{"id":65,"date":"2018-10-29T13:41:26","date_gmt":"2018-10-29T13:41:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-psychwork\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=65"},"modified":"2018-10-29T15:56:57","modified_gmt":"2018-10-29T15:56:57","slug":"2-the-theoretical-starting-point","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/chapter\/2-the-theoretical-starting-point\/","title":{"raw":"2. The Theoretical Starting Point","rendered":"2. The Theoretical Starting Point"},"content":{"raw":"<a href=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3719\/2018\/10\/29155240\/Chapter-2.pdf\">Chapter 2<\/a>\r\n\r\nEveryone can succeed at work!\r\n\r\n<strong>Introduction<\/strong>\r\nAn interest in themes such as wellbeing, happiness, quality of life and positive\r\nfeelings has become germane to positive psychology, a fi eld offering studies on\r\nthe positive characteristics, feelings and strengths of individuals, and one that\r\nalso seeks to identify the nature of institutions that promote and enhance such\r\npositive attributes (Aspinwall and Staudinger 2006 ; Seligman et al. 2005 ). In this\r\nchapter, we introduce the background of our studies and the main concepts used.\r\nWe realise that there are numerous concepts that could describe the phenomenon\r\nof success and that therefore there was a need for careful selection. What follows\r\nis a brief discussion of some basic theories and concepts, as well as an introduction\r\nto our empirical studies.\r\nPositive psychology and success at work\r\nFocus on the positive\r\nGable and Haidt ( 2005 : 104) briefl y defi ne positive psychology in the following\r\nterms: \u2018Positive psychology is the study of the conditions and processes that\r\ncontribute to the fl ourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions\u2019.\r\nThe aim of positive psychology is to study the reasons why people feel\r\njoy, show altruism, and create healthy families and institutions. This focus has\r\nbeen criticised because it concentrates on exploring normal and healthy activities\r\ninstead of helping dysfunctional people with a variety of problems. On the other\r\nhand, perhaps focusing on problems has taken attention away from studying why\r\nthe majority of people are actually psychologically, physically and socially\r\nhealthy \u2013 or happy, so to speak (Gable and Haidt 2005 ). Simply stated, a study\r\non successful workers will provide hands-on and positively-toned information\r\nabout success at work.\r\nWe will connect the concept of success with an important research target of\r\npositive psychology, namely, happiness. Research on happiness has also increasingly\r\ntaken root. In order to understand why some people are happier, regardless\r\nChapter 2\r\nThe theoretical starting point\r\nEveryone can succeed at work\r\n6 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\nof the setbacks encountered, than others, we have to understand the cognitive and\r\nmotivational processes that maintain and even increase happiness and positive\r\nattitudes (Lyubomirsky 2001 ). Here, success at work is dissected from a positive\r\nperspective.\r\nPositive psychology is also interested in whether the lifespans of positively\r\nbehaving people differ from those of others. If they do, what factors play a key\r\nrole during the lifespans of strong and optimistic people, and how can these\r\nfactors be recognised? These questions are essential to research on the experiences\r\nof successful workers and in seeking to identify the factors that have\r\ncontributed to their successful careers. An individual\u2019s differences are traditionally\r\ncharacterised by achievements as opposed to the processes in which he or she\r\ntakes part (see, for example, Feldt et al. 2005 ); the process of achieving success\r\nat work seems extremely interesting when considered from this point of view.\r\nWe will also place the phenomenon in context and acknowledge the individual,\r\ncommunal and social dimensions of success. At the subjective level, positive\r\npsychology concentrates on subjective experiences, wellbeing, satisfaction, fl ow,\r\njoy, pleasure and happiness, as well as on optimistic and hopeful attitudes and\r\nconfi dence in the future. At the group level, the interest is in the civic skills\r\nand institutions that turn individuals into better citizens \u2013 responsible, fl exible and\r\nethical workers (Seligman 2002 ).\r\nTurner et al . ( 2002 ) have introduced the Healthy Work Model (HWM). This heuristic\r\nmodel explains how to create healthy work systems. The model presents healthy\r\nwork characteristics as good work practices, positive psychological processes and\r\nmechanisms, as well as various health-related outcomes. Healthy work systems\r\nrequire good external environments and develop strategies for good work practices\r\n(for example, autonomy, teamwork and leadership) that enhance positive psychological\r\nprocesses and other mechanisms (for example, trust, perceived control and\r\norganisational commitment) in order to increase healthy outcomes (for example,\r\nwellbeing and proactivity). Happiness not only produces a quantitative improvement\r\nby increasing effi ciency but also a qualitative one by making a better product or\r\noutcome on the basis of pride, belief and commitment to one\u2019s job.\r\nPositive emotions and experiences\r\nThe importance of experiencing positive emotions can be reasoned in a variety of\r\nways. Diener et al . ( 2009 : 187) broadly defi ne subjective wellbeing as experiencing\r\nhigh levels of pleasant emotions and moods, low levels of negative emotions\r\nand moods, and high life satisfaction. If the experience of success is considered\r\npositive, it may be one factor that also increases wellbeing. Experiences also\r\nrelate to people\u2019s perception of them. \u2018Moods and emotions, which together are\r\nlabeled affect, represent people\u2019s on-line evaluations of the events that occur in\r\ntheir lives\u2019 (Diener et al. 1999 : 277). For example, Fredrickson\u2019s ( 1998 ) broadenand-\r\nbuild model of positive emotions explains why the propensity to experience\r\npositive emotions has evolved into a ubiquitous feature of human nature and how\r\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 7\r\npositive emotions might be tapped to promote individual and collective wellbeing\r\nand health. Positive emotions serve as markers of fl ourishing or optimal wellbeing\r\n(Fredrickson 2001 ), and research on experiences can be useful for measuring\r\nwellbeing (Kahneman et al. 2004 ; Kahneman and Krueger 2006 ).\r\nFredrickson ( 2001 ) considers pride as a distinct positive emotion that follows\r\npersonal achievements. In order to feel pride one has to succeed; in other words,\r\none must experience success. Likewise, Lyubomirsky et al . ( 2005 ) claim that\r\npositive affect or regard engenders success; positive emotions signify that one\u2019s\r\nlife is going well and goals are being met.\r\nTherefore, goals are also important for the emergence of the experience of\r\nsuccess; the types of goals one has, the structure of one\u2019s goals, the success with\r\nwhich one is able to attain one\u2019s goals, and the rate of progress toward one\u2019s goals\r\ncan all potentially affect one\u2019s emotions and life satisfaction. The general conceptual\r\nmodel is that people react in positive ways when they make progress toward\r\ngoals and react negatively when they fail to achieve goals. Thus, a central idea is\r\nthat goals serve as an important reference standard for the affect system (Diener\r\net al. 1999 ).\r\nPositive feelings and experiences support problem-solving skills and the ability\r\nto operate in an innovative way. The importance and potential of this may seem\r\nsurprising, as feelings of happiness are simple and common in nature (Isen 2006 ).\r\nConsidering the issue in the context of work, there are such interesting and useful\r\nconcepts as work engagement (referring to work drive) (see Hakanen 2002 ;\r\nHakanen et al . 2008 ; Schaufeli et al . 2002 ), fl ow (Csikszentmihalyi 2008 ;\r\nCsikszentmihalyi et al . 2005 ), and joy of work (Varila and Lehtosaari 2001 ). All\r\nthese concepts describe a positive feeling toward work that one may experience\r\nafter active, motivated and engaged working, and which we will discuss in detail\r\nlater in this book. According to Isen ( 2001 ; see also Isen and Reeve 2006 ), positive\r\nfeelings sustain intrinsic motivation and help with successfully performing\r\npleasing work tasks and new challenges as well as enjoying them. However, this\r\ndoes not mean that one would not accomplish less interesting tasks any less\r\nresponsibly. These concepts help with understanding the kinds of actions that\r\nmay lead to the experience of success. But fi rst we look at a favorable way of\r\nachieving success, namely, optimism.\r\nOptimism\r\nOptimism is one of the core concepts of positive psychology (Peterson 2000 ) and\r\naffects how people pursue goals; if they believe their goals are achievable, they\r\nare optimistic (Carver and Scheier 2002 ). This is why the concept of optimism is\r\noften confused with hope. Gillham and Reivich ( 2004 ) explain that the difference\r\nbetween these two concepts is that hope is often defi ned as a wish for something\r\nwith some expectation that it will happen, while optimism is typically defi ned as\r\na tendency or disposition to expect the best. Thus, hope typically refers to\r\nexpectations in a specifi c situation, while optimism refers to general expectations.\r\n8 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\nPeterson and Luthans ( 2003 ) consider optimism a vital part of hope, but emphasise\r\nthat they still are distinctively separate concepts.\r\nOptimism therefore determines how we experience events. The author of The\r\nHappiness Advantage , Shawn Achor ( 2010 : 109), develops a remarkable notion:\r\n\u2018By scanning our mental map for positive opportunities, and by rejecting the\r\nbelief that every down in life leads us only further downward, we give ourselves\r\nthe greatest power possible\u2019. This means that people have a habitual way of\r\nexplaining events (Peterson 2000 ; Peterson et al . 