“The real voyage of discovery consists not in not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.” Marcel Proust
Positive psychology has become a new and growing force within psychology. Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi (2000) initially presented their ideas regarding this area of psychology, and what they hoped would add to an understanding of what built “positive qualities” in individual’s lives. They stated this was a shift from how psychology had been focused previously on the healing of disease and the hope that it could also build on constructive traits. This was envisioned to encompass all areas of life at the individual and group levels. This included the arena of the workplace.
More specific to the area of work, Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) also had intent to focus on “positive processes” and build on those (Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship, 2005). It has the intention of adding to the existing research and adding to its depth from a different perspective. The Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship stated that the desire is to study and review those “processes” within an organization that enhance or create abundant returns. In that, it looks at edifying and adding to existing research in a similar fashion that positive psychology does for individuals toward an organizational stance.
The intent of Positive Organizational Scholarship is to define and explore positive states, processes, and systems that would exemplify positive outcomes in an organization. Specifically, it asks the theoretical questions to discover what Cameron et al. (2003) expressed as “key indicators,” “associations,” and exactly what will create these outcomes. For example, a question asked that could drive this is, “…what are the attributes of the structures, processes, cultures, leadership behaviors, and/or resources that are most conducive to, or resistant of, positive dynamics in organizations?” (p. 10).
Leadership is one of those areas within organizations that have had an interest in research and attaining positive outcomes, but Avolio (2007) stated that usually the research has focused on the attributes of the leader instead of other aspects of the “leadership process.” He stated that a more “integrated approach” is necessary, and presented that the “authentic leadership development model” (ALD) represented this. Specifically, he stated that the, “…model of authentic leadership development includes elements of the leader, follower, and context in explaining what actually improves or develops leadership.” Keeping in tradition with positive psychology, it is looking at these outcomes from a strength-based perspective.
In fact the various definitions of authentic leadership follow the tradition of positive psychology, but in keeping in the concept of scholarship and research it is the definitions presented by Avolio et al. (2004) that are more conducive to developing research. Specifically, they define this to leaders, “…who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others’ values/ moral perspective, knowledge, and strengths, aware of the context in which they operate, and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and high on moral character.”
While the search for the theoretical constructs of both POS and ALD established that they are in developmental stages, it is advantageous in the proclamation to establish it from theory building and empirical support. The advent of the theories and research occurring beyond just the leader as the central variable can also add a wealth of information regarding the impact workers, leaders, organizations, and situations have on the entire process.
Presently, there is limited knowledge regarding its efficacy, validity, or effect. However, there has not been a considerable significance from previous leadership research either. This was stipulated in the meta-analysis done on 100 years of leadership intervention studies presented by Avolio & Luthans (2005). While there was some significance, it was relatively small. Taking from those studies the concepts and ideas that appeared to show more significance and seeking to expand them into more diverse and empirically based theories should prove to be a beneficial endeavor.
A lot more research into the constructs, their impact on leaders and followers, and its impact on performance and motivations is still needed. As well, measurement tools with long term established validity and reliability will need to be rooted. However, it is a step in a direction that may answer the changing workplace issues regarding success, ethical dilemmas, and globalization.
References:
Avolio, B. (2007). Promoting More Integrative Strategies for Leadership Theory-Building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33.
Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Walumbwa, F., Luthans, F., & May, D. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801-823.
Avolio, B,. & Luthans, F. (2005). The high impact leader. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J.E., Quinn, R.E., & Wrzesniewski A. (2003). Developing a discipline of Positive Organizational Scholarship. In Cameron, K., Dutton, J.E., and Quinn, R.E. (Eds.). Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship (2005, 11/15). Positive Organizational Scholarship: A critical theory perspective (Working Paper Series). Michigan Ross School of Business: Caza, B.B & Caza, A. Retrieved Friday, Oct. 13, 2009 from http://www.bus.umich.edu/Positive/PDF/Barker-Caza-Caza-POS-Theory.pdf.
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }