Group intervention: A way to improve working teams’ positive psychological capital

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Positive psychological capital is reported to have positive effects on people’s well-being and attitudes to their working lives.

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this study was to investigate if it is possible to increase the level of positive psychological capital by two group intervention programs.

METHODS:

The research design was a controlled study with 2×2 experimental groups and two control groups. Two of the experimental groups received intervention I (IG I), the other two experimental groups received intervention II (IG II). Assessments were made before and after the intervention programs, with a follow-up at six months post-intervention. Instruments measuring the fundamentals of psychological capital: self-efficacy, hope, optimism, as well as health and job satisfaction were used.

RESULTS:

The results show that it is possible to increase the level of positive emotions, self-efficacy and job satisfaction of members of a working team by using group intervention methods. The positive changes observed at the end of the program remained six months after the intervention, with the exception of job satisfaction in IG II. It seems that the intervention had a greater influence on those persons who at the start of the study reported a low level of self-enhancement. The results were more pronounced in intervention group I where reinforcement of the resources and positive aspects of the work place environment were provided.

CONCLUSIONS:

A 10-week group intervention program that focused on learned optimism proved to be successful in increasing levels of self-efficacy and job satisfaction. While improvement was maintained six months post-intervention the small sample size and the attrition rate are limitations. Results are promising and further research is warranted.

Keywords

hope optimism job satisfaction group intervention

1 Introduction

Positive psychology, which focuses on human strengths, fulfilment, and optimal living was identified in the late 1990 s as an important area for research by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi [1]. Focusing on aspects of conditions that lead to increased well-being, health, and self-fulfilment, positive psychology has had a great impact on research regarding both individuals and working teams during recent years. The movement of positive psychology is theoretically founded in humanistic psychology emphasizing free will, personal growth and an attempt to find meaning in one’s existence. Positive psychology has influenced practitioners’ methods for working in the development of these areas, not the least of which is the workplace. In a newly published paper, Lindberg and Vingård [2] concluded that reduction of stress, conflict and noise is not enough to create a healthy and creative work environment. Attention needs to be paid to additional positive values such as self-efficacy.

In 2005 Lyubomirsky, King and Diener [3] conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether focusing on happiness had any additional effects other than increased well-being. Lyubomirsky [4], concluded: “Compared to their less happy peers, happier people are more sociable and energetic, more charitable and cooperative, and better liked by others.” (p. 25). They are also more likely to marry, stay married, have more friends, be more productive in their jobs, better leaders and earn more money. They even live longer [4].

Fredrickson [5] has created a “Broaden-and-build theory” and proposed that positive emotions broaden an individual’s thinking and action repertoire at the moment by increasing visual perception and improving cognitive ability and social relations. These immediate positive emotions lead to actions that create long-standing personal resources, such as resilience, skills, knowledge and social support. High levels of positive emotions are related to health, well-being, stable relations and profitability [5]. It was found that profitable teams with a good reputation had a ratio of positive to negative comments in their meetings of 3:1, while less profitable teams with a poorer reputation had a ratio of less than 1:1 [6]. Positive comments were expressions of support, encouragement or appreciation, while negative comments were about dissatisfaction or were sarcastic or cynical in nature. The ratio of positive to negative comments was the most significant factor that distinguished successful teams from less successful teams. The researchers concluded that positive comments are an indicator of the overall level of team functioning [6]. Sundin, Hochwälder and Lisspers have shown that poor co-worker support was associated with depersonalization over time (7).

Positive psychological capital as described by Luthans and Youssef [8] has four components

Self-efficacy: “ … one’s confidence in his or her ability to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action necessary to execute a specific course of action within a given context” [8, p. 153].

Hope: “ … being a motivational state that is based on the interaction between three factors: goals, agency and pathways. People are driven to accomplish their goals by their sense of agency, which provides them with an internalized determination and willpower to invest the energy necessary to achieve their goals” [8, p. 153].

Optimism: “ … involves a positive explanatory style that attributes positive events to internal, permanent, and pervasive causes, and negative events to external, temporary, and situation-specific ones” [8, p.153].

Resilience: “ … is the capacity to bounce back from adversity, uncertainty, failure, or even positive but seemingly overwhelming changes such as increased responsibility” [8, p.154].