1988 ).\r\nPeterson ( 2000 ) suggests that instead of clinging to a pessimistic explanatory\r\nstyle, an optimistic one deserves more attention. Furthermore, he separates \u2018little\r\noptimism\u2019 from \u2018big optimism\u2019 as optimism may function differently depending\r\non the level. Little optimism seems to be connected to concrete events, and this\r\nis also interesting from the point of view of the experiences of success. Big optimism\r\nprovides a general state, \u2018vigor\u2019 (see also Pajares 2001 ), whereas little\r\noptimism leads to desirable outcomes in concrete situations (Peterson 2000 ).\r\nOptimism is shown to be connected to higher life satisfaction, health, perseverance,\r\nand resilience, whereas pessimism has connection to depression (Reivich\r\nand Gillham 2003 ; Reivich et al. 2013 ). Still, like too much pessimism, too much\r\noptimism is also likely to be harmful. Optimism and pessimism are also closely\r\nrelated to the phenomenon of \u2018learned helplessness\u2019. Seligman ( 1990 ) observed\r\nthat individuals who were exposed to uncontrollable negative events often overgeneralised\r\nfrom this experience and became passive in other situations that were,\r\nin fact, controllable. He also discovered that the behaviour can be turned the other\r\nway round too, into \u2018learned hopefulness\u2019 or, in other words, \u2018learned optimism\u2019.\r\nDispositional optimism refers to a general tendency to expect positive outcomes,\r\nand these positive expectations can partly result from the individual\u2019s belief that\r\nhe or she can control good outcomes (Gillham and Reivich 2004 ).\r\nIt has also been argued that the best results in life can be achieved with \u2018realistic\r\noptimism\u2019 (see Schneider 2001 ). Realistic optimism involves enhancing and\r\nfocusing on the favorable aspects of our experiences. Consequently, Schneider\r\n( 2001 : 253) includes the awareness of reality in optimism by stating that \u2018realistic\r\noptimism involves hoping, aspiring, and searching for positive experiences while\r\nacknowledging what we do not know and accepting what we cannot know\u2019. It is\r\nworth noticing that realistic, positive expectations closely relate to self-awareness\r\nand self-knowledge as well as to the concept of self-effi cacy, which refers to an\r\nexpectation that one\u2019s behaviour will be effective (Bandura 1997 ). We will\r\ndiscuss these factors in greater detail later in this chapter. When considering the\r\nphenomenon of success at work, realistic optimism may be particularly important\r\nas it can considerably predict the likelihood of achieving future goals and plans.\r\nP eople strive for success\r\nAccording to Krueger ( 1990 ), success can be considered the fullest expression of\r\nmastery in any area of life. However, the concept is not that easily approachable; for\r\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 9\r\ninstance, what factors form the elements of success? To begin constructing the\r\ndefi nition of success at work, the fi rst step is to think about and choose between\r\ncertain psychological concepts that foster positive emotions, and that are acquired\r\nthrough feelings of mastery and inner drive, which perhaps form the core of success.\r\nIndeed, there are numerous theories that explain the connection between mastery\r\nand performance that can be viewed from the point of view of success. Psychological\r\nresearch is replete with concepts that defi ne human action, motives, as well as the\r\noutcomes of these, which can all be seen as manifestations of mastery and performance;\r\nbut the suggestion here is that their common nominator, the umbrella term,\r\ncould be success.\r\nNaturally, there are also external factors that infl uence all the aforementioned\r\nstates and behaviours. For example, encouraging learning environments, loving\r\nparents or supportive workplaces are likely to enhance one\u2019s success, while underestimating,\r\noppressive or unstable environments are likely to hinder such positive\r\ndevelopment. Therefore, this review will include a perspective on the individual\r\nperson\u2019s success as always context-bound. What follows is a detailed introduction\r\nof these concepts. They are partly overlapping and interconnected; in other words,\r\nthey complement each other and coalesce in such a way as to form the heart of\r\nsuccess.\r\nSuccess is about competence\r\nOriginally, White ( 1959 ) utilised the concept of competence to describe a\r\nperson\u2019s ability to perform effi ciently in his or her environment. In order to do\r\nthat, one\u2019s development must be seen as the acquisition of greater competence,\r\nand the subjective side of competence is the sense of competence. Deci and\r\nMoller ( 2005 ) view the concept from the perspective of motivation psychology\r\nand have complemented White\u2019s thoughts by adding the need for competence as\r\none dimension of competence. The term \u2018intrinsic motivation\u2019 refers to this need.\r\nDeci and Ryan ( 2008 ) have later shown that autonomous motivation predicts\r\npersistence and adherence and is advantageous for effective performance.\r\nFurthermore, this is shown to be related to psychological health.\r\nAdler ( 1982 ) is credited with an early defi nition of the elements of competence,\r\nwhich provides a good way of analysing the multidimensional nature of the\r\nconcept. Perhaps the most important element of an individual\u2019s competence is the\r\nability to perform the social roles that the community and society have set for\r\neach and every one of us. The second element is self-conception. A competent\r\nperson has a stable and well-developed identity that includes awareness of his or\r\nher strengths and weaknesses, an optimistic conception of the relationship with\r\nthe surrounding world, and a realistic understanding of his or her abilities to\r\ncontrol his or her destiny. The third element consists of interaction skills, which\r\ninclude communication, credibility and reliability, sensitivity and empathy, and\r\nnegotiation skills. The fourth element is the ability to regulate emotions, especially\r\nthe negative ones such as fear, frustration, anger and guilt, and to learn to\r\n10 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\nrecognise and control inappropriate reactions to these emotions. The fi fth dimension\r\nof competence is the ability to develop and move from one developmental\r\nstage to another. The sixth element refers to the ability to cope with stressful\r\nexperiences, life crises and other events that one cannot prevent or infl uence. The\r\nseventh element is the ability to acquire the resources that one needs in order to\r\nget through a certain phase.\r\nThe last element of competence is cognitive skills, that is, the ability to work\r\nwith words, concepts, symbols and to process information. Causal thinking and\r\nplanning, as well as understanding of social reality and social problem-solving\r\nskills, are important areas of competence (Adler 1982 ).\r\nCompetence is also related to how people perceive their control over the\r\nactivities and tasks they undertake (for example, Paulsson et al . 2005 ). Karasek\u2019s\r\n(see Karasek and Theorell 1990 ) model of work-control shows that in situations\r\nin which people have a high-strain job with high demands and low control, they\r\ncannot meet challenges effi ciently. On the other hand, while a low-strain job with\r\nlow demands and high control enables optimal responses to challenges, it is not\r\nlikely to bring about satisfaction or wellbeing. A passive job has low control and\r\nlow mental strain and people can feel that their skills and abilities are misspent\r\nand not optimally utilised. A state of indifference and lack of challenges can\r\nexpand to other areas of life as people lose the courage to develop and test their\r\nskills. In active jobs, people have a signifi cant amount of mental strain but also\r\nhigh control. They can utilise their abilities, which may, for example, lead to the\r\nexperience of total concentration and absorption, i.e., \u2018fl ow\u2019 (Csikszentmihalyi\r\n2008 ; Csikszentmihalyi et al . 2005 ).\r\nWhen considered from the point of view of success, competence combined\r\nwith opportunities to actively use skills and strengths \u2013 whether at work, in\r\nleisure, at school, in parenting, etc. \u2013 could be one of the core elements of\r\nsuccess. Naturally, it is also about the person himself or herself and whether he\r\nor she is ready to seize challenges.\r\nSuccess is about motivation\r\nThe role of motivation has already been mentioned in the previous section as one\r\nof the core elements of competence. Indeed, motivation is also a crucial element\r\nof success. Fundamentally, motivation can be considered a critical factor in any\r\ntheory attempting to predict and explain behaviour and performance (Mitchell\r\n1997 ). The ability to predict, understand and infl uence employees\u2019 motivation has\r\nincreased markedly, and modern psychological studies try to pay attention to\r\nwork motivation in a comprehensive manner (Latham and Pinder 2005 ).\r\nActually, it is quite easy to list various obvious reasons why people work in the\r\nfi rst place: work provides your daily bread, it activates and stimulates, it is a\r\nsource of social contacts, it is a way of structuring one\u2019s time management, and\r\nit can also be rewarding (Furnham 1992 ). These factors do not, however, say\r\nmuch about the motivation that lies behind the foundation of true success at work.\r\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 11\r\nAccording to Eccles and Wigfi eld ( 2002 ; see also Campbell and Pritchard\r\n1976 ), success can be discussed from four theoretical dimensions related to motivation.