Suzy Green, Michelle McQuaid, Alicia Purtell, and Aylin Dulagil
It has been reported that between 20 and 30% of business performance can be determined by the mood of employees (Goleman, 2000), however to date there has been limited evidence to support such a claim. There can be no denying, though, that contemporary organizations recognize that Taylor’s (1911) once‐popular scientific management practices of treating employees like machines overlooked emotion as one of the key drivers of human performance.
As organizations continue to grapple with ways to improve employee engagement, fuel collaboration and innovation, and find sustainable ways to maintain productivity, a growing body of research (Cameron, 2013; Dutton, 2014; Fredrickson, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2009; Isen, 2000, 2002; Tsai, Cheng & Cheng, 2009; Vacharkulksemsuk, Sekerka & Fredrickson, 2011) suggests that cultivating “heart‐felt” positivity may be the means to achieving individual and organizational growth and optimal functioning over time.
Fredrickson (2009) proposes that positivity encompasses emotions like love, joy, gratitude, interest, and hope that improve our mindsets and biochemistry in synchrony. Vaillant (2012) notes that positivity is a state that emanates from our limbic mammalian brain and not only has an effect on how we feel, but also affects the way we function; while Scherer, Schorr, and Johnson (2001) point out that, in contrast to mere bodily pleasures, these positive emotions arise from how we interpret events and ideas as they unfold.
Consequently, positive psychologists and positive organizational scholars have become intrigued by the potential benefits that positive emotions, and “positivity” more broadly (encompassing emotions, thoughts, and behaviors), have to offer employees and organizations. Vacharkulksemsuk and Fredrickson (2013) state that the short and long‐term outcomes of positive emotions can be beneficial in the workplace. They highlight that the “seemingly inconsequential” positive feelings that arise from small actions and acknowledgments in the workplace are associated with valuable workplace outcomes such as prosocial behavior, group development, established ethical cultures, and learning (Akrivou, Boyatzis, & McLeod, 2006; Arnaud & Sekerka, 2010; Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, 2006; Triliva & Dafermos, 2008). This growing body of research shows and continues to demonstrate how experiences that foster positive emotions such as interest, joy, awe, and gratitude enable people to perform more effectively – individually and collectively.
This chapter aims to provide the reader, with a current and critical overview of the science of “positivity,” with a specific focus on positive emotions where a large body of research already exists and continues to emerge. We also aim to provide an overview of current research that investigates more specifically the benefits of “positivity” at work. We begin with a review of representative research from social psychology and findings from organizational research, concluding with suggestions for further research into this promising area.
While the founding fathers of modern psychology such as William James (1890), Carl Rogers (1959), and Abraham Maslow (1962) hinted at the potential of positive emotion, it wasn’t until Alice Isen’s ground‐breaking work in the 1970s that we began to understand that positive emotions offered powerful benefits beyond the experience of simply pleasant and fleeting feelings.
Isen and her colleagues tested the effects of positive emotional states on a wide range of cognitive outcomes – from creativity puzzles to simulations of complex, life‐or‐death work situations. They found that positivity facilitated cognitive flexibility (Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987), promoted intrinsic motivation (Isen 2003), produced patterns of notably unusual thought (Isen, Johnson, Mertz, & Robinson, 1985), boosted receptivity to new information (Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1997) and creativity (Isen et al., 1987), and improved problem solving (Isen, Rosenzweig, & Young, 1991). Taken as a whole, Isen’s research suggests that positive affect “gives rise to an enlarged cognitive context” (Isen, 1987, p. 222). Isen also found that positive affect impacted our social relationships by facilitating inclusion (Isen & Daubman, 1984), promoting generosity, helpfulness and social responsibility (Isen, 1987, 2003), and reducing conflict (Isen, 2001).
The potential benefits of positive emotional experiences were thrust further into the spotlight when Csikszentmihalyi (1990) began publishing his research on a psychological state identified as “flow.” A positive emotion akin to interest, flow occurs when people have a clear goal, an appropriate level of challenge that matches their strengths to the tasks they’re undertaking, and regular feedback. Inherently pleasurable and fulfilling, the experience of flow has been found to lead us to be more involved in life, to enjoy activities, to have a sense of control, and to feel a strong sense of self (Lyubomirsky, 2007), thus increasing positivity in individuals.
At the turn of the century, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi established the field of positive psychology to increase the focus on the study of positive human functioning and a scientific understanding of the “good life” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Their efforts to highlight the legitimacy, value, and importance of positive emotions, states, and traits resulted in more than 200 citable publications appearing in the following decade (Rusk & Waters, 2013). To date the research on “happiness,” or on its better‐known scientific construct “subjective well‐being” (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), has shown that happy individuals, or those who experience frequent positive affect, are successful across multiple life domains, including marriage, friendship, income, work performance, and health (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005).