Positive psychological capital influences many aspects of an organisation’s structure and work environment. In a meta-analysis Avey, Reichard, Luthans and Mhatre [9] showed that psychological capital can play an important role in performance, satisfaction and devotion to work, resulting in less absence from work due to illness and a reduction in cynicism, deviant behaviour, stress-related symptoms and resignations. Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa et al. [10] found that when positive psychological capital varies over time, levels can coincide with, and even predict the results of performance appraisals from superiors. Also single components of psychological capital have been shown to contribute to performances at work and to life as a whole [11].

To sum up research has shown that psychological well-being, self-efficacy, hope, optimism and resilience are important factors that make it possible for an organisation to develop and reach its goals [1 –11]. The question of how these factors can be improved is therefore important.

A person’s well-being, according to Lyubomirsky [4], depends on three factors: “external and genetic circumstances” are responsible for 60% of the variation in an individual’s well-being: contextual factors such as national, cultural and demographic factors, personal experiences and living conditions are responsible for 10% of the variation; the remaining 30% of happiness is dependent on how we interpret and act in relation to the present contextual factors. Interpretations and actions are, according to Lyubomirsky, possible influences on activities and ways of thinking [4]. To influence a person’s well-being, one effective way is to focus on psychological capital.

Emmons and McCullough [12] focused on various aspects of life associated with gratefulness. They showed that a grateful outlook resulted in more positive and optimistic appraisals of one’s life, higher levels of positive affect and more pro-social motivation. Sheldon and Lyubomirsky [13] have used the same approach along with visualization of the best possible self. They concluded that both approaches resulted in increased positive mood. Seligman, Steen and Park [14] encouraged participants to focus on three good things in life each day and to use signature strengths in a new manner. Both exercises increased happiness and decreased depressive symptoms. Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek and Finkel [15] had people to perform mindful meditation over an 8-week period focusing on kindness to others. They found raised levels of positive emotions which were linked to increases in a variety of personal resources, more life satisfaction and fewer symptoms of depression.

Cognitive therapy can change an individual’s style of expression, from a pessimistic to an optimistic style [16]. Interventions such as training to increase problem-solving capacity can lead to a more optimistic style of expression and thereby prevent future depression [17].

Gillham, Hamilton, Frers and Patton [18] used the 12-week Penn Resilience Program where students learnt an optimistic style of expression along with other ways of problem-solving. The program has been successfully implemented in both the United States and in China. Fordyce [19, 20] created an intervention program with the intention of teaching individuals to imitate behaviours characteristic of happy people, such as being more organised, being occupied, giving more time to relationships with other people, having a positive view of life and developing a healthy personality. Compared to a control group, participants’ well-being increased and the positive effects remained after 9 to 18 months. Sekerka, Brumbaugh, Rosa and Cooperrider [21] have shown that workplace interventions based on employees’ existing strengths promoted positive emotions, a favourable self-image and a favourable image of co-workers and of their organisation. In contrast, an intervention that focused on barriers and problems did not result in positive feelings, but in higher levels of frustration. Gable, Reis, Impett and Asher [22] reported that when participants communicated positive personal experiences to others, also their own positive emotions and well-being increased.

Hodges and Clifton [23] identified personal strengths of individuals and by coaching, further developed these strengths. These researchers concluded that it is possible to raise employees’ levels of hopefulness. Interventions based on psychological capital as a whole (self-efficacy, hope, optimism and resilience) have shown positive effects in the workplace.

Results of the research presented above suggest that it is possible to influence people’s attitudes towards life in a positive direction and that this in turn leads to desirable results for individuals. The possibility of using similar methods of intervention in the workplace at the group level requires further research as methods of intervention have not been explicitly developed and tested. Reasons for this might be that workplaces are very dynamic so it is difficult to control factors like mobility and motivation. It is also resource intensive.

The present study was designed to determine what effects two different methods of group training may have on the members and processes of a working team. The first method aimed at training the group to focus on positive aspects in the workplace, to consciously notice resources and things that one is happy and grateful for (Intervention Group I [IG I]). The second method aimed at training a working team to cope with setbacks as constructively as possible by learning acceptance and the ability to take action together with alternative and optimistic ways of thinking (Intervention Group II [IG II]).