\r\nFirst, many theories (such as Bandura 1997 ) focus on individual employees\u2019\r\nbelief in their talents and effi ciency, the likelihood of success or failure, and\r\nthe sense of being able to control their work results. All this starts from the question\r\n\u2018Can I handle this task?\u2019 When people are aware of their talents, they actually\r\ndo perform better and are more willing to seize new challenges.\r\nThe second theoretical viewpoint is based on engagement, which has not been\r\nconsidered in the theories of personal beliefs. Even if people knew that they could\r\nsuccessfully perform a task, they would not necessarily have a compelling need\r\nto do it (Eccles and Wigfi eld 2002 ) \u2013 in other words, they may not be interested\r\nin it. Many recent studies have shown, for example, how the sense of meaningful\r\nwork, brought on by power and responsibility, can enable employees to become\r\nengaged in their work. The worker becomes like an entrepreneur; through\r\nengagement, he or she takes success as his or her goal. Engagement theories, in\r\nother words theories answering the question \u2018why\u2019, include intrinsic motivation\r\ntheories and goal theories (see, for example, Deci et al. 1991 ; Latham and Pinder\r\n2005 ). The benefi ts of this kind of positive approach are clear; it leads to greater\r\npersistence, greater fl exibility in strategies to reach a goal, greater creativity in\r\nsolutions, better outcomes, and higher subjective wellbeing (Schneider 2001 ).\r\nIntrinsic motivation describes the need to learn new things and skills and to\r\ndevelop toward greater autonomy, competence and self-determination. It also\r\nincludes the structure of personality and the development of motivation. Action\r\nthat is intrinsically motivated is experience valued as such. Action has an intrinsic\r\nattribution and, thus, it does not threaten the feeling of autonomy, thereby leading\r\nto satisfaction and positive experiences. Moreover, intrinsic motivation is not\r\nregulated by extrinsic rewards or punishments, but doing becomes self-purposeful\r\n(Ryan and Deci 2000a, 2000b).\r\nThe positive experience connected to motivation and doing is worthy of further\r\ninvestigation. For example, in the 1990s, Locke and Latham ( 1990 ) introduced a\r\ntheory in which they combined work motivation and work satisfaction and called\r\nthe model the \u2018high performance cycle\u2019. The cycle starts by giving an employee\r\na challenging task. If the challenge includes an expectation of success, high\r\nperformance is guaranteed, assuming that the employee is engaged in the goal,\r\nreceives adequate feedback, and situational factors do not considerably affect\r\nperformance. Similar fi ndings have resulted from various educational experiments\r\n(for example, Gilpin 2008 ; Green et al. 2012 ; Oades et al. 2011 ) and\r\nhobbies (for example, Carruthers and Hood 2005 ).\r\nThirdly, there are theories that combine expectations and value constructs (for\r\nexample, Weiner 1992 ). Expectation value refers to an evaluation of the outcome\r\nof action and the likelihood of achieving the outcome (Mitchell 1997 ). These\r\ntheories are based on the idea that employees are more interested in the outcomes\r\nof work than working itself (Eccles and Wigfi eld 2002 ). In addition to achievements\r\nand related outcomes, the goal or the benefi t value can be appreciation and\r\n12 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\nbetter self-esteem. For example, Covington\u2019s ( 1992 : 74) self-worth theory\r\nsupposes that \u2018individuals are thought to be only as worthy as their achievements\u2019.\r\nExpectation value also includes an assessment of the instrumentality\r\nbetween the fundamental goal (for example the performance) and the secondary\r\noutcome (for example salary or promotion), and of the valence of these\r\nsecondary outcomes (Mitchell 1997 ).\r\nTheories that combine motivation and cognition (for example, Rosenthal\r\nand Zimmerman 1978 ) provide a different perspective on success because they\r\nare interested in an individual\u2019s ways of regulating his or her behaviour and\r\nusing cognitive strategies in order to achieve his or her goals (Eccles and\r\nWigfi eld 2002 ).\r\nMitchell ( 1997 ) has presented a useful theory of work motivation that deserves\r\na closer look. According to his interpretation, work motivation includes various\r\ncomponents such as, for example, needs, goals, expectations, fairness, rewards,\r\nsocial infl uences and work description. He lists seven features that can explain a\r\nhigh motivation level in a work situation: the situation has to (1) correspond to\r\nthe employee\u2019s needs, (2) involve goals, (3) reward for a good performance, (4)\r\nbe fair and equal, (5) include stimulating tasks, (6) involve colleagues who also\r\nwork diligently, and (7) have an accepting atmosphere with an emphasis on hard\r\nwork and engagement. The employee responds to the work situation with his or\r\nher skills, knowledge, goals, values and mood, whereas the work context includes\r\nthe work task, colleagues, work environment and culture. When added together,\r\nthese categories can infl uence motivation. Motivation, together with abilities,\r\nwork knowledge and context-bound factors, leads to behaviour, which again\r\nleads to performance \u2013 one of the cornerstones in considerations of success.\r\nMitchell ( 1997 ) emphasises that all theories that attempt to describe performance,\r\nwhether they are belief, goal, effi ciency or expectation value theories,\r\nshare certain features. Goals describe what we want to do, self-effi cacy describes\r\nwhat we think we can do and expectations describe our best evaluation of the\r\nconsequences our action can have. All these infl uence motivation, either directly\r\nor indirectly, and are also connected to effort, attention, persistence and\r\nstrategies.\r\nSuccess is about good performance\r\nPerformance is often confused with its neighbouring concepts such as competence,\r\nbehaviour or action. It is crucial to realise the differences between them.\r\nPerformance is the result of behaviour; it is something measurable and comparable,\r\nand a clearly defi nable result. This idea is based on the fi nding that positive\r\nexperiences concerning one\u2019s own doing make for one of the most central dimensions\r\nof good performance (Uusiautti 2008 ; Uusiautti and M\u00e4\u00e4tt\u00e4 2011 ; see also\r\nLiden et al . 2000 ). It is important to analyse some of the core concepts that might\r\nhelp with an understanding of the positive experience of doing. Competence,\r\nindeed, is often confused with performance, but they are not synonymous (Kanfer\r\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 13\r\nand Ackerman 2005 ). Competence refers to a more stable state or to a person\u2019s\r\ncharacteristic. Performance is a momentary happening and can vary according to\r\nmany factors, even if competence is high in relation to the task at hand.\r\nKanfer and Ackerman ( 2005 ) distinguish two dimensions of performance:\r\nmaximal and typical performance. The former refers to a person\u2019s skills and\r\nabilities and describes all that the person can do when inner states (for example,\r\nsleep, concentration, etc.) are optimal and when it is possible to concentrate on\r\nthe task. The latter dimension is typical behaviour, which refers to how the person\r\nusually does things or how he or she is likely to perform. The researchers point\r\nout that although maximal performance is an interesting research target, it would\r\nperhaps be more benefi cial to pay attention to the difference between what the\r\nperson can do and what he or she actually does. In Kanfer and Ackerman\u2019s ( 2005 )\r\nmodel, performance consists of various factors, namely, abilities, skills and\r\nknowledge, personality, motivation and self-image. Motivation is affected by\r\npersonal interest and general motivational tendencies. Performance lays the foundation\r\nfor a learning mechanism that is connected to features that increase\r\ncompetence (see also Stoltenberg 2005 ).\r\nThe concept of self-effi cacy is also closely related to competence and performance.\r\nSelf-effi cacy means a person\u2019s assessment of his or her own abilities to\r\nuse his or her resources and to regulate his or her behaviour in order to perform\r\na task (Caprara and Cervone 2006 ; Judge et al . 1997 ; Mitchell 1997 ). It is therefore\r\nsimilar to the aforementioned sense of competence. It has been shown that\r\npositive self-effi cacy improves a person\u2019s performance and wellbeing in numerous\r\nways (Schunk and Pajares 2005 ). People who have high self-effi cacy devote\r\nmore to their activities and persevere more than those who estimate that their\r\ncompetence is weaker. In addition, people with high self-effi cacy are likely to\r\nselect more high-level goals and engage in them (Bandura 1997 ; Mitchell 1997 ).\r\nHigh self-effi cacy, as the manifestation of accurate recognition of one\u2019s skills and\r\nabilities, is also related to how optimistically and realistically one can estimate\r\none\u2019s performances (Shepperd et al . 1996 ).\r\nWork engagement \u2013 referring to work drive \u2013 can be used to describe wellbeing\r\nand positive experiences at work. Schaufeli et al . ( 2002 ) have defi ned work\r\nengagement as a positive, fulfi lling, work-related state of mind that includes three\r\nsub-scales: vigor, dedication and absorption. Vigor refers to high levels of energy\r\nand willingness to work well in typical and in challenging, confl ict-fi lled situations.\r\nIt could be described as the feeling of \u2018bursting with energy\u2019 when working.\r\nDedication refers to having experiences such as appreciation for your work\r\nand being fi lled with enthusiasm and inspiration. Absorption refers to having a\r\ndeep focus on work and the pleasure that follows the completion of work (see also\r\nHakanen 2002 ; Hakanen et al . 2008 ).