Diener, noted for his research over the past 25 years on subjective well‐being/happiness, and his colleagues have suggested a conceptual model to account for these findings, arguing that the happiness–success link exists not only because success makes people happy, but also because positive affect engenders success. Three classes of evidence (cross‐sectional, longitudinal, and experimental) were documented to test their model. Their meta‐analysis of relevant studies revealed that happiness is associated with and precedes numerous successful outcomes, as well as behaviors paralleling success. Furthermore, they concluded that positive affect, which they refer to as the “hallmark of well‐being,” may be the cause of many of the desirable characteristics, resources, and successes correlated with happiness (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005).
Seligman (2009), however, notes that he “detests” the word happiness and suggests that the “topic of positive psychology is wellbeing” (p. 13). Seligman’s (2012) PERMA model of well‐being comprises the following elements: positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning and accomplishment. While there are other theories/models and approaches to understanding well‐being (i.e., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Keyes, 2010; Ryff, 1999), and the debate continues as to its definition, positive emotions are often identified as a core component of well‐being (Diener, 1984; Seligman, 2009).
There has since been a move toward the use of the terminology “wellbeing” to represent the full range of human emotions, rather than the sole pursuit of “happiness.” The interest in the science and practice of positive psychology (i.e., positive organizational scholarship, positive education) continues together with a continued community and public interest in the field.
Building on the work of Isen (1987), the research of Fredrickson (1998) asked the question: “What good are positive emotions?” Noting that traditional approaches to the study of emotions have tended to ignore positive emotions, squeeze them into purportedly emotion‐general models, confuse them with closely related affective states, and describe their function in terms of generic tendencies to approach or continue, Fredrickson developed an alternative model for positive emotions that she believed better captured their unique effects. She called this the broaden‐and‐build theory of positive emotions because positive emotions appear to broaden peoples’ momentary thought–action repertoires and build their enduring personal resources (Fredrickson, 1998; 2004).
While negative emotions have been shown to correspond with specific inclinations (e.g., fear moves us to escape or avoid the immediate context; anger moves us to attack or maintain a course of action; disgust moves us to expel or shun a stimulus), Fredrickson’s research supported the idea that positive emotions also facilitate behavioral tendencies. However, she suggested that positive emotions are associated with diffuse rather than specific tendencies (e.g., joy moves us to experience contentment toward inaction or aimless interests [Frijda, 1986]).
Fredrickson (2009) suggests that with positivity, people are able to see new possibilities, bounce back from setbacks, connect more deeply with others, and reach their potential. In a comprehensive review (2013a) of her 15‐year research program, Fredrickson describes 10 positive emotions and how they facilitate positivity (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Fredrickson’s 10 positive emotions.
Source: Fredrickson (2013a).
| Impact and benefits | |
| Joy | Joy emerges when one’s current circumstances present unexpected good fortune. It creates the urge to play and get involved and allows us to accrue skills gained through experimental learning. |
| Gratitude | Gratitude emerges when people acknowledge another person as the source of their unexpected good fortune. It creates the urge to creatively consider new ways to be kind and generous and builds the skills for showing care, loyalty, and social bonds. |
| Serenity | Also called contentment, serenity emerges when people interpret their current circumstances as utterly cherished, right, or satisfying. It creates the urge to savor those current circumstances and integrate them into new priorities or values. |
| Interest | Interest arises in circumstances appraised as safe but offering novelty. It creates the urge to explore, to learn, to immerse oneself in the novelty and thereby expands the self. |
| Hope | Hope arises in dire circumstances in which people fear the worst yet yearn for better. It creates the urge to draw on one’s own capabilities and inventiveness to turn things around and builds the resources of optimism and resilience. |
| Pride | Pride emerges when people take appropriate credit from some socially valued good outcome. It creates the urge to fantasize about even bigger accomplishments in similar arenas and leaves us feeling confident and self‐assured. |
| Amusement | Amusement occurs when we appraise our current circumstances as involving some sort of non‐serious social incongruity. It creates urges to share a laugh and find creative ways to continue the joviality helping us to build and solidify enduring social bonds. |
| Inspiration | Inspiration arises when people witness human excellence in some manner. It creates the urge to excel oneself, to reach one’s own higher ground or personal best and builds the motivation for personal growth. |
| Awe | Awe emerges when people encounter goodness on a grand scale. The experience of awe compels people to absorb and accommodate this new vastness they have encountered and creates new worldviews. |
| Love | Love, which appears to be the positive emotion people feel most frequently, arises when any other of the positive emotions is felt in the context of a safe, interpersonal connection or relationship. It creates momentary perceptions of social connection and self‐expansion and builds social bonds and community. |
Drawing from multiple subdisciplines within psychology, ranging from work on cognition and intrinsic motivation, to attachment styles and animal behavior, empirical evidence suggests that positive emotions – relative to negative emotions and neutral states – broaden the scope of our attention, cognition, and action (Derryberry & Tucker, 1992; Fredrickson, 1998; Gasper & Clore, 2002; Isen, 1987; Johnson, Waugh, & Frederickson, 2010; Renninger, 1992). For example, Fredrickson and Branigan (2005) induced varied forms of emotions in people, followed with a separate task that asked participants to list all the things that they felt like doing right then, given their current emotional state. People induced to feel positive emotions listed more, and more varied, potential actions compared to those feeling no emotions or negative emotions.
