace.

Instruments

The Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005) is a self-report questionnaire consisting of 240 items in a 5-point Likert-scale format from 1 (very much unlike me) to 5 (very much like me) measuring the 24 character strengths of the VIA classification (10 items for each strengths). Items are phrased in extremes (e.g., “I am always coming up with new ways to do things”; creativity). The 24 scales of the German version of the VIA-IS (Ruch et al., 2010) showed high reliability (median α = .77) and high stability over 9 months (median test–retest correlation = .73). Independent from the original classification of character strengths analyses of the factor structure3 of the VIA-IS yielded five factors (e.g., Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Ruch et al., 2010). These were emotional strengths (e.g., bravery and hope), interpersonal strengths (e.g., leadership and kindness), strengths of restraint (e.g., prudence and self-regulation), intellectual strengths (e.g., creativity and love of learning), and theological strengths (e.g., gratitude and religiousness).

The Usefulness of Character Strengths at Work Scale (UCSWS) is a list of the 24 charac- ter strengths of the VIA classification presented as short, content valid paragraphs describing the character-strengths-related behavior based on the definitions by Peterson and Seligman (2004; e.g., kindness: being nice, helpful, kind, and caring without expecting any reward). Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which each of the character strengths is advantageous/facilitating/useful/beneficial versus disadvantageous/aggregative/inhibitory/ detrimental for the completion of the work tasks (from 1 = very detrimental to 5 = neither detrimental, nor beneficial to 9 = very beneficial).

The Task Performance Questionnaire (TPQ; Williams & Anderson, 1991) is a questionnaire for supervisory ratings on task performance consisting of seven items (two items are reversed scored) in a 7-point Likert-scale format from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) measuring in-role behavior independent from occupational groups. A sample item is “He/she adequately completes assigned duties.” The reported internal consistency is very satisfying (α = .80–.96; Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002; Williams & Anderson, 1991).

The Job Dedication Questionnaire (JDQ; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) is a questionnaire for supervisory ratings in job dedication consisting of eight items in a 5-point Likert-scale format

3Peterson and Seligman (2004) highlighted that an individual of good character may display one or two strengths within a group of strengths (e.g., civic strengths) and that one individual will rarely (if ever) display all strengths within a group of strengths. Consequently, factor analyses might not be the method of choice to test the original classification of strengths. Nevertheless, the internal structure of the VIA-IS is of interest to see which character strengths co-occur within individuals.

192 HARZER AND RUCH

from 1 (very much unlike him/her) to 5 (very much like him/her) describing extra effort, persis- tence, and discipline. A sample item is “He/she puts in extra hours to get work done on time.” The reported internal consistency is high (α = .94–.95; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996).

The Interpersonal Facilitation Questionnaire (IFQ; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) is a ques- tionnaire for supervisory ratings on interpersonal facilitation consisting of seven items in a 5-point Likert-scale format from 1 (very much unlike him/her) to 5 (very much like him/her) describing helpful, cooperative, and considerate behaviors. A sample item is “He/she praises coworkers when they are successful.” The reported internal consistency is high (α = .89–.93; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996).

The Organizational Support Questionnaire (OSQ) is a questionnaire for supervisory ratings on organizational support consisting of 13 items in a 5-point Likert-scale format from 1 (very much unlike him/her) to 5 (very much like him/her), which describe behavior indicating loyalty and allegiance to the organization by which one is employed. A sample item is “He/she endorses, supports, or defends organizational objectives.” The authors of the present article used the items presented in an expert rating study (Coleman & Borman, 2000), in which experts (i.e., psychol- ogists working in or consulting organizations) categorized contextual performance behavior as described in the literature with organizational support as one of the categories (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Brief & Motowidlo, 1986).

Procedure

German version of the job performance measures. The present study used German translations of the TPQ, JDQ, IFQ, and OSQ. Three psychologists independently translated the items and the initial versions of the German TPQ, JDQ, IFQ, and OSQ were created by committee approach (Butcher & Pancheri, 1976). A bilingual linguist back-translated these versions, and a native speaker compared the two English language versions. A few modifications were made to the initial version, and items were checked for understandability.

Self-rating versions of the job performance measures. Usually the questionnaires assessing the dimensions of job performance measure the job performance as judged by the super- visors. For utilization as self-rating questionnaires the items were rephrased to suit self-ratings but were equal regarding content. A sample item is “I endorse, support, or defend organizational objectives” (organizational support). Likert-style answer format analogously ranged from 1 (very much unlike me) to 5 (very much like me).

Reliabilities of the German self-rating versions were investigated in a pilot study with 168 cur- rently employed participants (age: M = 37.00, SD = 18.30, range = 18–81 years). Internal consistencies were satisfactory with Cronbach alpha coefficients of .75, .80, .76, and .87 for the German TPQ, JDQ, IFQ, and OSQ, respectively.

Data collection. Employees of Sample 1 and 2 were recruited in several ways to obtain het- erogeneous samples. For example, people were informed about the survey by press coverage (e.g., newspaper and several magazines), online (through a website offering information about psycho- logical studies), and e-mail (those who had already registered on a well-established website for research purposes and stated interest in participating in future studies). Participants completed the

CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 193

questionnaires and provided information on demographics via the Internet. Respondents were not paid for participating but were given a feedback of individual results when they expressed interest.

After completing the questionnaires, the employees of Sample 2 asked their supervisors to fill in the supervisory rating. Matching of rater and ratee was done by means of a code that the employees created themselves and communicated to their supervisors. Employees and supervi- sors filled in the questionnaires independent from each other. Supervisory ratings were not part of the feedback, and both the employees and the supervisors were informed about this in advance.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

For an examination of the measurements, means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis were computed for the VIA-IS and the UCSWS as well as for the TPQ, JDQ, IFQ, and OSQ in the self- and supervisory ratings, respectively. Furthermore, reliability analyses were conducted (see Table 2 for the results of Sample 1 and 2).