\r\nWork engagement, when understood from this defi nition, is similar to the\r\nconcept of fl ow (see Csikszentmihalyi 2008 ). Flow is a subjective state of feeling\r\ncontrol \u2013 or, better yet, feeling that you can act without any control, without\r\nhindrance (Csikszentmihalyi et al . 2005 ). According to Gardner et al . ( 2001 ),\r\n14 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\ncontrary to common belief, fl ow is more often experienced at work than in\r\nleisure. Furthermore, features such as gender and cultural norms affect the experience\r\nof fl ow. However, here, the focus is on the experience of fl ow at work.\r\nFlow at work is usually experienced when goals are high and feedback is immediate\r\nand fair. In addition, the work itself has to include continuous challenges\r\nthat match employees\u2019 skills. Nevertheless, fl ow is a temporary feeling, whereas\r\nwork engagement is a more stable and comprehensive state that does not\r\nfocus on any particular task, behaviour, or individual. Flow is equivalent to\r\nabsorption from the sub-scales of work engagement (Csikszentmihalyi 2008 ;\r\nHakanen 2002 ).\r\nSuccess is about positive strategies\r\nAlthough top performances or steady, quality performance can lead to success, it\r\ncan also be seen as a more comprehensive process. Namely, people who want to\r\ndevelop and seize opportunities in life can be seen as following a positive strategy.\r\nThis is an interesting perspective on the phenomenon of success. Carver and\r\nScheier ( 2005 ) have pointed out that it is also important that people realise when\r\ngoals can be met and when it is time to give up. Ultimately, it is about the ability\r\nto estimate the situation and act accordingly. Likewise, future expectations\r\ngreatly affect how people react to changes and challenges. An optimistic attitude\r\nplays a salient role (Carver and Scheier 2002 ), however, the strategy of success\r\ncan also be described in other ways.\r\nFor example, Locke ( 2002 ) claims that success requires persistent trials. One\r\nhas to think about what a desirable goal is and why, what kinds of intermediate\r\ngoals should be set, how to reach the goal, how to prioritise demands that are\r\ncontradictory in relation to the goal, how to overcome future obstacles and\r\nsetbacks \u2013 how to achieve a dream?\r\nBaltes and Freund ( 2006 ; see also Freund and Baltes 1998 ) refer to the SOC\r\nmodel, which provides a general framework for understanding developmental\r\nchange and resilience across one\u2019s lifespan. The fundamental idea is that people\u2019s\r\nlives are awash opportunities and limitations that can be \u2018mastered adaptively as\r\nan orchestration of three components: selection, optimization, and compensation\u2019\r\n(Freund and Baltes 1998 : 531) \u2013 SOC.\r\nOn the other hand, Covey ( 2006 ) considers success as a strategy in which\r\nknowledge, skills and will are combined. Knowledge answers the question of\r\nwhat to do and why. Skills can make it happen whereas will is synonymous with\r\nmotivation or the need to achieve something. As these three dimensions meet, a\r\nstrategy leading to success can emerge.\r\nNaturally, the constant pursuit of success can lead to an endless treadmill. The\r\ntheory of the hedonic treadmill (see Brickman et al . 1978 ; Diener et al . 2006 )\r\nclaims that people constantly strive for a happier life because they believe that\r\ngreater happiness awaits right around the corner from achieving the next goal or\r\nsolving the next problem. Success is there but not yet achieved.\r\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 15\r\nSuccess happens in context\r\nEven though one possessed the most exquisite level of competence and high\r\nmotivation, one is still tied to a certain time and place. Behaviour depends on\r\ncontext and outcome. In addition, contexts are dynamic and change during an\r\nindividual\u2019s lifespan (Baltes and Freund 2006 ). However, according to selfdetermination\r\ntheory (SDT), people are by nature active and self-motivated, curious\r\nand interested, vital and eager to succeed because success itself is personally\r\nsatisfying and rewarding (Deci and Ryan 2008 ).\r\nContext-bound factors can be viewed from two perspectives: fi rst, there is the\r\nactual work context; second, an employee\u2019s personal development always\r\nhappens in context. The actual work context always infl uences work motivation\r\nand the ways that employees perceive and experience their work. Considered\r\nfrom the point of view of success, certain features, such as interesting or challenging\r\nwork, could be keys.\r\nNotwithstanding, there are several characterisations of work. In the 1970s,\r\nKaufman ( 1974 ) noticed that work-related challenges were also positively correlated\r\nwith work performance, professional expertise and competence later in\r\none\u2019s career. Ever since, researchers have agreed that work involving the right\r\namount of challenges can increase productivity and motivation. In addition to\r\nchallenges, work outcomes should somehow be measurable or recognisable (by\r\nothers too). Moreover, responsibility and opportunities for self-development\r\nboost motivation, satisfaction and engagement (see, for example, Almost and\r\nSpence Laschinger 2002 ; Spence Laschinger et al . 2004 ) and, according to\r\nLaubach ( 2005 ), these features are best realisable in informal organisations in\r\nwhich employers can offer autonomy, fl exible schedules and an opportunity to\r\nparticipate in decision-making.\r\nIndeed, good performances and motivated working not only depend on the\r\nemployee but also on the contents of work and the conditions in the workplace\r\n(Latham and Pinder 2005 ). On the other hand, there are also different kinds of\r\njobs and, for example, in monotonous or predictable jobs, autonomy is not likely\r\nto be a very important feature.\r\nHackman and Oldham ( 1976 ) have defi ned three core dimensions of work,\r\nnamely, autonomy, the nature of tasks, feedback, the signifi cance of tasks and the\r\nselection of required skills. These dimensions infl uence three psychological states:\r\nthe experience of the importance of the work, responsibility over the results and\r\nawareness of the real consequences of the work. The fundamental idea is that an\r\nemployee, for example John, will perceive his work positively if he knows that he\r\nhas performed well in a task he considered important. John\u2019s personal need for\r\ngrowth speaks to how powerfully he reacts to the psychological states. Thus, the\r\ndimensions of work and psychological states have impact on both individual and\r\nwork outcomes; these are high work motivation, high performances at work and\r\nhigh work satisfaction, and little absenteeism and turnover of workers.\r\nAs a matter of fact, jobs that require high performance, without the attendance\r\nof negative psychological strain, offer good opportunities for controlling one\u2019s\r\n16 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\nwork, allow employees to utilise their skills and provide the scope to develop and\r\nlearn new skills. Karasek and Theorell ( 1990 ) call them \u2018active jobs\u2019. We think\r\nthat active jobs can present an opportunity for success but, naturally, it is also a\r\nmatter for an employee himself or herself and whether he or she is ready to seize\r\nthe opportunities provided by an active job.\r\nThis leads us back to the individual. Moving from a particular work context to\r\na wider perspective on success requires an acknowledgement of interactions with\r\nthe surrounding environment in one\u2019s positive development. Every one of us has\r\na personal history; we have not become like this in the wink of an eye, and we\r\ntake our entire background with us to the workplace. Some of us have learned to\r\nperceive challenges positively, while others tend to stick to the familiar.\r\nDevelopment, including positive development, always happens in context.\r\nMagnusson and Mahoney ( 2006 ) present four theses on the nature of phenomena\r\nwhen dissecting positive development, all of which can also be relevant for\r\nthe conceptualisation of success. First, the individual acts and develops as an\r\nactive, intentional part of the integrated, multidimensional, dynamic and adaptive\r\nperson-environment system. The nature of this system changes along one\u2019s lifespan\r\nthrough developmental processes, societal changes and as a result of constant\r\nindividual-environment interaction processes. Second, the individual develops\r\nalong the course of time as an integrated, undivided organism within a multidimensional,\r\ndynamic, adaptive, maturing and learning process. This interaction\r\nprocess involves mental, biological and behavioural factors of the individual and\r\nsocial, cultural and physical features of the environment. Third, the preconditions\r\nprovided by the environment, including the possibilities, limitations, demands\r\nand expectations, are especially important for research on positive development.\r\nFourth is the theoretical model that aims to explain that a human being\u2019s positive\r\ndevelopment has to include and integrate his or her mental, biological and behavioural\r\naspects as well as the physical, social and cultural features of this individual\u2019s\r\nenvironment (Magnusson and Mahoney 2006 ).\r\nThese viewpoints felicitously highlight the basic idea of positive development\r\nfrom the point of view of success. Positive development cannot be defi ned without\r\nreferring to the individual but merely that attention must be paid to natural\r\nfeatures, resources and limitations within his or her cultural, physical and historical\r\ncontext (Magnusson and Mahoney 2006 ).\r\nWhat this means is that success, when considered from this positive point of\r\nview, also needs to be seen in context. First, the processes have a holistic nature that\r\nmeans that success is merely a result of the functional interaction of its elements\r\nrather than how each element infl uences entity. Second, the inner processes, such\r\nas mental, biological and behavioural functions, and outer processes, such as opportunities,\r\nobligations and rules, and how well these processes are synchronised,\r\ncontribute to the possibility of success.