Wadlinger and Isaacowitz (2006) have also supported the broaden hypothesis by randomly inducing various forms of emotions in people, who were then asked to view a slide show in which each screen was grouped to include three photographs, always arranged with one in the center and two at the periphery. They were instructed to look at whatever interested them as though watching TV, while sophisticated eye‐tracking technology followed their gaze. The researchers found that under the influence of positivity, people looked around more and more frequently fixed their gaze on peripheral photos. Their finding that positivity expands our outlook by broadening our field of peripheral vision has been confirmed in numerous other studies (Fredrickson, 2008; Rowe, Hirsh, & Anderson, 2007; Schmitz, De Rosa, & Anderson, 2009; Trick, Brandigampola, & Enns, 2012).
Increased positive emotion has also been found to facilitate a greater sense of connectedness with others. Using a validated measure of connection in relationships (Aron, 1992), Fredrickson (2009) explored how positivity impacts our feelings about others. Participants were asked to convey how they felt about their relationship with their best friend. Positivity, negativity or neutrality was then randomly induced before they were asked again to describe how they felt about their best friend. The researchers found that a temporary boost in positivity allowed people to see more overlap between themselves and others, leading them to conclude that with positivity, people feel closer and more connected to the important people in their lives. Other studies have supported this finding with discoveries that positivity broadens social responses by expanding an individual’s circles of trust (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005), by forming common in‐group identities reducing the distinction between “them” and “us” (Dovidio, Isen, Guerra, Gaertner, & Rust, 1998) and overcoming own‐race bias (Johnson & Fredrickson, 2005).
As a result of these findings, Fredrickson (2009) contends that positivity does not just change one’s bad thoughts for good ones, it changes the scope and boundaries of one’s mind thereby impacting performance. Importantly, these changes have also been found to positively impact performance in the workplace. For example, a study examining medical decision‐making among third‐year medical students found that positive affect resulted in faster decision‐making (that was as equally correct as the neutral affect control group) (Isen et al., 1991). In addition, subjects in the positive affect group were significantly more likely to go beyond the assigned task in considering the diagnosis. Positive affect subjects also showed better integration of diagnostic material and less confusion in diagnostic protocols (Isen et al., 1991).
Positive emotion in leaders has been found to have a significant impact on group performance and productivity. A study examining the effects of leaders’ mood on group members’ affect and group processes found that when leaders were in a positive mood (as opposted to a negative mood), individual group members experienced more positive moods (Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005). The study also found that groups with leaders in a positive mood demonstrated better coordination among team members and required less effort to complete their work (Sy et al., 2005).
Positive emotion has also been found to impact the outcomes of complex business relationships. In a series of studies examining the impact of different emotional states (positive, negative, and neutral) on negotiation outcomes, it was found that negotiators who displayed positive emotion were more likely to build a future business relationship from the negotiation (Kopelman, Rosette, & Thompson, 2006). The second study in this series focused on ultimatum setting and found that managers displaying positive emotion were more likely to close a deal. In the final study, displaying positive emotion was found to be a more effective strategy for gaining concessions from other parties than displaying negative or neutral emotions, and negotiators made more extreme demands when faced with negotiations characterized by negative emotions (Kopelman et al., 2006). These studies point to the importance of acknowledging and utilizing emotions in workplace settings to broaden the potential for positive and mutually beneficial outcomes.
To the extent that positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and cognition, enabling flexible and creative thinking, researchers have argued that the expansive function of positive emotions is to spur the building of resources, placing people on positive trajectories of growth (Aspinwall 1998, 2001; Fredrickson, 1998; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002; Isen 1990). A broadened mindset is the basis for discovery, discovery of new knowledge, new alliances and new skills (Fredrickson, 2013a).
These resources can emerge in several different forms, including cognitive (e.g., expert knowledge, intellectual complexity), social (e.g., friendships, social support networks), psychological (e.g., resilience, optimism), and physical (e.g., health, longevity) outcomes. Rather than merely signaling optimal functioning, enhanced resources can actually help to generate intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational growth (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Mauss et al., 2011; Vacharkulksemsuk et al., 2011).
For example, in a study comprising a seven‐week “loving kindness” meditation, randomly assigned subjects were asked to complete daily web‐based surveys describing a range of variables. Participants completed a diary reconstructing each day, pre‐ and post‐intervention measures capturing their mental, psychological, social, and physical resources, as well as the extent to which they felt the ten positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2008). By the study’s conclusion, participants practicing “loving kindness” meditation reported experiencing higher levels of heartfelt positivity and gaining mental, psychological, social, and physical resources that enabled them to become more accepting of themselves, feel a greater sense of purpose in their work, forge deeper and more trusting relationships with their colleagues, experience more support from others, and prove to be physically healthier.
Subsequent research replicated (Kok et al., 2013) and extended this initial evidence. A longitudinal study of secondary school teachers found positive emotions at work were reciprocally related to both personal resources and organizational resources (Salanova, Bakker, & Llorens, 2006). Bigger “boosts” in day‐to‐day positive emotion have also been found to forecast greater gains over time in the cognitive resource of mindfulness, which in turn predicts increased levels of flourishing in an upward spiral dynamic (Catalino & Fredrickson, 2011).