Table 2 shows that the VIA-IS demonstrated satisfactory variability and high reliability with a median of internal consistencies of .79 and .78 in Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. The means of the ratings in the UCSWS indicated that the behavior related to the character strengths (except modesty and religiousness) was rated at least as slightly beneficial (M ≥ 5.5). The cogni- tive strengths (creativity, curiosity, judgment, love of learning) as well as the character strengths perspective, perseverance, and social intelligence demonstrated the numerically highest ratings. Nevertheless, on an individual level the full range of the answer format (1 = very detrimental to 9 = very beneficial) was used. This indicated the variability of the ratings and that some individ- uals experienced character-strengths-related behavior as being very detrimental at their specific workplaces. Frequency analyses showed that up to 53 out of 426 participants rated particular char- acter strengths as considerable or very detrimental, indicating that character strengths did differ in their usefulness across various jobs. The two samples did not significantly differ in means of the VIA-IS scales and in the ratings in the UCSWS.

Furthermore, job performance ratings were highly reliable with a median of internal consistencies of .82 in the self-ratings and of .83 in the supervisory ratings. However, the self- rated job dedication in Sample 2 showed a lower but still satisfying internal consistency for research purposes of .69. Item analyses indicated that this was due to the item “put in extra hours to get work done in time.” That was consistent with the feedback, especially that which employ- ees in Sample 2 gave, that they were often prevented from putting in extra hours. However, the item was included in the final scale to obtain comparability between the samples. Employees of Samples 1 and 2 did not significantly differ in the means of the performance self-ratings. Variance in performance ratings decreased from self-rating in Sample 1 to Sample 2, with the supervisory ratings showing the smallest standard deviations. As expected, minima and maxima in the scales measuring the dimensions of job performance indicated range restriction. Especially, the scores in task performance ranged from 3.14 to 7.00, from 4.00 to 7.00, and from 4.29 to 7.00 in the self-reports of Sample 1 and 2, as well as in the supervisory ratings, respectively. These findings indicated a ceiling effect in all dimensions of job performance but especially in task performance. That might have had an impact on the effect sizes of correlation-based relationships to other

194 HARZER AND RUCH

TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistencies of the Measures for Character Strengths (VIA-IS),

Usefulness of Character Strengths at Work (UCSWS), Task Performance (TPQ), Job Dedication (JDQ), Interpersonal Facilitation (IFQ), and Organizational Support (OSQ) in Sample 1 and Sample 2

Sample 1a Sample 2b

Scales Min Max M SD α Min Max M SD α

Character strengths–Self-ratings Creativity 1.40 5.00 3.61 0.65 .87 1.90 5.00 3.56 0.66 .90 Curiosity 2.20 5.00 4.02 0.49 .78 2.50 5.00 4.06 0.48 .78 Judgment 2.40 5.00 3.93 0.46 .78 2.70 5.00 3.96 0.44 .79 Love of learning 2.00 5.00 4.01 0.58 .85 2.30 5.00 3.97 0.53 .81 Perspective 1.60 4.90 3.55 0.49 .77 2.60 4.80 3.61 0.42 .73 Bravery 1.40 5.00 3.60 0.58 .80 2.20 4.70 3.60 0.52 .78 Perseverance 1.70 5.00 3.55 0.64 .86 1.90 4.90 3.55 0.58 .86 Honesty 2.30 5.00 3.80 0.48 .77 2.40 4.70 3.86 0.45 .76 Zest 1.50 5.00 3.54 0.61 .82 2.30 5.00 3.64 0.53 .79 Love 1.20 5.00 3.77 0.61 .80 2.40 4.90 3.84 0.54 .78 Kindness 1.40 5.00 3.77 0.53 .78 2.80 4.80 3.88 0.44 .71 Social intelligence 1.70 4.90 3.73 0.48 .76 2.50 4.60 3.66 0.50 .78 Teamwork 1.50 4.90 3.57 0.51 .77 2.10 4.70 3.68 0.49 .79 Fairness 1.80 5.00 3.89 0.49 .78 2.70 5.00 3.95 0.43 .74 Leadership 1.50 5.00 3.62 0.55 .81 2.20 4.70 3.66 0.48 .78 Forgiveness 1.30 4.90 3.46 0.55 .80 2.10 4.60 3.52 0.53 .80 Modesty 1.50 4.70 3.18 0.56 .77 1.90 4.80 3.27 0.58 .81 Prudence 1.50 4.60 3.38 0.57 .78 2.30 4.70 3.46 0.52 .75 Self-regulation 1.60 4.70 3.21 0.55 .73 1.70 4.40 3.33 0.54 .72 Beauty 1.60 4.90 3.53 0.58 .75 2.10 4.90 3.46 0.60 .78 Gratitude 1.30 5.00 3.64 0.58 .82 2.50 4.80 3.68 0.53 .81 Hope 1.40 4.90 3.52 0.57 .79 2.50 4.70 3.59 0.57 .83 Humor 1.10 5.00 3.57 0.62 .86 2.10 5.00 3.65 0.55 .87 Religiousness 1.00 5.00 2.89 0.91 .91 1.10 5.00 2.84 0.94 .91

Usefulness of character strengths at work – self-ratingsc

Creativity 1.00 9.00 7.14 1.86 — 1.00 9.00 7.16 1.55 — Curiosity 1.00 9.00 7.40 1.74 — 2.00 9.00 7.43 1.43 — Judgment 1.00 9.00 7.45 1.78 — 2.00 9.00 7.64 1.36 — Love of learning 1.00 9.00 7.68 1.55 — 5.00 9.00 7.79 1.10 — Perspective 1.00 9.00 7.13 1.70 — 3.00 9.00 7.49 1.44 — Bravery 1.00 9.00 6.13 1.89 — 1.00 9.00 6.43 1.68 — Perseverance 2.00 9.00 7.77 1.31 — 4.00 9.00 7.90 1.09 — Honesty 1.00 9.00 6.90 1.83 — 2.00 9.00 7.16 1.62 — Zest 1.00 9.00 7.02 1.72 — 2.00 9.00 6.95 1.45 — Love 1.00 9.00 5.77 1.78 — 3.00 9.00 5.74 1.56 — Kindness 1.00 9.00 6.64 1.81 — 2.00 9.00 6.69 1.70 — Social intelligence 2.00 9.00 7.90 1.38 — 3.00 9.00 7.81 1.26 — Teamwork 2.00 9.00 7.38 1.28 — 3.00 9.00 7.54 1.43 — Fairness 1.00 9.00 7.15 1.68 — 3.00 9.00 7.23 1.49 — Leadership 1.00 9.00 7.25 1.66 — 3.00 9.00 7.44 1.51 — Forgiveness 1.00 9.00 6.21 1.68 — 2.00 9.00 6.43 1.57 — Modesty 1.00 9.00 4.95 1.87 — 1.00 9.00 5.06 1.68 — Prudence 1.00 9.00 5.88 1.80 — 2.00 9.00 6.22 1.73 —