\r\nIt is therefore relevant to ask whether the lifespans of positively acting people\r\ndiffer from those of others and, if they do, how. Basically, the discussion of the\r\nphenomenon of success seeks to analyse how it can be enhanced, the ways of\r\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 17\r\nconceptualising it as positive development and, most importantly, it opens up\r\ndiscussion on how the elements can be recognised. The next chapters will sink\r\nsome teeth into this interesting matter.\r\nTop workers: who are they?\r\nWe have now introduced the fundamental ideas directing our research on success.\r\nBut how do they appear in practice, if at all? Understood as the result of an inner\r\ndrive to work well and as an expression of mastery, success is an indication of\r\npositive attitudes and wellbeing at work. Given such a defi nition, everyone has an\r\nequal chance to succeed at work; in other words, more people would be considered\r\nsuccessful.\r\nExperience has already shown that healthier and more satisfi ed employees\r\nwork better (Rissa 2007 ). However, not everyone\u2019s goal of success at work is the\r\nsame, and a variety of motivating factors can be recognised. One may aim to earn\r\na living, the another\u2019s goal may be to achieve top expertise in his or her professional\r\nfi eld, to enhance the quality of life, or to strive for a personally signifi cant\r\nlong-term goal (Locke 2002 ) \u2013 not to mention that success is experienced\r\nsubjectively and that personal achievements are evaluated in different ways\r\n(Maddux 2002 ).\r\nThe purpose of this book is to introduce the positive sides of work: how you\r\ncan not only manage your work life, but also succeed. We will introduce our\r\nempirical research on the phenomenon. Although we take a specifi c viewpoint of\r\nsuccess, it is not very straightforward to fi nd suitable people to represent top\r\nworkers. How do you defi ne whether someone has achieved success at work or\r\nnot? Who can defi ne this?\r\nHow to study success at work?\r\nAs referenced in the introduction to this book, we considered any employee in\r\nany occupation as having the chance to succeed. However, in order to fi nd the top\r\nworkers, we could not just go into workplaces to interview employees. Instead,\r\nwe decided to contact workers who had received a top-worker award in their\r\nfi eld. Every now and then in Finland \u2013 and we know that the same is true for\r\nnumerous other countries \u2013 people are selected as excellent workers in their\r\nspecifi c fi elds.\r\nThe main research on which this book is based included participants who\r\nrepresented top workers from different occupations (see Uusiautti 2008 ). Each\r\nparticipant was nominated \u2018Employee of the Year\u2019 by Finnish labour unions as\r\nmost Finnish workers are members of a labour union in their respective fi elds.\r\nThese top workers were considered representatives of successful workers and\r\nsuitable informants for describing their experiences of success at work. The selection\r\nof successful employees was not done by the researchers, thereby ensuring\r\nthat there was public justifi cation for selecting the participants. The criteria for\r\n18 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\nthe award of \u2018Employee of the Year\u2019 were gathered for the 20 occupations from\r\nwhich the participants were chosen (examples of these professions include fi elds\r\nsuch as psychology, policing, teaching, etc.). The criteria were mostly found on\r\nthe internet, but some of them were obtained through email inquiries to the labour\r\nunions.\r\nWe will now briefl y introduce how the participants were described with reference\r\nto the criteria for Employee of the Year. In different occupations, the award\r\nemphasised different qualities that could be categorised into three groups. Firstly,\r\nhaving a high professional standard was named as one of the most important\r\nqualities among the participants. Regarding this quality, expertise was recognised\r\nas referring not only to excellent work quality but also to the ability to actively\r\ndevelop one\u2019s work and skills. The following occupations best represented this\r\ntheme: priest, police offi cer, nurse and psychologist. The second group consisted\r\nof employees\u2019 actions that led to making their work and occupation recognised.\r\nExamples of these actions included paying attention to the contents of the occupation\r\n(for example work tasks), publicly discussing current topics regarding\r\ntheir occupational fi eld, and facilitating the recognition of Finnish profi ciency\r\nabroad. For example, the criteria for the \u2018Artisan of the Year\u2019, \u2018Journalist of the\r\nYear\u2019, and \u2018Athlete of the Year\u2019 awards typifi ed this theme. The difference\r\nbetween these two themes was that the fi rst emphasised winners who had developed\r\ntheir fi eld through their own professional development, while the second\r\nemphasised winners who used their profi ciency to gain publicity.\r\nSome of the rewarded employees were selected not by their colleagues but\r\nthrough competitions. These competitions differ remarkably, depending on the\r\noccupation (for example \u2018Chef of the Year\u2019 and \u2018Cleaner of the Year\u2019). However,\r\none feature was common among them, namely, professional skills in several\r\nsectors were evaluated (for example, customer service skills and working methods)\r\nas these depicted core occupational expertise. In other words, only a true\r\nprofessional can win this kind of competition. Therefore, employees who had\r\nwon a competition were also asked to participate in this research. On the other\r\nhand, employees who had been selected for these competitions from their workplace\r\nhad also already been nominated by their colleagues as excellent workers.\r\nIn addition to the three themes mentioned above, the criteria for \u2018Employee of\r\nthe Year\u2019 awards can be studied by analysing the specifi c words describing the\r\nawards. Three different categories were found: attributes that described top workers,\r\naction-related attributes and profession-specifi c qualifi ers. The most common\r\nattributes were adjectives such as competent, innovative, punctual, celebrated,\r\neffective, open-minded and social. Action-related descriptions covered factors\r\nsuch as developing work and occupation, improving one\u2019s occupation, making\r\none\u2019s occupation noted in Finland and abroad, dedication to one\u2019s occupation and\r\nactive cooperation. Profession-specifi c qualifi ers were language profi ciency, tidiness,\r\nexpertise, care for one\u2019s own and others\u2019 wellbeing at work, punctuality, a\r\nwell-functioning business idea, courage to create new ideas, cooperation skills\r\nand service skills. Top workers\u2019 attributes were essentially words that described\r\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 19\r\nemployees, regardless of occupation. Action-related attributes paid attention to\r\nhow an employee had been working or what an employee had done in order to\r\nearn the nomination. Profession-specifi c qualifi ers referred directly to occupation\r\nand specifi c profession-bound skills. Thus, one qualifi er could describe several\r\noccupations but with different meanings (for example, tidiness can be considered\r\ndifferently among taxi drivers, chefs and cleaners).\r\nIt was interesting to note that the criteria for Employee of the Year did not\r\ndiffer substantially between fi elds. The aim of this introduction was to give an\r\nidea of the kinds of characteristics emphasised in the criteria. Nevertheless, it is\r\nworth deliberating on how much this actually framed the picture of successful\r\nemployees used in this research, as winners of Employee of the Year awards\r\nwere, and still are, mainly selected by their own labour unions. For example,\r\nmaking one\u2019s occupation renowned can be advantageous for a particular union,\r\nthereby infl uencing one\u2019s chances of being selected. Additionally, persons who\r\nare more sociable could be seen as more appealing, further infl uencing the likelihood\r\nof their selection for Employee of the Year.\r\nNonetheless, and most importantly, Employee of the Year winners are top\r\nworkers rewarded in their own fi elds. Thus, they constitute a group of successful\r\nand excellent workers.\r\nThe data and analyses\r\nThe research consisted of two phases. In the fi rst phase, success at work was\r\nanalysed by focusing on motivation as well as on work engagement. In addition,\r\nthose work characteristics considered most rewarding by participants were studied.\r\nThe participants were nominated employees of the year in a variety of occupational\r\nfi eld 1 . Altogether, 44 employees were contacted. Of this fi gure, 16 participated by\r\nanswering the questionnaires. Five of them were men and 11 were women. Seven\r\nof those who responded to the questionnaires were interviewed during the fi rst\r\nphase of the study. Participants were between 29 and 71 years old (mean = 49).\r\nTheir occupations represented different fi elds and could be divided into the following\r\nprofessional groups: academic occupations, artistic occupations and labourers.\r\nThe research used a mixed-methods approach (see, for example, Creswell\r\n2002 ; Teddlie and Tashakkori 2003 ). Data were collected via questionnaires and\r\ninterviews. Questionnaires consisted of both quantitative and qualitative sections.\r\nThe quantitative section was designed to assist answering the open-ended questions.\r\nThe participants were asked to describe:\r\n\u2022 their experiences about their work (How do you usually feel about your work\r\n[for example, rewarding\/frustrating, interesting\/boring] and why?);\r\n\u2022 the significance of their work (How important do you consider your work,\r\nand why?);\r\n\u2022 their job satisfaction (Are you usually satisfied with your work, and why?