The empirical support for the broaden‐and‐build theory continues to grow and has sparked applications to improve both mental and physical health (Fredrickson, 2013a; Garland et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2009) as well as organizational functioning (Sekerka, Vacharkulksemsuk, & Fredrickson, 2012).
In 2004, researcher Marcial Losada and his colleagues during their studies of the characteristics of high‐performing business teams observed more than 60 teams as they crafted their business missions and strategic plans and coded whether people’s statements were positive or negative, self‐focused or other focused, and based on inquiry or advocacy. He then compared this with independent business performance data. He believed that he had found that high‐performing business teams stood out with their unusually high positivity ratios, at about 6:1 and this became known as the Losada Ratio (Losada & Heaphy, 2004).
In 2005, Losada and Fredrickson collaborated to explore the impact of positive to negative affect (P/N ratio) that distinguishes between a flourishing and non‐flourishing state in individuals (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). Applying the same non‐linear mathematical modeling Losada had used in his research with business teams, their research suggested that the individuals who were flourishing experienced a mean ratio of 2.9:1 and this became known as the positivity ratio.
In 2013, Brown and his colleagues published an article disproving Losada’s mathematical formulas and arguing that even if one takes the idea of the precise positivity/negativity ratio numbers seriously, there should exist not just a single ratio band in which “flourishing” should occur, but several “windows” of desirable and undesirable positivity/negativity ratios above a certain value (Brown, Sokal, & Friedman, 2013). Fredrickson responded (2013b) by acknowledging the fault in the mathematical computation and the ratio itself was withdrawn.
It is worth noting, however, that there is support for P/N ratios at the dyad level. P/N ratios have been used to discriminate distressed from non‐distressed couples (Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977). Lower P/N ratios (1:1) predicted a significantly greater risk for marital dissolution and lower marital satisfaction (Gottman & Levenson, 1992), whereas successful marriages are characterized by positivity ratios of about 5:1 (Gottman, 1994). Fredrickson (2013b) states that “considerable empirical work remains to be done to better understand the dynamic and nonlinear properties of positivity ratios as well as the most appropriate algorithms for computing them” (p. 7).
As noted earlier, positive psychology’s focus has evolved from happiness to well‐being (Seligman, 2012), however positive emotions prevail as a key tenet of psychological flourishing, for example PERMA (Seligman, 2012). Researchers continue to find that feeling good is a key component of functioning effectively and engendering success (Huppert & So, 2013; Keyes, 2002; Kuppens, Realo, & Diener, 2008; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005).
Studies also suggest that positive emotions are relevant, not only when things are going well, but equally when life isn’t going to plan. In particular, research highlights that resilient individuals use positive emotions in the face of adversity by finding positive meaning in ordinary events or within the adversity itself (Aspinwall, 2001; Cohn, Brown, Fredrickson, Mikels, & Conway, 2009; Folkman 1997; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004).
It appears that positive emotions may also help undo the negative effects of stress. For example, where high‐activation negative emotions that increased anxiety, heart rate, peripheral vasoconstriction, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure were induced in research participants, those who were then induced into a state of mild positivity – as opposed to neutrality or sadness – showed the fastest cardiovascular recovery (Fredrickson & Levenson 1998; Fredrickson et al., 2000).
In contrast to the literature that has found that depressed mood and the narrowed, pessimistic thinking it engenders leads to a downward spiral of well‐being, Fredrickson et al. (2013) suggest that positive emotions and the broadened thinking they engender leads to an upward spiral in emotional well‐being over time. The long‐term consequences of such an effect can be seen in a 70‐year longitudinal study of 180 Catholic nuns who agreed to give scientists access to their archived work (including autobiographies handwritten in their early twenties), medical records, and brain autopsies. Researchers recording instances of positive and negative emotions found that those subjects who expressed the most positive emotions lived on average 10 years longer than those who expressed the least positive emotions (Danner, Snowdon, & Friesen, 2001). Even when accounting for age, gender, health status, social class, and other confounding variables, researchers have found a link between feeling good and living longer (Ostir, Markides, Black, & Goodwin, 2000; Ostir, Markides, Peek, & Goodwin, 2001; Peterson, Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988; Richman et al., 2005).
Emerging evidence now suggests that people who cultivate more frequent positive emotions can shift their characteristic cardiovascular patterns toward better health, as indexed by increases in vagal tone (Kok et al., 2013). Researchers have hypothesized that the increased cognitive and behavioral repertoires created by positive emotions may produce biopsychosocial resources that support coping and flourishing mental health (Garland et al., 2010).
Fredrickson and colleagues are now testing whether people’s efforts to increase their daily experience of positive emotions build other biological resources for health as well (Fredrickson, 2013b; Fredrickson et al., 2015). Drawing on the broaden‐and‐build theory, Fredrickson and colleagues (2015) posit that positive emotions resulting from physical activity may also create increases in resources such as environmental mastery, social support, and purpose in life. They claim that there is real benefit in focusing on physical activity because it is a behavior that is accessible to most individuals, requires no special training, and in one form or another appeals across strata of society.
While the evidence base exploring the benefits of positive emotion continues to grow, some in the field fear the psychological pendulum of practice risks swinging too far toward positivity. They suggest that too much positive emotion could potentially lead to people’s downfall, and advocate that negative emotions are an essential mechanism to help us build distress tolerance and ensure we become stronger, more mentally agile, and ultimately happier (Kashdan & Biswas‐Diener, 2014).
Similarly, researchers and practitioners of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) suggest that our societal discourse idealizes positive emotions and looks for “quick fixes” to remove negative emotions. Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, and Strosahl (1996) claim that uncomfortable feelings are often seen as “bad” and are accompanied by efforts to avoid or stop them. Ironically, attempts to suppress distressing internal events may actually amplify them (e.g., Wegner, 1997), while other avoidance strategies (e.g., alcohol, drug use, procrastination) can have unhelpful long‐term consequences. Indeed, research shows that avoidance of negative internal states can be associated with increased risk of psychopathology (Hayes & Gifford, 1997). Hence, ACT practitioners suggest that rather than labeling emotions “positive” or “negative,” people are better served by simply accepting and observing that all emotions have a purpose in our lives (Harris, 2006). Positivity in the workplace is now discussed.
Scientific research has provided support for the tenet that “bad is stronger than good” Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2001), whereby the tendencies toward protection and survival make negative events and negative stimuli extremely potent in affecting individual human emotions. It can be argued that this same tenet is powerfully at work within organizations and potentially impacting organizational performance (Alderfer, 1986; Maslow, 1968).
For this reason Cameron, one of the founders of the field of positive organizational scholarship (POS), and his colleagues (Cameron, Mora, Leutscher, & Calarco, 2011, p. 290) suggest that “extra emphasis is usually required on positive practices for positive effects to accrue in organizations, but most organizations remain focused on negative phenomena.”
A range of organizational practices and theories has arisen to counteract the tendency to focus on negative stimuli in a range of organizational contexts (e.g., performance reviews, development planning, engagement strategies, change management, people strategies, leadership development). Whilst a detailed review of research within each of these contexts is beyond the scope of this chapter, we aim to examine some of the workplace positivity research that may apply to the aforementioned people practices.
It is important to note that measuring the relationship between employee emotions and workplace performance is not new. A study considering the role of emotions on workers’ efficiency was reported as early as the 1930s (Hersey, 1932). Hersey found that workers who experienced positive emotional states demonstrated an 8% increase in efficiency compared with the output of workers in a negative emotional state. Despite these encouraging beginnings, it is only in the last decade that the science of positivity in the workplace has gained greater momentum.
Furthermore, an increasing body of research supports the idea that positive emotions are valuable in the workplace (Vacharkulksemsuk & Fredrickson, 2013). Building on the broader social psychological research, experienced daily positive emotions at work was found to mediate the relationship between an individual’s job environment (e.g., autonomy, psychological climate of warmth and cooperation) and personal resources of optimism, self‐efficacy, and self‐esteem (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2012). Employees experiencing positive emotions are more helpful to customers, more creative, more attentive, and respectful to one another (George, 1998; Sharot, Riccardi, Raio, & Phelps, 2007). In addition, the daily experience of positive emotions influences an individual’s readiness to engage in particular organizationally beneficial behaviors (Weiss, 2002).
While there may be a number of pathways for positivity to be researched and experienced in the workplace, we will focus on three key pathways: culture and engagement; employee practices that can be shaped and implemented at an individual level; and finally leadership practices that can impact on the performance and positivity of a team. Positivity at work will be discussed drawing on each of these pathways.
Positive factors in organizations such as positive affect, subjective well‐being, organizational citizenship and prosocial behavior, positive identity, engagement, psychological capital, and satisfaction (Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2002; Luthans, Youseff, & Avolio, 2007) have received much attention in the organizational/industrial psychology literature. However, the majority of these studies focus on the individual level of analysis rather than on organizational performance (Cameron, et al., 2011; Moore & Beadle, 2006), highlighting the need to link employee well‐being and positivity to organizational performance and effectiveness.
Organizational citizen behavior (OCB) is one way that a broader view of positivity can be attained, with OCB referring to employee behaviors that enhance task and organizational performance (Organ, 1997). OCB has been viewed as a critical component of job performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002) with a growing body of research finding that positive affect acts as a mediator between OCB and its various antecedents (Spence, Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2011). For example, gratitude has been identified as a discrete positive emotion that may have specific relevance to OCB, primarily because it is hypothesized to generate helpfulness and positive feelings toward others (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001). State gratitude has been found to predict supervisor and co‐worker directed OCBs (above and beyond generalized positive affect) and to contribute to within‐person variation in enacting OCBs (Spence, Brown, Keeping, & Lian, 2014). Increasing gratitude may in turn increase collaboration, an important cultural facet which many organizations seek. Exploring a direct link between gratitude and collaboration is a future research area that could be considered.