(Continued)

CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 195

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Sample 1a Sample 2b

Scales Min Max M SD α Min Max M SD α

Self-regulation 2.00 9.00 6.98 1.47 — 3.00 9.00 6.85 1.37 — Beauty 1.00 9.00 5.55 1.76 — 2.00 9.00 5.48 1.46 — Gratitude 1.00 9.00 5.76 1.53 — 3.00 9.00 5.91 1.41 — Hope 1.00 9.00 6.96 1.54 — 4.00 9.00 7.06 1.33 — Humor 1.00 9.00 6.59 1.61 — 2.00 9.00 6.56 1.52 — Religiousness 1.00 9.00 4.53 1.69 — 1.00 9.00 4.94 1.72 —

Job performance–Self-ratings Task performance 3.14 7.00 6.15 0.67 .82 4.00 7.00 6.17 0.66 .84

Contextual performance Job dedication 1.50 5.00 3.70 0.69 .81 2.25 5.00 3.75 0.54 .69 Interpersonal facilitation 1.14 5.00 3.97 0.56 .81 2.43 5.00 4.02 0.59 .81 Organizational support 1.15 5.00 3.68 0.68 .92 1.77 4.92 3.78 0.63 .92

Job performance–Supervisory ratingsd

Task performance — — — — — 4.29 7.00 6.39 0.54 .82

Contextual performance Job dedication — — — — — 2.25 5.00 3.92 0.59 .82 Interpersonal facilitation — — — — — 2.00 5.00 3.98 0.58 .84 Organizational support — — — — — 2.38 5.00 4.03 0.51 .90

Note. VIA-IS = Values in Action Inventory of Strengths; UCSWS = Usefulness of Character Strengths at Work Scale; TPQ = Task Performance Questionnaire; JDQ = Job Dedication Questionnaire; IFQ = Interpersonal Facilitation Questionnaire; OSQ = Organizational Support Questionnaire.

aN = 318. bN = 108. cInternal consistency was not computed (single-item measures). dA dash in this section indicates that scores where not computed.

variables (i.e., it might lower them). Nevertheless, skewness (with a tendency of being slightly negative), and kurtosis indicated normal distribution. Means in supervisory ratings were signif- icantly higher than in self-ratings in Sample 2 for all performance scores except interpersonal facilitation.

For an examination of the extent of employee–supervisor agreement, rwg (James et al., 1984) was computed for each of the dimensions of job performance for each pair of employee and supervisor. James et al.’s (1984) multi-item rwg (rwg(J)) contrasts the average observed item vari- ance between employee and supervisor with that which might be expected from random response pattern. The medians of rwg(J) across the employee–supervisor pairs were .99, .97, .97, and .99 for task performance, job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support, respectively, indicating a very strong agreement (cf. LeBreton & Senter, 2008).4

4Also the moderately skewed null distribution (with bias referring to effects of vocational training and personnel selection which lead to an upward bias) was utilized (see LeBreton et al., 2003). This leads to the lower bound estimates of agreement, whereas the uniform null distribution (without bias; answering options have the same probability to be selected due to random response pattern) leads the upper bound estimates of agreement (Kotzlowski & Hattrup, 1992). Medians of lower bound interrater agreement were .97, .89, .90, and .96 for task performance, job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support, respectively, indicating a strong to very strong agreement (cf. LeBreton & Senter, 2008).

196 HARZER AND RUCH

The Relationships Between Character Strengths and Job Performance

Analyses were conducted stepwise from a more general (multiple correlation with composite scores of character strengths factors) to a specific level (zero-order correlation between 24 char- acter strengths and four dimensions of job performance). The 24 VIA-IS scales were reduced to the five strengths factors (i.e., emotional strengths, interpersonal strengths, strengths of restraint, intellectual strengths, and theological strengths) as reported in Ruch et al. (2010). A principal component analysis with Varimax rotation was computed utilizing the complete data set with the data from Samples 1 and 2 (N = 426) to obtain a more robust solution (see Table 3 for the factor loadings).

The factor analysis resulted in five factors that were highly similar to the solution reported by Ruch et al. (2010). The Tucker’s phi coefficients for the corresponding factors ranged from .91 to .99.

For an in-depth examination of the relationships between character strengths and job perfor- mance, several additional analyses were conducted. First, regression analyses with each of the dimensions of job performance (i.e., task performance, job dedication, interpersonal facilitation,

TABLE 3 Varimax Rotated Five-Factor Solution for the VIA-IS (Principal Components Analysis)

VIA-IS Scales 1 2 3 4 5 h2

Creativity .28 .06 .12 −.11 .73 .65 Curiosity .26 .15 .44 .10 .57 .63 Judgment .17 .13 −.16 .52 .64 .75 Love of learning .08 .07 .25 .08 .70 .57 Perspective .58 .18 −.03 .33 .32 .58 Bravery .66 .11 .13 .12 .36 .61 Perseverance .61 .00 .11 .58 .07 .73 Honesty .36 .48 −.03 .50 .05 .62 Zest .68 .15 .41 .01 .17 .69 Love .57 .36 .40 .05 −.10 .62 Kindness .39 .67 .20 .08 .08 .65 Social intelligence .56 .39 −.02 .16 .28 .57 Teamwork .32 .75 .14 .16 −.04 .71 Fairness .06 .76 .11 .20 .26 .71 Leadership .36 .61 .14 .10 .36 .66 Forgiveness .06 .68 .29 .08 .08 .56 Modesty −.26 .55 .18 .45 −.18 .63 Prudence −.05 .27 .04 .81 .13 .75 Self-regulation .31 .12 .23 .71 .03 .67 Beauty −.02 .21 .66 .09 .41 .65 Gratitude .27 .31 .74 .12 .15 .75 Hope .64 .12 .50 .18 .13 .72 Humor .51 .41 .10 −.30 .21 .57 Religiousness .15 .12 .72 .01 .06 .56

Note. N = 426. Bold indicates highest factor loadings of the scales. h2 = communality. VIA-IS = Values in Action Inventory of Strengths.

CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 197

and organizational support) as dependent variable were computed to obtain multiple correlations. In the first run, five character strengths factors were entered as independent variables, and in the second run the 24 character strengths scales (method: enter; two separate regression analyses). This was done to examine the overlapping variance between the sets of character strengths (five strengths factors or 24 scales) and each dimension of job performance. Second, we investigated the zero-order correlations for each of the character strengths with each of the dimensions of job performance. The multiple and zero-order correlations between the five character strengths fac- tors and the four job performance variables as well as between the 24 character strengths scales and the four job performance variables for Sample 1 and Sample 2 are given in Table 4.

Table 4 shows that there were various associations between character strengths and task per- formance, job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, as well as organizational support. Multiple correlations indicated that they shared between 5% and 48% of variance. The zero-order correla- tion coefficients for the character strengths scales ranged between –.13 (p > .05; N = 108) and .57 (p < .001; N = 318) with a median of absolute coefficients of .26. When correcting the corre- lations for variance restriction in job performance ratings, the correlations were between –.28 and .78 with a median of absolute coefficients of .42. For the character strengths factors, the corre- lation coefficients ranged between –.05 (p > .05; N = 108) and .50 (p < .001; N = 318) with a median of absolute coefficients of .19. When correcting the correlations for variance restric- tion in job performance ratings, the correlations were between –.11 and .72 with a median of absolute coefficients of .31. Self-ratings in the character strengths and in the dimensions of job performance were more strongly related to each other due to common-method variance than self-ratings in the character strengths and supervisory ratings of job performance. Next, the rank order of correlation coefficients was examined to check for the similarity of the correla- tion pattern between the 24 character strengths and each of the job performance dimensions. Spearman correlations were computed between each pair of the 24 correlation coefficients (i.e., for each dimension of job performance: self-rated performance Sample 1 and Sample 2; self-rated performance Sample 1 and supervisor-rated performance Sample 2; self-rated performance and supervisor-rated Sample 2). Spearman correlation coefficients indicated that correlation pattern were very similar (i.e., coefficients were .47, .44, and .83 for task performance; .53, .63, and .78 for job dedication; .76, .37, and .39 for interpersonal facilitation; and .45, .54, and .41 for organizational support, all p < .05, one-tailed).

The relationships by means of zero-order correlations between character strengths and the dimensions of job performance, which occurred across all samples and rating sources (i.e., self- and supervisory ratings), were of special interest. An examination of those indicated that the expectations were widely met.5 Task performance was related to perseverance, teamwork, and the strengths of restraint (i.e., honesty, prudence, self-regulation; ordered according numerically decreasing correlation coefficient to supervisor-rated task performance). Job dedication was

5Also partial correlations between the character strengths and the dimensions of job performance were computed con- trolling for the corresponding ratings in the UCSWS. This was done as the ratings in the corresponding strengths in the VIA-IS and the UCSWS were slightly related to each other (i.e., Mdn = .16 and .28 in Sample 1 and Sample 2, respec- tively). Results remained the same as correlation coefficients hardly changed (Mdn change of absolute coefficients = .02. .03, and .02 in Sample 1 and in Sample 2 for self- and supervisor-rated performance, respectively). Of interest, UCSWS ratings did not consistently relate to the dimensions of job performance when the VIA-IS scores were controlled for (except social intelligence and task performance; perspective and hope with organizational support). This also highlighted the role of character strengths as positive traits for job performance.

TA B

L E

4 Z

e ro

-O rd

e r

a n d

M u lti

p le

C o rr

e la

tio n s

B e tw

e e n

C h a ra

ct e r

S tr

e n g th

s a n d

Jo b

P e rf

o rm

a n ce

V a ri

a b le

s in

S a m

p le

1 a n d

S a m

p le

2

S a

m p

le 1

a

S el

f- R

a ti

n g

s o

f P

er fo

rm a

n ce

S a

m p

le 2

b

S el

f- R

a ti

n g

s o

f P

er fo

rm a

n ce

S a

m p

le 2

b

S u p er

vi so

ry R

a ti

n g s

o f

P er

fo rm

a n ce

C h a ra

ct er

S tr

en g th

s T

P JD

IF O

S T

P JD

IF O

S T

P JD

IF O

S

E m

ot io

na l

st re

ng th

s .3

2∗ ∗∗

.4 2∗

∗∗ .3

6∗ ∗∗

.3 2∗

∗∗ .2

4∗ .3

2∗ ∗∗

.2 6∗

∗ .3

7∗ ∗∗

.1 3

.2 1∗

.0 8

.2 7∗

∗ Z

es t

.2 8∗

∗∗ .3

5∗ ∗∗

.3 7∗

∗∗ .3

5∗ ∗∗

.3 1∗

∗ .4

9∗ ∗∗

.3 6∗

∗∗ .4

0∗ ∗∗

.1 2

.1 8

.0 9

.2 8∗

∗ B

ra ve

ry .3

2∗ ∗∗

.4 6∗

∗∗ .4

2∗ ∗∗

.3 4∗

∗∗ .1

8 .3

7∗ ∗∗

.3 2∗

∗∗ .3

4∗ ∗∗

.1 4

.2 7∗

∗ .1

7 .2

9∗ ∗

H op

e .3

4∗ ∗∗

.3 0∗

∗∗ .3

6∗ ∗∗

.3 6∗

∗∗ .1

6 .2

6∗ ∗

.3 2∗

∗∗ .3

8∗ ∗∗

.0 2

.1 4

.0 9

.2 1∗

P er

se ve

ra nc

e .4

0∗ ∗∗

.5 1∗

∗∗ .3

0∗ ∗∗

.3 7∗

∗∗ .5

0∗ ∗∗

.5 5∗

∗∗ .2

2∗ .4

5∗ ∗∗

.3 3∗

∗∗ .3

0∗ ∗

.0 9

.3 6∗

∗∗ P

er sp

ec ti

ve .3

2∗ ∗∗

.3 8∗

∗∗ .3

8∗ ∗∗

.3 0∗

∗∗ .2

0∗ .1

3 .1

5 .2

8∗ ∗

.0 7

.1 7

.0 7

.2 8∗

∗ L

ov e

.3 0∗

∗∗ .2

6∗ ∗∗

.4 3∗

∗∗ .2

6∗ ∗∗

.2 1∗

.1 2

.4 0∗

∗∗ .4

4∗ ∗∗

.0 0

.0 3

.0 1

.2 6∗

∗ S

oc ia

l In

te ll

ig en

ce .2

3∗ ∗∗

.3 9∗

∗∗ .5

7∗ ∗∗

.3 6∗

∗∗ .3

1∗ ∗

.2 5∗

.4 6∗

∗∗ .2

9∗ ∗

.1 8

.1 6

.1 5

.2 1∗

H um

or .1

3∗ .2

4∗ ∗∗

.3 6∗

∗∗ .1

7∗ ∗

.1 8

.1 5

.3 1∗

∗ .2

2∗ .0

0 .0

2 −.