The aim of the present study was to investigate if it is possible to increase the level of positive psychological capital by one or both of these two intervention programs.

The hypothesis was that it is possible to increase participants’ levels of self-efficacy, optimism, hope, health, and job satisfaction by one or both of the suggested interventions. Note that in the present study the concept of resilience in psychological capital was omitted as at the time of our study, we could not find a suitable instrument to measure this construct.

2 Methods

2.1 Design

The design is a controlled study with four (2×2) experimental groups and two control groups. Two of the experimental groups received intervention I, the other two experimental groups received intervention II. The four experimental groups and the two control groups (CGs) were assessed immediately before intervention (A1), after intervention (A2), and also six months after the intervention was completed (A3). The design is presented below in Fig. 1.

2.2 Participants

Experimental and control groups consisted of six units (rehabilitation, social care and education units) within a non-governmental organisation in the western part of Sweden. The employer selected the workplace units on practical grounds and all the employees in these units were invited to participate in the present study. Participation was voluntary. All employees accepted the invitation (N = 66). The sizes of the work groups varied; the numbers of participants in each group ranged from 6–19. Intervention group I consisted of 37 persons (30 women and seven men), IG II of 14 persons (11 women and three men), and the CGs of 15 persons (10 women and five men).

The two biggest experimental groups (18 and 19 persons each, respectively) consisted of physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nurses, assistant nurses, service staff and recreation leaders. Participants in the two smaller experimental groups (6 and 8 persons each, respectively) were social workers and lecturers. In the two CGs (4 and 11 persons each, respectively) the participants consisted of a mix of health care personnel and social workers.

2.3 Attrition

At the A2 assessment, one person from one of the CGs dropped out, but there was no attrition in the experimental groups. However, there was missing data on single items and the researchers inserted the average value from the same group of items for such participant.

At the A3 assessment, six persons dropped out from the IG I group, five persons from IG II and three persons from the CGs, for a total attrition rate of 21.5% . The reasons for this loss were that participants had left their jobs or that shift work made it impossible for them to attend the A3 assessment.

2.4 Instruments

2.4.1 Five instruments were used

General Perceived Self-efficacy Scale was used to measure the level of self-efficacy. Developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem [24] this measure is grounded in Banduras’ theory of self-efficacy [25]. The questionnaire consists of 10 items on a Likert-type scale. The instrument has been used in over 1000 studies internationally and has shown good reliability and validity [26].

To measure feelings of hope, the Staats Hope Scale was used [11]. It consists of 16 items on a Likert-type scale. This scale has shown acceptable reliability and validity [26].

The Life Orientation Test (LOT-R), was used to measure generalized expectancies for positive versus negative outcomes [27, 28], and to assess the level of optimism; it consists of 8 items on a Likert-type scale.

General health was measured by “Nine questions about your health in general”, which were taken from the SF-36.

The measure of “Job satisfaction” consisted of 17 questions on a Likert type scale, selected with permission from Prevents Psychosocial Work Environment Questionnaire [29].

Efforts were made to select measures that were translated and adapted for the Swedish language. The Swedish version of General Perceived Self-efficacy Scale has been validated in a Swedish context and was proven “a reliable indicator of perceived GSE” [30, p.4]. However, the Staats Hope Scale and LOT-R needed to be translated into Swedish. In each case back translation was also performed. In a Swedish study from 2011 [31], the Swedish translation of the LOT-R was used and showed a Cronbach’s alpha of.81. The Staats hope Scale has not been tested on a Swedish sample as far as we know. From the General Health measure and Job Satisfaction Scale 9 and 17 questions respectively were used to keep the total number of items at a manageable level. These items were mainly analysed as single items.

The five instruments were administered at each assessment point. At the second assessment point, A2, two open-ended questions were added where participants were asked to describe in their own words their experiences during the group process. The two questions were: “Has your participation in this research project resulted in any change at your place of work? If so, what changes? Describe in your own words.” and “How have you experienced participation in the meetings? Describe in your own words”.