While both positive psychology and positive organizational scholarship provide evidence for the benefits of positive emotions at the individual and team level, a promising complementary approach is Appreciative Inquiry (AI) (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). This organizational change practice focuses on the existing and functioning positive aspects within an organization and uses employees’ positive aspirations and organizational strengths as a platform for creating whole organizational positive cultural change. AI has been utilized and found to be successful in a variety of organization settings including schools (Dickerson & Helm‐Stevens, 2011; Kozik, Cooney, Vinciguerra, Gradel, & Black, 2009), the British Broadcasting Corporation (Mishra & Bhatnagar, 2012), and the United Nations (https://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/intro/commentFeb05.cfm).
Another area of focus within organizations is the study of employee engagement. Employee engagement has occupied the attention of leaders, human resource practitioners, and organizational/industrial psychologists, yet academic researchers continue to debate the definition of the construct (Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011). Several definitions are worth discussing here. Employee engagement has been defined as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioural state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (Shuck & Wollard, 2010, p. 15). Another conceptualization of employee engagement is that of “work engagement,” defined as a “positive, fulfilling, work‐related state of mind that is characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption” (González‐Romá, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret, 2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, González‐Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Bakker and Leiter (2010) define engagement as a psychological state, that is, as an individual and mediating factor between the antecedents and outcomes of engagement. Another definition of engagement is organizational commitment – an individual’s psychological bond with the organization, defined as affective attachment and feelings of loyalty (Allen & Meyer, 1997; Judge & Kammeyer‐Mueller, 2012; Meyer & Allen, 1997). It would seem that a common thread in these definitions is the affective component of employee engagement – the expression or demonstration of positive feelings toward aspects of the organization or task. Despite this confusion around the definition of engagement, there are compelling findings to support organizations’ imperative to enhance employee engagement.
Employee engagement has been shown to relate to a range of organizational and performance outcomes such as discretionary effort, intention to leave (Shuck, 2010), overall performance (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010), and well‐being (Harter et al., 2002). Higher job satisfaction (a component of employee engagement) is related to greater employee cooperation, punctuality and efficiency, reduced absenteeism, and reduced turnover (Spector, 1997). Engaged employees are both cognitively and emotionally connected to their work and their workplace (Harter & Blacksmith, 2010) and consistently produce at high levels (Meere, 2005). Engaged employees are more likely to perform positive organizational behaviors (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002) and to stay within an organization (Harter, Schmidt, Kilham, & Asplund, 2006). Higher levels of employee engagement are more likely to generate successful organizational outcomes (Rath & Harter, 2010). Employees who reported experiencing more positive emotions over negative emotions received higher performance ratings from supervisors (Wright & Bonett, 1997; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000).
The implementation of positive practices within organizations has been found by the field of POS to have a significant impact on a range of organizational outcomes (Cameron, Dutton & Quinn, 2003). Positive practices include caring friendships, compassionate support for colleagues, fostering a culture of forgiveness, fostering respect, integrity and gratitude, inspiring each other at work, and an emphasis on meaningful work. Cameron and his colleagues (2011) have found that these positive practices are positively correlated with a range of reported business outcomes including reduced turnover, improved organizational effectiveness, better work environments, and better relationships with management. While positive workplace practices were found to have a significant effect on organizational‐level effectiveness, no one positive practice stood out as the single most important factor, rather it was the combination of positive practices that appeared to have the most powerful impact.
Employee practices supporting the growth of positivity relate not only to single one‐off behaviors, but also to a broader set of cognitive and emotional resources. The study of psychological capital, a positive psychological state of individual development, consisting of self‐efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience (Luthans, 2002a, 2002b; Luthans et al., 2007), offers practices that employees can apply to influence their thinking flexibility and improve their positivity.
For instance a recent cross‐organizational study explored the link of psychological capital and creativity. The relationship between culture, psychological capital, and innovative behavior was measured through self‐report data of 781 employees from 16 organizations in Taiwan (Hsu & Chen, 2015). This study found that individual psychological capital levels had a greater impact on encouraging creative behavior than did organizational climate, with psychological capital acting as a mediator for innovation. Levels of optimism, hope, resilience, and creative self‐efficacy operated as a protective buffer against creative failure, and provided a renewable personal resource for innovative thinking (Hsu & Chen, 2015).
The benefits of collective positive employee behaviors can be observed through a system perspective. Taking a system view through Social Network Analysis (SNA), a relatively new and developing methodology, provides support that shared positive employee behaviors could create an emotional contagion effect. For example, emotional states have been shown to transfer directly from one individual to another by mimicry and “emotional contagion,” perhaps by the copying of emotionally relevant bodily actions, particularly facial expressions, seen in others (Fowler & Christakis, 2008). Research on “positive energizers” within organizations (Cross, Baker, & Parker, 2003) provides further evidence for the benefits of proactively training staff in the science of positivity with the aim of increasing their own well‐being, which may provide a “ripple effect” within an organizational setting (O’Connor & Cavanagh, 2013). Furthermore, research on the use of developmental coaching in organizations that utilized SNA found significant increases in psychological well‐being as a result of coaching, which has previously been shown to increase goal attainment and well‐being (Green, Oades, & Grant, 2006; Linley, Willars, & Biswas‐Diener, 2010; Spence & Grant, 2007).