01 .0

5 In

te rp

er so

na l

st re

ng th

s .1

6∗ ∗

.1 9∗

∗∗ .5

0∗ ∗∗

.3 1∗

∗∗ .2

3∗ .1

8 .3

9∗ ∗

.1 5

.0 8

.0 7

.1 6

.1 4

F ai

rn es

s .2

5∗ ∗∗

.2 5∗

∗∗ .4

6∗ ∗∗

.3 4∗

∗∗ .3

2∗ ∗∗

.2 9∗

∗ .4

7∗ ∗∗

.2 6∗

∗ .0

7 .0

8 .2

2∗ .1

9∗ T

ea m

w or

k .2

9∗ ∗∗

.3 8∗

∗∗ .5

2∗ ∗∗

.4 4∗

∗∗ .3

7∗ ∗∗

.3 7∗

∗∗ .3

9∗ ∗∗

.3 6∗

∗∗ .2

4∗ .2

6∗ ∗

.2 6∗

∗ .3

3∗ ∗∗

F or

gi ve

ne ss

.1 8∗

∗ .2

0∗ ∗∗

.4 2∗

∗∗ .2

9∗ ∗∗

.0 3

.1 5

.3 1∗

∗ .2

0∗ −.

13 .0

3 .0

6 .1

4 K

in dn

es s

.3 6∗

∗∗ .3

6∗ ∗∗

.5 1∗

∗∗ .3

4∗ ∗∗

.2 7∗

∗ .2

3∗ .3

6∗ ∗∗

.3 7∗

∗∗ .1

5 .2

7∗ ∗

.2 5∗

∗ .3

4∗ ∗∗

L ea

de rs

hi p

.3 0∗

∗∗ .3

9∗ ∗∗

.5 3∗

∗∗ .4

5∗ ∗∗

.3 2∗

∗∗ .3

8∗ ∗∗

.5 7∗

∗∗ .3

4∗ ∗∗

.1 1

.1 7

.2 3∗

.2 6∗

∗ M

od es

ty .0

8 .0

3 .0

9 .1

3∗ .2

6∗ ∗

.2 2∗

.1 1

.0 8

.2 0∗

.1 0

.0 1

.1 4

S tr

en gt

hs of

re st

ra in

t .2

8∗ ∗∗

.2 0∗

∗∗ .0

6 .2

2∗ ∗∗

.3 7∗

∗∗ .3

6∗ ∗∗

.0 2

.2 4∗

.2 8∗

∗ .2

4∗ .0

7 .2

9∗ ∗

P ru

de nc

e .2

3∗ ∗∗

.1 2∗

.1 9∗

∗∗ .2

3∗ ∗∗

.3 8∗

∗∗ .3

1∗ ∗

.1 6

.2 9∗

∗ .2

3∗ .2

4∗ .1

3 .3

0∗ ∗

S el

f- re

gu la

ti on

.3 3∗

∗∗ .3

5∗ ∗∗

.2 6∗

∗∗ .3

6∗ ∗∗

.3 5∗

∗∗ .4

0∗ ∗∗

.2 9∗

∗ .3

5∗ ∗∗

.1 9∗

.2 0∗

.1 2

.3 2∗

∗∗ H

on es

ty .3

5∗ ∗∗

.3 7∗

∗∗ .3

8∗ ∗∗

.3 6∗

∗∗ .4

5∗ ∗∗

.5 3∗

∗∗ .2

5∗ ∗

.3 4∗

∗∗ .2

8∗ ∗

.2 6∗

∗ .0

6 .2

9∗ ∗

In te

ll ec

tu al

st re

ng th

s .1

7∗ ∗

.2 8∗

∗∗ .2

1∗ ∗∗

.1 1

.1 0

.2 2∗

.2 5∗

∗ .1

9∗ −.

04 .1

6 .1

3 .2

1∗ C

re at

iv it

y .1

7∗ ∗

.3 8∗

∗∗ .2

4∗ ∗∗

.1 8∗

∗ .0

6 .2

2∗ .2

7∗ ∗

.2 5∗

∗ −.