2.5 Interventions

During the 10-week intervention period, the two first authors met with the four groups once every two weeks, (five occasions per group). The first meeting included the pre-test (A1) and a lecture, requiring in total two hours. The following three meetings took one hour each, while the last meeting included measurement assessment (A2) and took one and one-half hours. Interventions I and II were run during the same 10 weeks at four different workplaces. The two CGs came from two different workplaces within the same organization.

Intervention I: The focus of intervention I was on positive aspects and practicing gratitude. The intention was that the working group should learn how to focus more on positive aspects of their working lives by regularly observing and documenting things that they sincerely appreciated and felt grateful for. For descriptions of the five sessions, see Fig. 2.

Intervention II: This intervention focused on optimistic or positive thinking according to the ABCDE method (adversity, belief, consequence, dispute, energizing), which is based on Seligman’s cognitive theory [32]. The reasoning behind this intervention was that the working group should develop an ability to see setbacks from a more realistic and positive perspective and how not to waste their energy on frustrations resulting from things they cannot change. For descriptions of the sessions see Fig. 3.

All interventions were performed by two of the authors together. The focus of the intervention was on situations in the workplace; however, the participants were also encouraged to use these techniques in other aspects of lives.

2.6 Ethical considerations

This study followed the Declaration of Helsinki ethical guidelines. All participants received information about purpose and procedures of the research project. Participation was voluntary both for the individuals and their departments.

2.7 Analysis

The purpose of the analysis was to explore whether there were any positive or negative changes in the answers to the questionnaires administered in the pre and post-tests (the beginning of the study (A1) and the follow-up after the intervention (A2)). There was also an interest in examining whether any positive changes were retained over time and therefore these data were also included in the analysis (A3). The Wilcoxon sign rank test, for paired groups, and other nonparametric tests were employed.

Comparisons were also made between groups, primarily between intervention and control groups, to determine whether the magnitude of change was greater for the groups that had access to the interventions. The Mann Whitney U test for independent samples was used. The comparisons were made using data on the changes between the before and after intervention measures. Based on a hypothesis that those with the lowest ratings would be those who had the greatest change in their ratings after the intervention, the 30% of individuals with the lowest ratings in the IG 1 were compared with the 30% of individuals with the highest ratings in the same group. The analyses were made for the same time points and using the same statistical tests described above.

A summed score was used for the analyses of the General Self-efficacy, Staats Hope scale, LOT-R and “Nine questions on your health” respectively. Scores for the 17 questions on “job satisfaction” were made into an index that could be analysed separately or as a whole.

An inductive categorization was made with the answers from the open-ended questions that were posed directly after the intervention (A2). All of the responses were subjected to content analysis [32], simple categories were created through encoding of the material. After the initial categorization the number of answers in each category was also calculated.

3 Results

The distribution of results of the measurements1 –5 at A1, A2 and A3 among the group is presented in Table 1.

The within group analyses showed a significant positive change between A1 and A2 for General self-efficacy in the IG I (p < 0.001) (Table 2). Pre- to post-intervention assessments (A1 to A2) also showed a significant change in “job satisfaction index” (p = 0.003) for the IG I. Six of the separate questions on job satisfaction were found to be significantly more positive after intervention for the IG I than before the intervention. On the same questionnaire only one question (No. 17, What kind of feelings do you usually have when you begin your work?) changed significantly for the IG II and three questions changed significantly for the CG (No. 1, Do you usually feel tired and exhausted when you come home from work? 6, Do you find comfort and community with your colleagues? and 7 Do you feel that you are treated with respect by your colleagues?) between A1 and A2. The questions that significantly changed were related to feelings when coming home after work, emotional climate among colleagues, and overall satisfaction with work and employer. No significant differences were found from A2 to A3 on any of the measures. The positive change between A1 and A2 in the IG I on General self-efficacy remained at follow-up and also showed significance between A1 and A3 (p = 0.000). For the IG II, a significantly lower rating of the “job satisfaction index” was found between A1 and A3 (p = 0.026).