An emerging positive employee practice to consider is current research about embodied cognition, the idea that information processing involves one’s own motor experience, that is, one’s motor movements are implicated in the affective and psychological experience of a situation (see Niedenthal, 2007; Havas, Glenberg, Gutowski, Lucarelli, & Davidson, 2010). For example, one’s bodily expression when induced with feelings of joy and anger involves more shoulder, elbow, pelvis, and trunk motions, compared to feelings of sadness (Gross, Crane, & Fredrickson, 2012). It has been suggested that the intersection of broaden‐and‐build theory with evidence on embodied cognition may highlight the important role of entire bodily motions, beyond a simple focus on facial expressions, which may influence how one experiences emotions (Vacharkulksemsuk & Fredrickson, 2013).
A leader’s ability to generate or harness positive emotions in their teams is also crucial to organizational effectiveness. Research has found that leaders significantly impact how employees feel at work (Sy et al., 2005), indicating that emotions expressed from senior leaders can affect organizational climate, which contributes to organizational effectiveness (Ozcelik, Langton, & Aldrich, 2008). For example, positive emotions have been found to be more closely related with transformational leadership than with transactional leadership (Rowold & Rohmann, 2009). A five‐day diary study found that daily transformational leadership behavior predicts employees’ daily engagement at work, fully mediated by employees’ daily levels of optimism (Tims, Bakker, & Xanthopoulou, 2011).
Leaders play a critical role in shaping the positive behavior of their team members. With significant organization change on the agenda within many organizations, it is valuable to reflect on how leaders influence the positive change behaviors of their team and in particular, to consider whether positive behaviors encourage greater employee openness to change. A recent study explored the importance of psychological capital in fostering change‐orientated behaviors. Lin, Kao, Chen, and Lu (2015) studied two specific change‐oriented behaviors (creative performance and taking charge), through 40 leader and 248 employee assessments. They found that positive leader and employee relationships were promoted through high levels of psychological capital. Psychological capital operated as a trigger for positive affect, in turn influencing higher levels of performance and taking charge. This research suggests that internal personal resources increase an individual’s capacity to generate and implement novel and new ideas, but also lead to increased discretionary effort during change (Lin et al., 2015).
One of the most promising approaches to boosting positivity in the workplace is through the use of strengths at work. The application of strengths is multidimensional, and can be applied via many pathways. Managers can have a positive impact by focusing on the strengths of their employees. Employees who feel ignored by their managers are twice as likely to be actively disengaged at work, while managers who focus on their employees’ weakness cut active disengagement to 22% (indicating that even negative attention is better than no attention) and managers who focus on their employees’ strengths cut active disengagement to 1% (Gallup, 2013). When managers focus on the weaknesses of an employee, their average performance declines by up to 27%, whereas when they focus on the strengths of an employee, their average performance improves by up to 36% (Corporate Leadership Council, 2004). This research suggests that rather than following the natural 80:20 deficit‐bias found in most organizations, managers reverse this ratio and spend more time, energy, and effort focused on building strengths (Cooperrider & Godwin, 2011).
The 2015 Strengths@Work Survey (McQuaid & VIA Institute, 2015) also found that when managers had a meaningful discussion about employees’ strengths, 78% of these employees reported feeling engaged and energized, and 65% of these employees described themselves as “flourishing” at work. Unfortunately the survey found that 68% of managers fail to have these conversations, with most providing minimal positive feedback, none at all, or pointing out the employee’s faults without guidance for improvements.
While the positivity benefits of an individual using their strengths at work appear to be many, it is also important that both employees and managers are aware that people can occasionally feel disappointed, disengaged, or otherwise distressed as a result of strengths use. Because leveraging strengths at work is likely to make individuals feel more confident and optimistic of success, when failure occurs people who have been strongly anticipating an exceptional outcome may be more disappointed or self‐punitive compared with those whose optimism is more cautious (Biswas‐Diener, Kashdan, & Minhas, 2011). While tempering these risks with realistic expectations and reframing failure as an opportunity for learning can help, organizations and managers should be mindful that developing strengths might not be appropriate for every employee in every circumstance.
Given the outcomes associated with increased positive emotions and well‐being, as outlined above, it is apparent that individuals would seek greater positivity in their workplace, and organizations would focus on increasing it. Below we explore an explanation of positivity’s impact on organizational performance. According to positive organizational scholars, there are three sources that explain how and why positivity (specifically positive practices) elevate organizational performance: amplifying effects, buffering effects, and heliotropic effects (Cameron et al., 2011).
Amplification relates to the impact positive practices have on positive emotions, which in turn lead to elevated individual performance in organizations (Fineman, 1996; Fredrickson, 1998; Seligman, 2002; Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994; Tutu, 1999; Wright & Staw, 1999). This effect is also well documented in social networks literature (Christakis & Fowler, 2009), which explores the ripple effect of emotional contagion (Baker, Cross, & Wooten, 2003). Research examining social capital in organizations (Baker et al., 2003; Coleman, 1988) highlights the benefits of enhanced relationships. Positive workplace practices such as the building of commitment, trust, and collaboration all work to create positive relationships and enhance social capital.