05 .1

3 .0

5 .2

8∗ ∗

L ov

e of

L ea

rn in

g .2

3∗ ∗∗

.2 8∗

∗∗ .2

4∗ ∗∗

.1 7∗

∗ .2

5∗ ∗

.2 9∗

∗ .2

4∗ .3

1∗ ∗∗

.0 9

.2 3∗

.1 9

.2 3∗

Ju dg

m en

t .3

4∗ ∗∗

.3 8∗

∗∗ .3

2∗ ∗∗

.2 6∗

∗∗ .2

1∗ .2

8∗ ∗

.1 1

.2 1∗

.0 7

.1 7

.0 9

.2 9∗

∗ C

ur io

si ty

.2 9∗

∗∗ .3

1∗ ∗∗

.3 5∗

∗∗ .2

9∗ ∗∗

.3 4∗

∗∗ .5

1∗ ∗∗

.5 4∗

∗∗ .3

9∗ ∗∗

.0 6

.2 4∗

.1 0

.2 8∗

∗ T

he ol

og ic

al st

re ng

th s

.0 6

.0 1

.1 5∗

∗ .0

9 .0

2 .0

3 .2

2∗ .2

8∗ ∗

−. 05

−. 03

−. 02

.0 3

G ra

ti tu

de .2

9∗ ∗∗

.2 4∗

∗∗ .4

3∗ ∗∗

.2 7∗

∗∗ .1

9∗ .1

3 .3

3∗ ∗∗

.4 3∗

∗∗ .0

6 .1

1 .0

6 .1

8 R

el ig

io us

ne ss

.0 5

.1 1

.2 5∗

∗∗ .1

9∗ ∗∗

−. 01

.0 3

.2 0∗

.2 4∗

−. 03

−. 02

.0 7

.0 5

B ea

ut y

.1 4∗

.1 9∗

∗∗ .3

4∗ ∗∗

.1 2∗

.1 3

.0 8

.3 1∗

∗ .3

5∗ ∗∗

.0 2

.0 4

.0 4

.1 2

R fa

ct or

s .4

9∗ ∗∗

.5 7∗

∗∗ .6

5∗ ∗∗

.5 1∗

∗∗ .4

8∗ ∗∗

.5 4∗

∗∗ .5

9∗ ∗∗

.5 6∗

∗∗ .3

1 .3

5∗ .2

3 .4

5∗ ∗∗

R sc

al es

.5 4∗

∗∗ .6

6∗ ∗∗

.6 9∗

∗∗ .5

8∗ ∗∗

— —

— —

— —

— —

N o

te .

A da

sh in

di ca

te s

th at

sc or

es w

er e

no t

co m

pu te

d du

e to

a sa

m pl

e si

ze th

at w

as to

o sm

al l

fo r

th e

nu m

be r

of in

de pe

nd en

t va

ri ab

le s

(c f.

T ab

ac hn

ic k

& F

id el

l, 20

07 ).

C ha

ra ct

er st

re ng

th s

w er

e or

ga ni

ze d

w it

h re

sp ec

t to

th ei

r hi

gh es

t lo

ad in

g on

th e

fi ve

st re

ng th

s fa

ct or

s (i

n de

sc en

di ng

or de

r of

th e

lo ad

in g

w it

hi n

a st

re ng

th s

fa ct

or ).

T P

= T

as k

pe rf

or m

an ce

;J D

= Jo

b de

di ca

ti on

;I F

= In

te rp

er so

na lf

ac il

it at

io n;

O S

= O

rg an

iz at

io na

ls up

po rt

.L ov

e =

C ap

ac it

y to

lo ve

an d

be lo

ve d,

B ea

ut y

= A

pp re

ci at

io n

of be

au ty

an d

ex ce

ll en

ce .R

= M

ul ti

pl e

co rr

el at

io n.

a N

= 31

8. b N

= 10

8. ∗ p

< .0

5. ∗∗

p <

.0 1.

∗∗ ∗ p

< .0

01 .

198

CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 199

associated with the strengths of restraint (i.e., honesty, prudence, self-regulation; ordered with numerically decreasing correlation coefficient to supervisor-rated job dedication). Furthermore, job dedication went along with emotional strengths, and among those strengths particularly with perseverance and bravery. In addition, it was related to teamwork, curiosity, and love of learning. Interpersonal facilitation correlated with teamwork, kindness, leadership, and fairness. Organizational support was the dimension of job performance most often related to the char- acter strengths. Across all samples and rating sources, all except six character strengths (i.e., forgiveness, modesty, appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, humor, and religiousness) were robustly related to organizational support. Furthermore, the factors strengths of restraint and emotional strengths were associated with organizational support.

The Relationships Between the Number of the Individual’s Signature Strengths That Are Beneficial at Work and Job Performance

To examine whether performance scores increased with the degree of congruence between the job tasks and the individual signature strengths, several analyses were conducted. First, the degree of congruence between the job tasks and the individual signature strengths represented by the number of signature strengths useful at work was defined for each of the participants. Because we were interested in the signature strengths, only the seven numerically highest character strengths within each individual as measured by the VIA-IS were included in the analyses. Among those seven, a character strength was counted as being congruent only if two conditions were met. First, the score in the VIA-IS was at least 3.5 on a rating scale for the endorsement of strengths- related statements, with 3 as neutral, 4 as agree, and 5 as totally agree to make sure that only those strengths were considered that were endorsed at least to a slight extent. It was assumed that people could not successfully show character-strengths-relevant behavior at work if they did not possess6 the character strengths to at least some extent. Second, the score in the UCSWS needed to be 7 or higher on a rating scale with 5 (neither detrimental, nor beneficial), 6 (slightly beneficial), 7 (beneficial), 8 (very beneficial), and 9 (absolutely beneficial). With the cutoff of 7, the strength-related behavior was clearly judged as helpful. This resulted in a score ranging from a number of 0 to 7 beneficial signature strengths representing a very low to very high congruence between the job tasks and the individual signature strengths.

Second, correlations between the number of signature strengths useful at work and the four dimension of job performance were computed. Table 5 presents the correlation coefficients obtained in Samples 1 and 2 as well as in self- and supervisor-rated task performance, job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support.

Table 5 shows that, as expected, the number of signature strengths useful at work was related to all dimensions of job performance in the self-ratings. The supervisory ratings of job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support were significantly associated with the num- ber of signature strengths useful at work but not with task performance. The latter might be due to

6As it is the case for personality assessment in general, character strengths as personality traits are theoretical con- structs and it is not possible to possess them technically speaking. Nevertheless, one can endorse statements relating to the character strengths and the information on this endorsement is used here as a proxy/operationalization for actual behaviors that represent the traits of interest.

200 HARZER AND RUCH

TABLE 5 Relationships Between the Job Performance Variables and the Degree of Congruence Between

the Job Tasks and the Individual Signature Strengthsa

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 2 Job Performance Variables Self-Ratings Self-Ratings Supervisory Ratings

Task performance .34∗∗∗ .28∗∗ .12 Job dedication .33∗∗∗ .30∗∗∗ .19∗ Interpersonal facilitation .29∗∗∗ .30∗∗∗ .22∗ Organizational support .25∗∗∗ .46∗∗∗ .35∗∗∗

Note. NSample1 = 318. NSample2 = 108. aOperationalized as the number of signature strengths beneficial at work (range = 0–7). ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

the ceiling effects in the supervisory ratings of task performance (i.e., after correcting for variance restriction in the supervisory ratings, the correlation coefficient was r = .21, p < .05).