\r\nPlease, also write about what inspires you about your work);\r\n20 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\n\u2022 work-related challenges (Is your work challenging? Do you think that you\r\nare capable of handling these challenges? How so?);\r\n\u2022 whether their work was rewarding (Is your work rewarding?);\r\n\u2022 the most important characteristics of their work (Mention three things that\r\nyou consider to be most important about your work. Why have you chosen\r\nthis particular work\/occupation?);\r\n\u2022 themselves as workers (In your opinion, what kind of employee are you?\r\nPlease describe yourself as a worker).\r\nThe interviews were based on the questionnaires and were qualitative theme\r\ninterviews, i.e., all themes included in the interviews were decided beforehand,\r\nbut the order and form of the questions were not (Hirsj\u00e4rvi et al . 2000 ). In other\r\nwords, the interviewer ensured that all the predetermined topics were discussed,\r\nbut the order and extent could vary (Eskola and Vastam\u00e4ki 2001 ). In this research,\r\nthe researcher analysed the questionnaires before each interview and, based on\r\nthat analysis, determined the focus of each interview. For example, if a participant\r\nhad found it diffi cult to answer a certain question on the questionnaire, that\r\ntheme was discussed more thoroughly in an interview. Therefore, the themes in\r\nthe interviews were the same for everyone (work motivation, experiences about\r\nwork and participants\u2019 characteristics as workers) but were given varying degrees\r\nof emphasis according to the participants\u2019 answers on the questionnaires.\r\nIn this research, the data were analysed through qualitative content analysis\r\nwith predetermined categories derived from a theoretical background (such as ,\r\nfor example, the key concepts mentioned). Qualitative content analysis emphasises\r\na relevant selection and rational organisation of categories (Kracauer 1952 ;\r\nMayring 2000 ). This formed the basis for analysis. Furthermore, these categories\r\nwere divided into reasonable subcategories that emerged in the data (based on the\r\nnumber of references).\r\nThe second phase of the research concentrated on the process of becoming a\r\ntop worker. In this phase, the employees of the year (n = 8) were Nurse of the\r\nYear, Farmer of the Year, Police Offi cer of the Year (n = 2), Psychologist of the\r\nYear, Priest of the Year (n = 2) and Artisan of the Year. Six of them were men\r\nand two were women. Participants were between 36 and 64 years old (mean =\r\n49). In the interviews, the participants were asked to discuss the following\r\nthemes: factors that enhance success, diffi culties and obstacles they had\r\nconfronted, and choices and decisions they had made during the course of their\r\nlives. As this was a piece of narrative research, the data were collected using\r\ninterviews.\r\nNarrative research can be defi ned as research that utilises or analyses data\r\ncollected via narratives (for example, biographies) or other similar ways (for\r\nexample, anthropologists\u2019 observational narratives). Thus, a narrative can be\r\neither a research object or a means to study a phenomenon (Lieblich, Tuval-\r\nMashiach, and Zilber 1998 ). Narrative research does not focus on objective and\r\ngeneralized facts but on local, personal, and subjective information \u2013 this is\r\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 21\r\nconsidered a strength of narrative research because informants\u2019 voices can be\r\nheard authentically (Guba and Lincoln 1994 ). Narratives can also be used when\r\nanalyzing the reasons for actions (Moilanen 2002 ). To best serve this research the\r\nnarrative interview was complemented with characteristics of the themed interview,\r\nthereby aiming at a thick description of the phenomenon of success at work\r\n(see Rubin and Rubin 1995 ).\r\nPolkinghorne ( 1995 ) distinguishes the analysis of narratives and narrative\r\nanalysis. The former means categorising by types, for example, and metaphors.\r\nThe latter refers to the composition of a new narrative based on various original\r\nnarratives. Both of these analytical methods were used in this research. On the\r\none hand, the participants\u2019 narratives were categorised by predetermined categories\r\nand, on the other hand, a narrative of becoming a top worker was composed\r\n(see also Kuusela 2003 ).\r\nIn this research, an analysis of narratives and narrative analyses was conducted.\r\nThe analysis consisted of narrative structuring, which tries to put together a cohesive\r\nnarrative of experiences and events during interviews (Kvale 1997 ).\r\nFurthermore, the analysis typifi ed a category-content-focused approach, with\r\nparts of narratives being placed in different categories (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiac,\r\nand Zilber, 1998 ).\r\nAs the participant group was quite a selective one, some reliability issues need\r\nto be addressed. To what extent are the stories of top workers biased? Certainly,\r\nthey already had a particular attitude and idea of the purpose of the study when they\r\nanswered the questionnaire and were interviewed. Indeed, the aim was to study\r\ntheir positive experiences, although the themes and questions did also cover negative\r\nhappenings. However, they were regarded as top workers, examples of\r\nsuccessful people, and that starting point may have affected their responses.\r\nHowever, especially in the interviews, the participants thoroughly contemplated\r\ntheir experiences. In the second phase, in particular, when they described their\r\nentire life stories, their answers could not have been structured entirely on the basis\r\nof extrinsic norms or expectations and were thus considered reliable and valuable.\r\nFurthermore, when the participants describe their experiences of success, there was\r\nno reason to think that they were not be honest. Consequently, the question was\r\nmerely about what the participants considered so important that it was worth telling.\r\nStudies on the factors contributing to success at work\r\nResearch on employees of the year forms the main study on which this book is\r\ngrounded. However, we have complemented and viewed the phenomenon of\r\nsuccess from various perspectives, especially in Chapter 5 when we discuss external\r\nfactors that infl uence the process. We include Professor Kaarina M\u00e4\u00e4tt\u00e4\u2019s\r\nresearch on Finnish married couples (N = 342) who had been married for more\r\nthan ten years. In her study, couples, inspired by a writing competition arranged\r\nby a Finnish magazine, wrote about the secret of their own long-lasting marriage,\r\nas well as the variety of solutions they had tried in terms of combining work and\r\n22 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\nfamily. The theoretical basis of the study was grounded in many theories and\r\nprevious research on marital quality and marital stability, especially Sternberg\u2019s\r\nTriangular theory of Love ( 1986 ), the Love is a Story theory (Sternberg, 1999 ),\r\nGottman\u2019s publications (1994; 1999), and A Vulnerability-Stress-Adaption Model\r\nof Marriage by Karney and Bradbury ( 1995 ). The participants were a good representation\r\nof the gamut of Finnish married couples; they represented different age\r\ngroups, most of them had been married for 10-15 years, and they had one or two\r\nchildren. For many of the writers, this was their fi rst marriage; for others, this was\r\nat least their second marriage. The stories did not only describe the bright sides of\r\nmarriage; there were also some rough experiences and survival stories. What they\r\nhad in common was that the relationships endured more than ten years. The data\r\nanalysis was based on inductive content analysis and the qualitative categorising\r\nof the written stories. In addition, the question about the kinds of solutions couples\r\nemployed in order to combine work and family produced interesting results.\r\nIn Chapters 4 and 5 we also lean on a research project called \u2018Love-based\r\nLeadership \u2013 An Interdisciplinary Approach,\u2019 which focuses on enhancing\r\nemployees\u2019 happiness at work by supporting their individual strengths and creating\r\nproductive work communities that are ready for change \u2013 thus, the starting\r\npoint and emphasis is on an individual. This study approach can be identifi ed\r\nwithin the area of positive psychology called positive organisational behaviour\r\n(POB) (see Youssef and Luthans 2007 ). Luthans ( 2002 : 59) defi nes POB as \u2018the\r\nstudy and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and\r\npsychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively\r\nmanaged for performance improvement in today\u2019s workplace\u2019. The viewpoint is\r\ninterested in positivity and psychological resources that illustrate capacity that\r\nmust be theory- and research-based and validly measurable as well as \u2018state-like\u2019\r\n(i.e., open to change and development) and have a demonstrated performance\r\nimpact. This viewpoint offers a great addition to the analysis of the process of\r\nbecoming a successful worker.\r\nIn this study, 13 leaders were interviewed. The interviews consisted of four\r\nthemes, from leaders\u2019 strengths to their understanding of caring leadership, and\r\nfrom positive and love-based work communities to interrelationships between\r\npositive, appreciative and happy experiences and leadership. The interviewees\r\nincluded deans and associate deans (n = 5) and department chairs or department\r\nmanagers (n = 8). Seven participants (three women and four men) came from a\r\ngeneral university and a university of applied sciences in Finland, while six (all\r\nmen) came from one university in the USA. The purpose of including participants\r\nfrom two countries was to gather experiences that were as diverse as possible.