There were no significant differences between the groups on any measure at the beginning of the study. However, comparisons between the groups for the various measures at the different follow-up assessment points showed some significant differences on all measures except for the “Nine questions on your health”. Positive differences were found, in all cases, at the second assessment (A2), after the intervention, and mainly for the IG I. Significant differences between the IG I and the CG, in favour of IG I, were seen for General self-efficacy (p = 0.032), Hope (p = 0.031) and “job satisfaction index” (p = 0.017). In comparison to IG II, the IG I had significantly better ratings on General self-efficacy (p = 0.035), Hope (p = 0.029 and “job satisfaction index” (p = 0.036). For Hope, the IG I had better ratings than both of the other groups at all occasions with the greatest difference at A2, which is noteworthy in relation to both the CG and the IG II (Table 1). There was also a significant difference compared to IG II at A3 (p = 0.026).

To explore if the groups made similar changes over time on the different measures, this aspect was also analysed with group comparisons, and significant differences were found on General self-efficacy and two of the questions on “job satisfaction” (no 7 “Do you feel that you are treated with respect by your colleagues?” and 16 “Are you satisfied with being employed by your current employer?”) These significant differences were between IG I and CG in change on General self-efficacy from A1 to A2, with IG I presenting more positive change (p = 0.001). More positive change in IG I was also found in relation to CG on the “job satisfaction index”, although this did not reach significance (p = 0.051). In addition, the increase in the number of individuals that were satisfied with being employed by their current employer (question 16) was significantly greater in the IG I than in the CG after the intervention at A2 (p = 0.047). Similar results were found concerning the IG II and the CG, where the IG II presented more positive results. There was a significant difference on General self-efficacy from A1 to A2 (p = 0.012) and from A1 to A3 (p = 0.033) and on question No. 16, “job satisfaction” (p = 0.032) from A1 to A3. The CG also significantly differed from IG II on question No. 7, “job satisfaction” (p = 0.035) showing a greater positive change from A1 to A2, in the number of persons experiencing being treated with respect by their colleagues. A significant difference on “job satisfaction index” (p = 0.016) was found between the IG II and the CG, as IG II presented a negative change from the start (A1) to follow-up (A3).

To determine whether participants with the lowest ratings experienced the greatest change, the IG I was divided into three subgroups, 30% lowest ratings, 30% highest ratings and those in-between, on each of the instruments. Comparisons were then made between the subgroups with lowest and highest ratings. On the instruments for General self-efficacy, Hope and LotR, no significant differences were found. However, there was a significant difference between the subgroups on the “Nine questions on your health” (p = 0.001), due to a significant improvement in ratings in the subgroup with the lowest ratings between A1 and A2 (p = 0.007). Corresponding results were found on the “job satisfaction index” with a significant difference between the subgroups (p = 0.001) owing to a significant positive change in the subgroup with the lowest ratings (p = 0.004).

3.1 Summary of responses to open ended questions

3.1.1 Intervention group I

Question 1: Has your participation in this research project resulted in any change at your place of work? If so, what changes? Describe in your own words.

A total of 29 statements were received. Of these, 28 statements described positive changes while one indicated that no changes were seen. No negative changes were reported. The positive changes could be divided into two categories: those describing relationships and climate within the working team, such as increased understanding, tolerance and confidence, and those describing individual reactions about feeling more engaged, having gained insight and feeling more positive about work and colleagues.

Q uestion 2: How have you experienced participation in the meetings in the project? Describe in your own words?

All 31 statements expressed positive attitudes towards the activity. Qualitatively the statements were related to positive emotions, satisfaction and laughter. These positive emotions were often combined with positive thoughts. Participants reported that they had fun, learned a lot, can now see things from other perspectives than before, that it was beneficial to hear others views in group discussions and that they had time to reflect. These positive emotions and thoughts resulted in a better well-being and a greater ability to positively relate to each other.

3.1.2 Intervention group II

Question 1: Has your participation in this research project resulted in any change at your place of work? If so, what changes? Describe in your own words.

Fourteen statements were received. Nine of these responses described positive changes, while four participants could not see any differences, either positive or negative, in relation to the team work. However, three of these participants felt the experience had been positive from a personal perspective.