DISCUSSION

This article is the first one investigating the relationships between the 24 character strengths from the VIA classification (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and four dimensions of job performance (i.e., task performance, job dedication, interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support). Agreement of self-reports and supervisory ratings of the dimensions of job performance was very high, indicating that self-reports and supervisory ratings are measures of the same performance constructs. As expected, character strengths were positively related to job performance. Findings were replicable across two samples utilizing self- and supervisor-rated performance highlight- ing the robustness of the findings regarding the relationships between character strengths and performance.

Taken together, character strengths had a stronger relationship with contextual performance dimensions than with task performance in terms of the number of significant correlations. Nevertheless, character strengths showed consistent associations to task performance as well. This is consistent with Motowidlo et al.’s (1997) theory of individual differences in task and con- textual performance. Among the dimensions of contextual performance, organizational support was the one most often co-occurring with the character strengths across all samples and rating sources.

Strengths consistently associated with task performance were perseverance, teamwork, hon- esty, prudence, and self-regulation. The relationship between task performance and perseverance, honesty, and self-regulation was anticipated, as finishing what one starts, acting in a sincere way, and taking responsibility for one’s actions as well as being disciplined (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) assumedly relate to proper work outcomes. Prudence refers to not taking undue risks and not saying or doing things that might later be regretted (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and therefore it played an important role for task performance. Teamwork was related to task

CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 201

performance as well, as doing one’s share within a team or organization may relate to proper work outcomes.

Employees from different occupations were investigated here. Perseverance, teamwork, hon- esty, prudence, and self-regulation seem to be the strengths related to task performance across different occupations. Even more strengths (those that emerged in the mixed samples reported in the present research plus those specific for a job) might be related to task performance when spe- cific job groups are studied, as task performance is the proficiency in job-specific tasks (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). For example, interpersonal character strengths (love, kindness, social intelligence) were especially related to satisfaction with work in jobs that explicitly involve other people like teaching or sales (Peterson & Park, 2006). The same could result for task per- formance as well. Future research should be conducted to investigate character strengths related to high job performance in specific occupations.

Also consistent with hypotheses, job dedication was associated with perseverance, bravery, self-regulation, curiosity, and love of learning. Results indicated that it related to additional strengths, namely, honesty, prudence, and teamwork. There was some overlap with the character strengths related to task performance, as job dedication has more conceptual overlap with task performance than the other dimensions of contextual performance (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). However, the character strengths of bravery, curiosity, and love of learning were unique to job dedication in comparison to task performance. These character strengths refer to behaviors like not shrinking back from challenge or difficulty, taking interest in all of ongoing experience for its own sake, and mastering new skills. Hence, these character strengths may facilitate “extra effort to complete work tasks successfully despite difficult conditions and setbacks,” the develop- ment of own knowledge and skills, and “taking the initiative to accomplish team . . . objectives” as parts of job dedication (Borman et al., 2001, p. 55).

Interpersonal facilitation was related to the civic and interpersonal character strengths as expected as teamwork, leadership, and fairness as well as kindness went along with it. These strengths may encourage employees to help and assist coworkers, if necessary. Helping, cooper- ating, and courtesy are inherent aspects of interpersonal facilitation (Borman et al., 2001), which may be assisted by positive traits such as teamwork (e.g., being loyal to the group), fairness (e.g., giving everyone a fair chance), and kindness (e.g., doing favors and good deeds for others, helping them, and taking care of them). Leadership entails encouraging to get things done and at the time also maintaining good relations within the group. All these behaviors encourage the motivation of others in the team, which is an important aspect of interpersonal facilitation as well (Borman et al., 2001).

Organizational support was related to all of the character strengths except six (i.e., forgive- ness, modesty, appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, humor, and religiousness) across all samples. The numerically highest associations were found with perseverance, kindness, team- work, and self-regulation. This dimension of job performance entails fewer performance-related issues like enhancing own or others’ accomplishments. It is much more related to moral behav- ior like a positive representation of the organization one is employed at and includes promoting it, showing loyalty by staying with it despite hardship, and complying with organizational rules (Borman et al., 2001).

Future studies should be conducted to investigate whether character strengths would be still correlated with job performance when general mental abilities are controlled for. Schmidt and Hunter (1998), for example, highlighted the impact of intelligence on job performance as (one

202 HARZER AND RUCH

of) the most important predictors. Character strengths only slightly correlate with intelligence (Buschor, Proyer, & Ruch, 2011) and therefore they are expected to correlate with job per- formance when general mental abilities are controlled for. However, this needs to be further studied.

The ceiling effect (especially in supervisory-rated task performance) in the ratings of job per- formance might have lowered the associations between character strengths and the dimensions of job performance. Especially in Sample 2 the ceiling effect seemed to be intensified by the self- selection; only employees working well asked their supervisors to judge their job performance. Therefore, it will be of interest to study whole departments or teams from different occupations, where all employees are invited to participate and do not need to ask their supervisors for their ratings, as this would be part of the research program implemented there. Furthermore, one might study beginners who do not have much training in their jobs or tenure. Those who will or need to leave a job might be the less well-performing employees. Both may enable a broader range of job performance scores. However, given the range restrictions in the performance ratings, the reported correlation coefficients might serve as lower bound estimates of the relationships between character strengths and job performance.

In addition to the previously discussed direct relationships between character strengths and job performance, the present research shows that there is an indirect association as well, through the number of signature strengths beneficial at work (i.e., the congruence between the job and a person). The participants who rated their signature strengths as beneficial at work seemed to be the better performer. Results were mixed for task performance, as they could not be replicated across all rating sources. This might be (a) due to the ceiling effect especially in the supervi- sory ratings lowering variability and (b) due to the single item measurement of the usefulness of strengths at work potentially limiting reliability. Nevertheless, the results are very promising. Future research should utilize more reliable instruments for the assessment of the usefulness of character strengths at work.

In addition, future studies may examine the shape of relationships between job performance and the number of signature strengths that are beneficial at work. Specifically, it might be of interest to test whether performance steadily increases with the number of signature strengths that are beneficial at work or whether there is a “satiation point” of the number of beneficial signature strengths. This “satiation point” may be expected to be located between three and seven strengths, as this is the hypothesized number of signature strengths within individuals stipulated by Peterson and Seligman (2004). That means that with the number of three rather than two beneficial signature strengths, the level of job performance may increase but the increment of predictive validity of any further signature strength may be consecutively lower in amount and actually be stagnant past the hypothesized number of signature strengths (Harzer & Ruch, 2012, 2013). Results would give interesting insights for strengths-related personnel development in order to increase job performance by fostering the signature strengths.