Positive workplace practices buffer the organization from the negative effects of trauma or distress by enhancing resiliency in individuals (Cameron et al., 2011; Masten et al., 1999). Further, the cultivation of positive emotions such as compassion, courage, forgiveness, integrity, and optimism prevent psychological distress, addiction, and dysfunctional behavior (Seligman, Schulman, DeRubeis, & Hollon, 1999).
Research suggests that positivity responds to the “heliotropic effect” whereby all living systems move toward positive energy and away from negative energy (D’Amato & Jagoda, 1962; Mrosovsky & Kingsmill, 1985; Smith & Baker, 1960). This is also posited to work within organizations as they serve a key organizing function and are intended to facilitate positive benefits for individual members (Cameron et al., 2011). Positive social processes are more likely to endure than negative social processes because they are more functional and beneficial for the group and its members (Cameron et al., 2011). Research has found that organizations characterized by positive practices foster positive energy among members, in turn producing elevated performance (Cameron et al., 2011; Dutton, 2003).
While this chapter attests to a solid history and foundation of research supporting the benefits of positivity generally and more specifically at work, further research is required. In particular, future research needs to continue to build the “business case” for positivity at work with stronger links to overall organizational effectiveness using objective measurement.
It should be noted, though, that research in organizational/industrial psychology has already provided substantial evidence for the link between positive individual behavior (such as engagement, retention, organizational citizenship behavior) and organizational outcomes, such as profitability, customer relationships, and reduced turnover (Harter et al., 2002; Harter et al., 2006; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005).
As such, further research is required to assist in understanding the direct relationship between positive affect and organizational performance. In particular, how positivity influences objective and external measures of success. The current focus is on studies that demonstrate that positive behaviors measurably improve engagement. To identify how positivity improves the bottom line, organizations must be willing to go further to test hypotheses and interventions. Leaders and their partnering organizational psychology practitioners need to commit to long‐term interventions and measure their impact on both employee and financial performance.
There is an opportunity to explore further the benefits of positive affect within workplaces from a social network approach (Baker et al., 2003; Fowler & Christakis, 2008; O’Connor & Cavanagh, 2013). As discussed earlier, SNA explores the way in which network members are related (Scott, 2000). This practice can be applied in a wide variety of fields including management, anthropology, political science, and psychology (Hatala, 2006). SNA’s potential use in exploring the interconnectivity of the interaction network could provide powerful understandings into the emotions and well‐being of organizational members and their subsequent impact on overall organizational effectiveness.
We believe that as the research continues to mature, organizations will seek more informed analysis on how to navigate both positive and negative emotions to understand their impact on performance. While initial attempts have failed because of flawed methodologies and overly ambitious mathematical models (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), this remains an important and worthy avenue of pursuit. We urge researchers to learn from past mistakes, but to continue searching for insights that will allow organizations, their leaders, and their employees to authentically and effectively manage their emotions for improved performance.
To support future research pursuits, connecting the study of positive affect and employee analytics could be an interesting partnership. The use of big data to identify trends and patterns in employee experiences is fast becoming the way to accelerate business performance and engage individuals (Davenport, Harris, & Shapiro, 2010). Analytics help to drive more effective decision‐making, and to direct future people investment choices. Measuring the impact of positive emotions on human capital metrics such as talent acquisition, diversity, job success, and retention may result in organizations committing to practices that increase positive affect not just because it benefits individuals, but because it accelerates business performance.
Finally, given there are many paths to creating positive emotions in the workplace and a number of disciplines that are implicated in the research and practice – for example, positive psychology, positive organizational scholarship, appreciative inquiry – there is a need for interdisciplinary conversations and research, which as Vacharkulksemsuk and Fredrickson (2013, p. 56) conclude will be “key to determining effective and sustainable ways to extract short‐term, long‐term, and continued benefits of positive emotions” at work.
There is now a significant body of research to support the benefits of experiencing positive emotions and positivity more broadly (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). There is also research to support the individual benefits of engaging in positive psychology interventions (Bolier, Haverman, Riper, Smit, & Bohlmeijer, 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009) that are aimed at increasing PERMA (Seligman, 2012). It has been suggested that the pattern of positivity and negativity that characterizes communications within an organization may have a significant influence over the experience of individual factors such as well‐being, engagement, and satisfaction (Harter et al., 2006). However, there is a need for further research to prove the benefits of engaging in positive workplace practices that induce positive affect and heartfelt positivity that may impact broader organizational outcomes.
In conclusion, while the science continues to grow, we argue that the existing findings be given serious consideration as powerful tools for leaders, work‐team members (and external consultants) to foster positive emotions, positive relationships, and positive performance within individuals. We envisage that this positivity may in turn create a positive upward spiral to the entire organization, resulting in improved organizational effectiveness (Vacharkulksemsuk, Sekerka, & Fredrickson, 2011).