I just re-encountered a very relevant statement by Albert Bandura:

“The problem we have in psychology is that we don’t profit from our successes. We construct theories and clarify how they produce their effects, but we lack implementation models for translating theory into effective practice.”

Kathryn

Positive psych is not new. Its just adding the science (which is a good thing) to many training practices that have been around for years. For example working to strengths has been promoted by MBTI and Team Management Systems for years.

To a certain extent the risk of banality is the greatest challenge for PP.

I guess I’m luck as the Resilience Builder software (http://www.i-i.com.au/resilience/resilence_builder.html) that I use is new and interesting and validates the health benefits of many of the PP interventions.

Great question. And then add to that: What are the practical steps that can move us in this direction? What can people inside the organizations do, and what ideas or materials do they need that we outside practitioners can provide? What can people do individually at various levels in an organizational hierarchy? What can they do in groups? What can be done at the entire organization level?

Why not include a link to your slideshare in your response.

Kathryn

I noticed a recent slideshare of mine on Positive Organization Design got a lot of hits quite fast. That particular pack is rather academic. I think people are ready for positive psychology at the organizational level.

How can we design and maintain organizations that not only accommodate but are strengthened by the variety and depth of our purpose?

I believe, however, that finding a shared and valued purpose is an important and unifying intervention for a group. In terms of evidence, there are always the questions from the Gallup 12 that I think are very related:

Q8. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.

Q9. My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work.

According to the Harter, Schmidt & Keyes (2003), in Gallup research, Q8 has a positive generalizable relationship with employee retention and customer satisfaction and a strong relationship with productivity and profit. Q9 has a positive relationship with customer satisfaction and a strong positive relationship with the employee retention, productivity, and profit.

One thing I observed in my software life was that people who identified with the purpose of the group were more open to understanding the tradeoffs that had to be made — e.g., between quality and time to market. I guess it helped them lift their eyes off of their own particular concerns. Those with more limited views only judged by their own work and were often very unhappy when things had to be shipped before they felt their own pieces were perfect.

Not sure if that helps. It’s what your comment brought to mind.

Kathryn

Harter, Schmidt, Keyes (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In Keyes & Haidt, Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived, pp. 205-224. Washington, DC: APA.

Kathryn, I really liked your distinction between calling and calling orientation.