The character-strengths-related congruence between the job and a person might be interpreted as a new approach for the person–job fit. In terms of Kristof’s (1996) descriptions of the fit mea- surement, in the present research, the fit was operationalized indirectly on an individual level. The operationalization of the degree of person–job fit (i.e., the number of signature strengths that are beneficial at work) was based on the employee’s self-description and the same employee’s description of the job regarding the character strengths. Considering the notion of signature strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) a fit score can be computed that reflects the number of

CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 203

beneficial signature strengths instead of a difference score between the characteristics of an indi- vidual and his or her workplace. With the VIA-IS a reliable and valid measure for the character strengths of an individual exists (Peterson et al., 2005; Ruch et al., 2010). Further research should be conducted to develop a measure assessing the job demands with multiple items whose reliabil- ity in terms of internal consistency but also by means of interrater agreement is investigated (cf. Harzer & Ruch, 2013). In addition, incremental validity might be studied with respect to common operationalizations of person–job fit (e.g., values, abilities; cf. Kristof, 1996) when predicting job performance or other work-related outcomes like job satisfaction.

As cross-sectional data were reported in the present study, causality could not be inferred, and experimental or longitudinal studies are needed to address this issue. Character strengths can be modified because they are defined as malleable (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Consequently, interventions aimed at fostering job performance can be designed either to train character strengths like perseverance or to increase strengths-related person–job fit due to changes in the workplace design. Future research may address the utility of these two approaches to investigate the circumstances under which they are most appropriate. Furthermore, the role of strengths- related person–job fit for job satisfaction, and flow can be examined, as those concepts profit from person–environment fit as well (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003).

This article shows that character and job performance are related to each other directly and indirectly (i.e., through the congruence between the individual signature strengths and the charac- ter strengths beneficial at the individual workplace). Different character strengths were related to different dimensions of job performance. Hence, character strengths seem to be promising narrow, morally valued personality traits regarding the prediction of job performance. This finding pro- vides new research opportunities for organizational behavior, personnel selection, and personnel development. For example, research could be conducted to further explore the role of charac- ter strengths at work across employees, but also considering the strengths-related person-job fit. Future research may address not only performance but also other outcomes like job satis- faction and calling. Furthermore, the study of character strengths may be conducted not only on individual level but also on group level as character strengths profiles differ across different occupations (e.g., Matthews, Eid, Kelly, Bailey, & Peterson, 2006; Peterson et al., 2010). These profiles can, for example, be related to team efficiency or climate and may provide information for interventions on team level.

FUNDING

Data collection was supported by a research grant from the Suzanne and Hans Biäsch Foundation for Applied Psychology.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Oxford, UK: Holt. Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, O., & John, O. J. (1990). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors in German: A psycho-

lexical study. European Journal of Personality, 4, 89–118. Biemann, T., Cole, M. S., & Voelpel, S. (2012). Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG(J) in

leadership research and some best practice guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 66–80.

204 HARZER AND RUCH

Biswas-Diener, R. (2006). From the equator to the North Pole: A study of character strengths. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 293–310.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual perfor- mance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52–69.

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168–177.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710–725. Buschor, C., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2011). On the relations between character strengths and intelligence. Manuscript

in preparation. Butcher, J. M., & Pancheri, P. (1976). A handbook of cross-national MMPI research. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press. Brown, R. D., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to the rwg indices.

Organizational Research Methods, 8, 165–184. Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-Environment Fit Theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives,

and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248–267. Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain.

Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25–44. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper. Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and

centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93–108.

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common method bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374–406.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York, NY: Plenum.

Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2012). When the job is a calling: The role of applying one’s signature strengths at work. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 362–371.

Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature character strengths and positive experiences at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 965–983.

Hendricks, J. W., & Payne, S. C. (2007). Beyond the Big Five: Leader goal orientation as a predictor of leadership effectiveness. Human Performance, 20, 317–343.

Hodges, T. D., & Asplund, J. (2010). Strengths development in the workplace. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology at work (pp. 213–220). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

James, R. L., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

Kasten, R., & Nevo, B. (2008). Exploring the relationship between interrater correlations and validity of peer ratings. Human Performance, 21, 180–197.

Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131–146. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of

consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 161–167. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An investigative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and

implication. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. LeBreton, J. M., Burgess, J. R. D., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E. K., & James, L. R. (2003). The restriction of variance

hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6, 80–128.

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572.

CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 205

Marks, M. A. (2009). A test of the impact of collective efficacy in routine and novel performance environments. Human Performance, 12, 295–309.

Matthews, M. D., Eid, J., Kelly, D., Bailey, J. K. S., & Peterson, C. (2006). Character strengths and virtues of developing military leaders: An international comparison. Military Psychology, 18(Suppl.), 57–68.

Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 115–126.

Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 39–53). New York, NY: Wiley.

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71–83.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583.

Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2007). Methodological issues in positive psychology and the assessment of character strengths. In A. D. Ong & M. H. M. van Dulmen (Eds.), Handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp. 292–305). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US States. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 118–129.

Pervin, L. A., Cervone, D., & John, O. P. (2005). Personality: Theory and research (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Peterson, C. (2006). The Values in Action (VIA) classification of strengths. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S.

Csikszentmihalyi, A life worth living: Contributions to positive psychology (pp. 29–48). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2006). Character strengths in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1149–1154.

Peterson, C., Park, N., Hall, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Zest and work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 161–172.

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Assessment of character strengths. In G. P. Koocher, J. C. Norcross, & S. S. Hill, III (Eds.), Psychologists’ desk reference (2nd ed., pp. 93–98). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues. A handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C., Stephens, J. P., Park, N., Lee, F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010). Strengths of character and work. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology at work (pp. 221–231). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010). Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA–IS): Adaptation and validation of the German version and the development of a peer-rating form. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 138–149.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology. Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531. Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person–organization fit and

work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473–489. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection

and Assessment, 8, 216–226. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational

citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

Copyright of Human Performance is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.