Statements about positive changes within the working team can also be divided into two categories. One was answers describing relationships and atmosphere in the working group and the other regarding individual reactions. Among statements about relationships and work atmosphere, learning to know each other better, being able to talk more openly about problems, gaining a collectively acquired insight into how differences can complement one another and being able to talk more in terms of what is possible to influence and what is not possible to influence. Among positive individual changes, there was an increased capacity to use positive thinking and reflection. It was more common to see cognitively-focused statements in IG II than in IG I.

Question 2: How have you experienced participation in the meetings? Describe in your own words

In IG II, all 13 statements were positive. In this group the statements were more about cognitive influences than emotional influences. There were some expressions about having fun and feelings of satisfaction, mainly comments such as an increased understanding of complex connections, new thoughts and ideas, new ways of relating to things one cannot influence and realizing that one can influence others’ ways of thinking. Acquisition of new tools to handle problems, which in turn decreased stress, was also reported. One participant talked about an initial resistance to participating in the meetings given their workload, but that the knowledge they had acquired was worth the efforts.

4 Discussion

The results show that it is possible to increase the level of positive emotions, self-efficacy and job satisfaction in a working team by using group intervention methods within a 10-week intervention program aiming at increased positive psychological capital. The positive changes observed remained after six months, with the exception of job satisfaction in IG II. It seems that the intervention had a greater influence on those persons who at the start reported a low level of self-enhancement. The results were more pronounced in IG I than in II. It is important to note that the intervention consisted of group activities at five occasions every second week.

One way of interpreting the IG I results is the heliotropic principle [34], which suggests that a positive focus and positive narratives tend to attract people moving in the desirable direction. IG I was focused on positive factors in the workplace, while IG II started with identifying the difficulties experienced, which suggests that it would take longer for those participants to experience success. This was also supported by the answers to the open-ended questions. Among the answers from IG II, references to “identification of problems” and “problems that have been brought up” were common. While the answers from participants in IG I were more likely to include: “positive”, “tolerance”, “acceptance”, “confidence”, “praise”, “compliments”, “feedback”, “affinity” and “fun”; words that were not found in the answers from IG II. The fact that the interventions in IG II focused on existing problems may have contributed to the dip in job satisfaction at A3 for this group. This was most evident when latent frustrations among participants were brought to the surface. What would happen if the duration and number of interventions were prolonged is still an open question. Possibly the strategies taught in IG II need more time for further development.

It is difficult to perform long-lasting interventions in actual workplaces and maintain control because a lot of unforeseen changes can occur. During the six months following the program, changes with great impact on the business occurred in two of the units for both intervention groups I and II. One site was subject to a fire that resulted in financial and personal stress. The other site went through a merger with another company that drained the staff of energy. In spite of this, the changes observed in the present study remained with one exception.

Shaufeli [35] described how a four-week long self-enhancement intervention via e-coaching increased self-efficacy in a group of employees. However, unlike the present study, the positive effects of the interventions disappeared immediately after the end of the interventions. It is possible that a group culture cannot be created by a single intervention, event or episode but needs to be constantly supported by leaders, colleagues and routines. Interventions can be a starting point for supportive mechanisms to be effective in the long term. Maybe five occasions are not sufficient to facilitate optimal changes. More exposure may be needed to improve the results in relation to hope, optimism and health.

The 30% of participants who had the lowest baseline scores were those who developed the most during the intervention program. One way of understanding this is that the measurement instruments had a ceiling effect. Participants who initially scored high could not raise their scores on these measures. Another way of thinking of this is that “positive individuals” at the beginning of the study had a way of thinking that was in line with the intention of the program, which did not alter, while participants with a less positive way of thinking had more to gain from participating in the program. In today’s working life the work load is high and the tasks are often rather abstract. In such situations there may be a lack of natural positive reinforcements and the working climate strained. The method of intervention I with its focus on positive aspects of working situation may compensate for the stress. We also know from pedagogical research that people learn quicker if they are positively reinforced and are feeling safe than if they are worried or afraid. Shaufeli [35] also reported that those participants with the lowest initial scores had the most to gain from the intervention.

From the results of the present study, we can conclude that something positive happened in both intervention groups although it was more pronounced in IG I. This was consistent with the subjective impression of the two leaders of the program as well as the quantitative and qualitative analyses. These results are positive and promising, presenting a concrete tool that can foster positive changes for the single workplace. The intervention method is applicable on different kinds of organisations. The practical consequences of the study can be seen on multiple levels. The results argue in favour of using team development methods, with positive focus as a foundation. One example is the concept of Appreciative Inquiry [36] where the process of development relies on factors of success and positive visions, rather than on existing problems and shortcomings. As employees develop positive perspectives there can be an additional effect of increased psychological capital. Furthermore, the results of the present study are significant in terms of showing how leaders can reflect upon their own communication styles, as well as the focus for each meeting. By frequently focusing on success and other positive work-related aspects the leader may influence the psychological climate in a beneficial direction. However, the option to choose a positive focus does not lie within leaders and team developers alone. Every employee has the opportunity to choose a positive view in their everyday work-life, together with colleagues, ultimately adding to prosperous conditions in the work place and thereby allowing positive psychological capital to grow.

Similar results are reported by Horan who has shown that employees’ meetings “to read inspirational workplace stories, comment, and share their own stories” lead to improved coping capacity and better home/work balance (37, p.3).

There were limitations in the study design of the present study. Unfortunately some attrition occurred. However, we do not think that this had any systematic effects. The main reason for the attrition was that we did not manage to accommodate those who had to do shift work.

A common problem in all research of this kind is that it is difficult to know the reasons for the observed changes. It could depend on the content of the activity, but it could also be based on the interest the participants showed, the so called Hawthorne effect [38]. The use of control groups help to explain the outcome. In future research the control group should also receive some sort of activity or intervention.

Longitudinal study designs have several inherent problems that cross sectional designs do not face, for example, attrition over time, the impact of life events, organizational change, or financial adjustments. The current study was no exception. When many variables are measured there is always a risk for difference to occur by chance alone. However, in the present study the use of both quantitative and qualitative data helped to mitigate this problem. A small sample size is also a limitation together with the somewhat different professional composition of the different groups and possible differences due to nature of work and work cultures. Finally, for practical reasons some of the instruments were adjusted, two of the scales were translated from English to Swedish, and only single items were used to measure health and job satisfaction, which likely had an impact on reliability and validity.

We were able to show that positive psychological capital and job satisfaction can be influenced by group activities of the kind described in this study Further research is needed to determine the relationship between emotional (IG I) and cognitive (IG II) based activities in groups. Most likely, emotional coping was supported in IG I and in IG II, problem-based coping occurred. An interesting question is whether the effects of these methods, was more or lesslong-lasting.

5 Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Bräcke Diakoni and Avonova Management Support, Gothenburg and Ersta Sköndal University College, Stockholm, Sweden. Thanks also to BioMed Proofreading LLC for its help in improving the language of the paper. A special thanks to Louise Eriksson and Per Starke at Bräcke Diakoni and to all participants in the groups.

References

Seligman

MEP

, Csikszentmihalyi

. Positive Psychology: An Introduction. American Psychologist 2000;55(1):5–14.

Lindberg

, Vingård

. (In Swedish) Kunskapsöversikt: Den goda arbetsmiljön och dess indikatorer, 2012 Arbetsmiljöverket. Rapport 2012:7.

Lyubomirsky

, King

, Diener

. The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success? Psychological Bulletin 2005;131(6):803–855.

Lyubomirsky

. The how of happiness: A Practical Guide to Getting the Life You Want. New York: Penguin Press; 2007.

Fredrickson

. Positivity. New York: Oneworld Publications; 2010.

Sundin

, Hochwälder

, Lisspenrs

. A longitudinal examination of generic and occupational specific job demands, and work-related social support associated with burnout among nurses in Sweden. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 2011;38(4):389–400.

Fredrickson

, Losada

. Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist 2005;60:678–686.

Luthans

, Youssef

. Human, Social, and Now Positive Psychological Capital Management: Investing in People for Competitive Advantage. Organizational Dynamics 2004;33:143–160.

Avey

, Reichard

, Luthans

, Mhatre

. Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Positive Psychological Capital on Employee Attitudes, Behaviors, and Performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly 2011;22(2):127–152.

10.

Peterson

, Luthans

, Avolio

, Walumbwa

, Zhang

. Psychological Capital and Employee Performance: A Latent Growth Modeling Approach. Personnel Psychology 2011;64:427–450.

11.

Lopez

, Snyder

, Pedrotti

. Hope: Many Definitions, Many Measures, In Lopez

S. J.

& Snyder

C. R.

(Eds.), Positive Psychological Assessment. A Handbook of Models and Measures (pp. 91-107). Washington: American Psychological Association (APA); 2003.

12.

Emmons

, McCullough

. Counting blessings versus burdens: Experimental studies of gratitude and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2003;84:377–289.

13.

Sheldon

, Lyubomirsky

. How to increase and sustain positive emotion: The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves. Journal of Positive Psychology 2006;1:73–82.

14.

Seligman

MEP

, Steen

, Park

. Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist 2005;60:410–421.

15.

Fredrickson

, Cohn

, Coffey

, Pek

, Finkel

. Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2008;95:1045–1062.

16.

Seligman

MEP

, Castellon

, Cacciola

, Schulman

, Luborsky

, Ollove

, et al. Explanatory style change during cognitive therapy for unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1988;97:13–18.

17.

Gillham

, Reivich

, Jaycox

, Seligman

MEP

. Prevention of depressive symptoms in schoolchildren: Two-year follow-uPsychological Science 1995;6:343–351.

18.

Gillham

, Hamilton

, Freres

, Patton

. Preventing depression among early adolescents in the primary care setting: A randomized controlled study of the Penn Resiliency Program. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2006;34:203–219.

19.

Fordyce

. Development of a program to increase personal happiness. Journal of Counseling Psychology 1977;24:511–20.

20.

Fordyce

. A program to increase happiness: Further studies. Journal of Counseling Psychology 1983;30:483–498.

21.

Sekerka

, Brumbaugh

, Rosa

, Cooperrider

. Comparing appreciative inquiry to a diagnostic technique in organizational change: The moderating effects of gender. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 2006;9(4):449–489.

22.

Gable

, Reis

, Impett

, Asher

. What Do You Do When Things Go Right? The Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Benefits of Sharing Positive Events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2004;87:228–245.

23.

Hodges

, Clifton

. Strengths-based development in practice. In Linley

P. A.

& Joseph

(Eds.). Positive psychology in practice (pp. 256–268). Hoboken NJ: Wiley; 2004.

24.

Schwarzer

, Jerusalem

. Optimistic Self-Beliefs as a Resource Factor in Coping with Stress. In Extreme Stress and Communities: Impact and Intervention. NATO ASI Series 1995;80:159–177.

25.

Bandura

. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.

26.

Scholz

, Guièrrex-Done

, Sud

, Schwarzer

. Is General Self-Efficacy a Universal construct? European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2002;18(3):342–251.

27.

Rand

, Cheavans

. Hope theory. Lopez

I. S. J.

& Snyder

C. R.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 323–333). New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.

28.

Scheier

, Carver

, Bridges

. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1994;67:1063–1078.

29.

Prevents Psychosocial work environment questionnaire (http://www.prevent.se/checklistor (psykosocial arbetsmiljö)) –in Swedish

30.

Löve

, Moore

, Hensing

. (2011) Validation of the Swedish translation of the general self-efficacy scale. Qual Life Res. DOI 10.1007/s11136-011-0030-5

31.

Rostedt

(2011) A study of optimism, happiness and Life satisfaction (in Swedish). Jönköping university college.

32.

Seligman

MEP

. Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press; 2002.

33.

Graneheim

, Lundman

. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004;24(2):105–112.

34.

Cooperrider

. Positive image, positive action: the affirmative basis of organizing. Srivastva

& Cooperrider

D. L.

(Eds.), Appreciative Management and Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Action in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1990.

35.

Shaufeli

. Presentation. ”Work Engagement –A key-construct for positive occupational health psychology” 5th Italian Congress on Positive Psychology. Milan November, 2011: www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/presentation.

36.

Cooperrider

, Whitney

, Stavros

. Appreciative Inquiry handbook: For leaders of change (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler; 2008.

37.

Horan

. An effective workplace stress management intervention: Chicken Soup for the Soul at Wort Employee Groups. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 2002;18(1):3–13.

38.

Madge

. The origins of scientific sociology. New York, The Macmillan company; 1962.