\r\nAnd indeed, leaders revealed a rich store of personal perceptions and experiences.\r\nIn this book, we will especially employ the fi ndings to analyse how leadership\r\ncan enhance employees\u2019 success (see also Peterson and Luthans 2003 ).\r\nHaving introduced the theoretical assumptions and empirical solutions, it is\r\ntime to move on to practical examples and viewpoints concerning success at\r\nwork. Let us have the top workers reveal their secrets!\r\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 23\r\nNote\r\n1 Employees of the year represented the following awards: in the fi rst phase, Coach of\r\nthe Year, Artisan of the Year, Cleaner of the Year, Nurse of the Year, Doctor (of\r\nMedicine) of the Year, Industrial Designer of the Year, Farmer of the Year, Textile\r\nArtist of the Year, Psychologist of the Year, Police Offi cer of the Year and Graphic of\r\nthe Year and, in the second phase, Nurse of the Year, Farmer of the Year, Police Offi cer\r\nof the Year, Artisan of the Year, Priest of the Year, and Psychologist of the Year.\r\nReferences\r\nAchor , S. ( 2010 ) The Happiness Advantage. The Seven Principles of Positive Psychology\r\nthat Fuel Success and Performance at Work . New York, NY : Crown Business\r\nAdler , P. T. ( 1982 ) \u2018 An analysis of the concept of competence in individuals and social\r\nsystems \u2019. Community Mental Health Journal , 18 ( 2 ), pp. 34 \u2013 45\r\nAlmost , J. and Spence Laschinger , H. K. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Workplace empowerment, collaborative\r\nwork relationships, and job strain in nurse practitioners \u2019. Journal of the American\r\nAcademy of Nurse Practitioners , 14 ( 9 ), pp. 408 \u2013 420\r\nAspinwall, L. G. and Staudinger, U. M. ( 2006) \u2018 Ihmisen vahvuuksien psykologia: kehittyv\u00e4n\r\ntutkimuskent\u00e4n kysymyksi\u00e4 [A psychology of human strengths: Questions from a developing\r\nfi eld of study]\u2019 pp. 21\u2013 33 in Aspinwall, L. G. and Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.) Ihmisen\r\nvahvuuksien psykologia [A Psychology of Human Strengths]. Helsinki: Edita\r\nBaltes , P. B. and Freund , A. M. ( 2006 ) \u2018 Ihmisen vahvuudet ja viisaus [The human strengths\r\nand wisdom] \u2019 pp. 34 \u2013 46 in Aspinwall , L. G. and Staudinger , U. M. (Eds.) Ihmisen\r\nvahvuuksien psykologia [A Psychology of Human Strengths] . Helsinki : Edita\r\nBandura , A. ( 1997 ) Self-effi cacy: The Exercise of Control . New York, NY : Freeman\r\nBrickman , P. , Coates , D. and Janoff-Bulman , R. ( 1978 ) \u2018 Lottery winners and accident\r\nvictims: is happiness relative? \u2019 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 36 ( 8 ),\r\npp. 917 \u2013 927\r\nCampbell , J. P. and Pritchard , R. D. ( 1976 ) Motivation theory in industrial and organizational\r\npsychology \u2019 pp. 63 \u2013 129 in Dunnette , M. D. (Ed.) Handbook of Industrial and\r\nOrganizational Psychology . Chicago, IL : Rand McNally Publishing Company\r\nCaprara , G. V . and Cervone , D. ( 2006 ) \u2018 Persoonallisuus toimivana, itses\u00e4\u00e4telev\u00e4n\u00e4 j\u00e4rjestelm\u00e4n\u00e4\r\n[Personality as a functional, self-regulating system] \u2019 pp. 69 \u2013 82 in Aspinwall , L.\r\nG. and Staudinger , U. M. (Eds.) Ihmisen vahvuuksien psykologia [A Psychology of\r\nHuman Strengths] . Helsinki : Edita\r\nCarruthers , C. and Hood , C. D. ( 2005 ) \u2018 The power of positive psychology \u2019. Parks and\r\nRecreation , Oct 2005 , pp. 30 \u2013 37\r\nCarver , C. S. and Scheier , M. F. ( 2002 ) Optimism pp. 231 \u2013 243 in Snyder , C. R. and Lopez ,\r\nS. J. (Eds.) Handbook of Positive Psychology . Oxford : Oxford University Press\r\nCarver , C. S. and Scheier , M. F. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Engagement, disengagement, coping, and catastrophe\r\n\u2019 pp. 527 \u2013 547 in Elliot , A. J. and Dweck , C. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Competence\r\nand Motivation . New York and London : The Guilford Press\r\nChang , E. C. ( 2001 ) (Ed.) \u2018 Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and\r\npractice \u2019 (pp. 53 \u2013 75 ). Washington, DC, US : American Psychological Association\r\nCovey , S. R. ( 2006 ) \u2018 Tie menestykseen. 7 toimintatapaa henkil\u00f6kohtaiseen kasvuun ja\r\nmuutokseen [ Road to Success. 7 Methods of Personal Growth and Change ]\u2019 ( 5th Ed.).\r\nJyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4 : Gummerus\r\n24 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\nCovington , M. V. ( 1992 ) Making the Grade: A Self-worth Perspective on Motivation and\r\nSchool Reform . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press\r\nCreswell , J. W. ( 2002 ) Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods\r\nApproaches . ( 2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage\r\nCsikszentmihalyi , M. ( 2008 ) Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience ( 10th Ed.).\r\nNew York, NY : HarperPerennial\r\nCsikszentmihalyi , M. , Abuhamdeh , S. and Nakamura , J. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Flow \u2019 pp. 598 \u2013 608 in A.\r\nJ. Elliot , A. J. and Dweck , C. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Competence and Motivation . New\r\nYork and London : The Guilford Press\r\nDeci , E. L. and Moller , A. C. ( 2005 ) \u2018 The concept of competence. A starting place for\r\nunderstanding intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation \u2019 pp. 579 \u2013\r\n597 in Elliot , A. J. and Dweck , C. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Competence and Motivation .\r\nNew York and London : The Guilford Press\r\nDeci , E. L. and Ryan , R. M. ( 2008 ) \u2018 Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological\r\nwellbeing across life\u2019s domains \u2019. Canadian Psychology , 49 ( 1 ), pp. 14 \u2013 23\r\nDeci , E. L. , Vallerand , R. J. , Pelletier , L. G. and Ryan , R. M. ( 1991 ). \u2018 Motivation and education:\r\nthe self-determination perspective \u2019. Educational Psychologist , 26 ( 3 and 4 ), pp.\r\n325 \u2013 346\r\nDiener, E. , Lucas, R. E. and Napa Scollon, C. ( 2006) \u2018 Beyond the hedonic treadmill. Revising\r\nthe adaptation theory of wellbeing \u2019. American Psychologist , 61( 4), pp. 305\u2013 314\r\nDiener , E. , Oishi , S. and Lucas , R. E. ( 2009 ) \u2018 Subjective wellbeing: the science of happiness\r\nand life satisfaction \u2019 pp. 187 \u2013 194 in Lopez , S. J. and Snyder , C. R. (Eds.) Oxford\r\nHandbook of Positive Psychology . Oxford : Oxford University Press\r\nDiener , E. , Suh , E. M. , Lucas , R. E. and Smith , H. L. ( 1999 ) \u2018 Subjective wellbeing: three\r\ndecades of progress \u2019. Psychological Bulletin , 125 ( 2 ), pp. 276 \u2013 302\r\nEccles , J. S. and Wigfi eld , A. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Motivational beliefs, values, and goals \u2019. Annual\r\nReview of Psychology , 53 ( 1 ), pp. 109 \u2013 132\r\nEskola , J. and Vastam\u00e4ki , J. ( 2001 ) \u2018 Teemahaastattelu: opit ja opetukset [Theme interview:\r\ntenets and instruction] \u2019 pp. 24 \u2013 42 in Aaltola , J. and Valli , R. (Eds) Ikkunoita tutkimusmetodeihin\r\nI [Introduction to Research Methods I] . Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4 : Gummerus\r\nFeldt , T. , M\u00e4kikangas , A. and Kokko , K. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Persoonallisuus ja ty\u00f6hyvinvointi\r\n[Personality and wellbeing at work] \u2019 pp. 75 \u2013 94 in Kinnunen , U. , Feldt , T. and Mauno ,\r\nS. (Eds.) Ty\u00f6 leip\u00e4lajina Ty\u00f6hyvinvoinnin psykologiset perusteet [Work as a Job. The\r\nPsychological Foundations of Wellbeing at Work] . Keuruu : Otava\r\nFredrickson , B. L. ( 1998 ) \u2018 What good are positive emotions? \u2019 Review of General\r\nPsychology, 2(3), pp. 300-319\r\nFredrickson , B. L. ( 2001 ) \u2018 The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the\r\nbroaden-and-build theory of positive emotions \u2019. American Psychologist , 56 ( 3 ), pp.\r\n218 \u2013 226\r\nFreund , A. M. and Baltes , P. B. ( 1998 ) \u2018 Selection, optimization, and compensation as strategies\r\nof life management: correlations with subjective indicators of successful aging \u2019.\r\nPsychology and Aging , 13 ( 4 ), pp. 531 \u2013 543\r\nFurnham , A. ( 1992 ). Personality at Work: the Role of Individual Differences in the\r\nWorkplace . London : Routledge\r\nGable , S. and Haidt , J. ( 2005 ) \u2018 What (and why) is positive psychology? \u2019 Review of General\r\nPsychology , 9 , pp. 103 \u2013 110\r\nGardner , H. , Csikszentmihalyi , M. and Damon , W. ( 2001 ) Good Work. When Excellence\r\nand Ethics Meet . New York, NY : Basic Books\r\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 25\r\nGillham, J. and Reivich, K. ( 2004) \u2018 Cultivating optimism in childhood and adolescence\u2019. The\r\nANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 591, pp. 146\u2013 163\r\nGilpin , J. M. ( 2008 ) \u2018 Teaching happiness. The role of positive psychology in the classroom\r\n\u2019. Pell Scholars and Senior Theses , 12 , pp. 1 \u2013 23\r\nGottman , J. ( 1994 ) What Predicts Divorce? The Relationships between Marital Process\r\nand Marital Outcomes . Hillsdale : Erlbaum\r\nGottman , J. ( 1999 ) The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work . New York, NY :\r\nCrown Publishers\r\nGreen, J. , Liem G. A. , Martin, A. J. , Colmar, S. , Marsh, H. W. and McInerney, D. ( 2012)\r\n\u2018 Academic motivation, self-concept, engagement and performance in high school: key\r\nprocesses from a longitudinal perspective \u2019. Journal of Adolescence , 35( 5), pp. 1111\u2013 1122\r\nGuba , E. G. and Lincoln , Y. S. ( 1994 ) \u2018 Competing paradigms in qualitative research \u2019 pp.\r\n105 \u2013 117 in Denzin , N. K. and Lincoln , Y. S. (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research .\r\nThousand Oaks, CA : Sage\r\nHackman , J. R. and Oldham , G. R. ( 1976 ) \u2018 Motivation through the design of work: test of\r\na theory \u2019. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance , 16 , pp. 250 \u2013 279\r\nHakanen , J. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Ty\u00f6uupumuksesta ty\u00f6n imuun \u2013 positiivisen ty\u00f6hyvinvointik\u00e4sitteen\r\narviointimenetelm\u00e4n suomalaisen version validointi opetusalan organisaatiossa [From\r\nburnout to work engagement \u2013 validation of the Finnish version of evaluation method\r\nto positive concept of wellbeing at work in educational organizations] \u2019. Ty\u00f6 ja ihminen ,\r\n16 , 42 \u2013 58\r\nHakanen , J. , Perhoniemi , R. and Toppinen-Tanner , S. ( 2008 ) \u2018 Positive gain spirals at work:\r\nfrom job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness\r\n\u2019. Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 73 , pp. 78 \u2013 91\r\nHirsj\u00e4rvi , S. , Remes , P. and Sajavaara , P. ( 2000 ) Tutki ja kirjoita [Reseach and Write] .\r\nVantaa : Tummavuoren Kirjapaino\r\nIsen , A. M. ( 2001 ) \u2018 Some perspectives on positive affect and self-regulation \u2019. Psychological\r\nInquiry , 11 ( 3 ), pp. 184 \u2013 187\r\nIsen , A. M. ( 2006 ) \u2018 My\u00f6nteinen tunne ihmisen vahvuuden l\u00e4hteen\u00e4 [Positive feeling as a\r\nsource of human strength]\u2019 pp. 186\u2013 201 in Aspinwall, L. G. and Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.)\r\nIhmisen vahvuuksien psykologia [ A Psychology of Human Strengths]. Helsinki: Edita\r\nIsen , A. M. and Reeve , J. ( 2006 ) \u2018 The infl uence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic\r\nmotivation: facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behaviour, and selfcontrol\r\n\u2019. Motivation and Emotion , 29 , pp. 297 \u2013 325\r\nJudge , T. A. , Locke , E. A. and Durham , C. C. ( 1997 ) \u2018 The dispositional causes of job satisfaction\r\n\u2019. Research in Organizational Behaviour , 19 , pp. 151 \u2013 188\r\nKahneman , D. and Krueger , A. B. ( 2006 ) \u2018 Developments in the measurement of subjective\r\nwellbeing \u2019. The Journal of Economic Perspectives , 20 ( 1 ), pp. 3 \u2013 24\r\nKahneman , D. , Krueger , A. B. , Schkade , D. A. , Schwarz , N. and Stone , A. A. ( 2004 ) \u2018 A\r\nsurvey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method \u2019.\r\nScience , 306 , pp. 1776 \u2013 1780\r\nKanfer , R. and Ackerman , P. L. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Work competence: a person-oriented perspective \u2019\r\npp. 336 \u2013 353 in Elliot , A. J. and Dweck , C. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Competence and\r\nMotivation . New York and London : The Guilford Press\r\nKarasek , R. and Theorell , T. ( 1990 ) Healthy Work. Stress, Productivity, and Reconstruction\r\nof Working Life . New York, NY : Basic Books\r\nKarney, B. and Bradbury, T. N. ( 1995) \u2018 The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability:\r\nA review of theory, method and research \u2019. Psychological Bulletin , 111, pp. 3\u2013 34\r\n26 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\nKaufman , H. G. ( 1974 ) \u2018 Relationship of early work challenge to job performance, professional\r\ncontributions, and competence of engineers \u2019. Journal of Applied Psychology ,\r\n59 ( 3 ), pp. 377 \u2013 379\r\nKracauer , S. ( 1952 ) \u2018 The challenge of qualitative content analysis \u2019. The Public Opinion\r\nQuarterly , 16 , pp. 631 \u2013 642\r\nKrueger , D. W. ( 1990 ) \u2018 Success and success inhibition \u2019 pp. 246 \u2013 260 in Sternberg , R. J. and\r\nKolligian , J. Jr. (Eds.) Competence Considered . New Haven, CN : Yale University\r\nPress\r\nKuusela, P. ( 2003) \u2018 Metafora, metateoria ja sosiaalitieteet [Metaphor, metatheory and social\r\nsciences]\u2019 pp. 77\u2013 104 in Eskola, J. and Pihlstr\u00f6m, S. (Eds) Ihmist\u00e4 tutkimassa.\r\nYhteiskuntatieteiden metodologian ajankohtaisia kysymyksi\u00e4 [ Studying Human Beings.\r\nCurrent Questions in the Methology of Social Sciences ]. Kuopio : Kuopio University Press\r\nKvale , S. ( 1997 ) Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun [ The Qualitative Interview ]. Lund :\r\nStudentlitteratur\r\nLatham , G. P. and Pinder , C. C. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Work motivation theory and research at the dawn\r\nof the twenty-fi rst century \u2019. Annual Review of Psychology , 56 , pp. 485 \u2013 516\r\nLaubach , M. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Consent, informal organization and job rewards: a mixed methods\r\nanalysis \u2019. Social Forces , 83 ( 4 ), pp. 1535 \u2013 1566\r\nLiden , R. C. , Wayne , S. J. and Sparrowe , R. T. ( 2000 ) \u2018 An examination of the mediating\r\nrole of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships,\r\nand work outcomes \u2019. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 ( 3 ), pp. 407 \u2013 416\r\nLieblich , A. , Tuval-Mashiach , R. and Zilber , T. ( 1998 ) Narrative Research: Reading,\r\nAnalysis and Interpretation . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage\r\nLocke , E. A. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Setting goals for life and happiness \u2019 pp. 299 \u2013 312 in Snyder , C. R. and\r\nLopez , S. J. (Eds.) Handbook of positive psychology . Oxford : Oxford University Press\r\nLocke , E. A. and Latham , G. P. ( 1990 ) \u2018 Work motivation and satisfaction: light at the end\r\nof the tunnel \u2019. Psychological Science , 1 ( 4 ), pp. 240 \u2013 246\r\nLuthans , F. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Positive organizational behaviour. Developing and managing psychological\r\nstrengths \u2019. Academy of Management Executive , 16 ( 1 ), pp. 57 \u2013 72\r\nLyubomirsky , S. ( 2001 ) \u2018 Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive\r\nand motivational processes in wellbeing \u2019. American Psychologist , 56 ( 3 ), pp. 239 \u2013 249\r\nLyubomirsky , S. , King , L. and Diener , E. ( 2005 ) \u2018 The benefi ts of frequent positive affect:\r\ndoes happiness lead to success? \u2019 Psychological Bulletin , 131 , pp. 803 \u2013 855\r\nMaddux , J. E. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Self-effi cacy. The power of believing you can \u2019 pp. 277 \u2013 287 in\r\nSnyder , C. R. and Lopez , S. J. (Eds) Handbook of Positive Psychology . Oxford : Oxford\r\nUniversity Press\r\nMagnusson , D. and Mahoney , J. L. ( 2006 ) \u2018 Holistinen l\u00e4hestymistapa my\u00f6nteisen kehityksen\r\ntutkimuksessa [A holistic approach in research on positive development] \u2019 pp. 232 \u2013\r\n250 in Aspinwall , L. G. and Staudinger , U. M. (Eds.) Ihmisen vahvuuksien psykologia\r\n[ A Psychology of Human Strengths ]. Helsinki : Edita\r\nMayring , P. ( 2000 ) \u2018 Qualitative content analysis \u2019. Forum: Qualitative Social Research ,\r\n1 ( 2 ). Available online at: http:\/\/www. qualitativeresearch.net\/fqs\/fqs-e\/2-00inhalt-e.\r\nhtm (last accessed 4 April 2014)\r\nMitchell , T. R. ( 1997 ) \u2018 Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts \u2019.\r\nResearch in Organizational Behaviour , 19 , pp. 57 \u2013 149\r\nMoilanen , P. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Narrative, truth, and correspondence: a defence \u2019 pp. 91 \u2013 104 in\r\nHuttunen , R. , Heikkinen , H. L. T. and Syrj\u00e4l\u00e4 , L. (Eds) Narrative Research. Voices of\r\nTeachers and Philosophers . Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4 : Kopijyv\u00e4\r\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 27\r\nOades , L. G. , Robinson , P. , Green , S. and Spence , G. B. ( 2011 ) \u2018 Towards a positive\r\nuniversity \u2019. The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and\r\npromoting good practice , 6 ( 6 ), pp. 432 \u2013 439\r\nPajares , F. ( 2001 ) \u2018 Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation \u2019. The Journal of\r\nEducational Research , 95 ( 1 ), pp. 27 \u2013 35\r\nPaulsson , K. , Iverg\u00e5rd , T. and Hunt , B. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Learning at work: competence development\r\nor competence-stress \u2019. Applied Ergonomics , 36 , pp. 135 \u2013 144\r\nPeterson , C. ( 2000 ) \u2018 The future of optimism \u2019. American Psychologist , 55 ( 1 ), pp. 44 \u2013 55\r\nPeterson , C. , Seligman , M. E. P. and Vaillant , G. E. ( 1988 ) \u2018 Pessimistic explanatory style\r\nis a risk factor for physical illness: a thirty-fi ve year longitudinal study \u2019. Journal of\r\nPersonality and Social Psychology , 55 , pp. 23 \u2013 27\r\nPeterson , S. J. and Luthans , F. ( 2003 ) \u2018 The positive impact and development of hopeful\r\nleaders \u2019. Leadership and Organization Development Journal , 24 ( 1 ), pp. 26 \u2013 31\r\nPolkinghorne , D. E. ( 1995 ) \u2018 Narrative confi guration in qualitative analysis \u2019. Qualitative\r\nStudies in Education , 8 , pp. 5 \u2013 23\r\nReivich , K. and Gillham , J. ( 2003 ) Learned optimism: The measurement of explanatory\r\nstyle pp. 57 \u2013 74 in Lopez , S. J. and Snyder , C. R. (Eds.) Positive Psychological\r\nAssessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures . Washington, DC : American\r\nPsychological Association\r\nReivich , K. , Gillham , J. E. , Chaplin , T. M. and Seligman , M. E. P. ( 2013 ) \u2018From helplessness\r\nto optimism: The role of resilience in treating and preventing depression in youth\u2019\r\npp. 201 \u2013 214 in Goldstein , S. and Brooks , R. B. (Eds.) Handbook of Resilience in\r\nChildren . New York, NY : Springer\r\nRissa , K. ( 2007 ) Well-being Created Productivity: The Druvan Model . Helsinki : The\r\nCentre for Occupational Safety and the Finnish Work Environment Fund\r\nRosenthal , T. L. and Zimmerman , B. J. ( 1978 ) Social Learning and Cognition . New York,\r\nNY : Academic Press\r\nRubin , H. J. and Rubin , I. S. ( 1995 ) Qualitative Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data .\r\nThousand Oaks, CA : Sage\r\nRyan , R. M. and Deci , E. L. ( 2000a ) \u2018 Self-determination theory and the facilitation of\r\nintrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing \u2019. American Psychologist ,\r\n55 ( 1 ), pp. 68 \u2013 78\r\nRyan , R. M. and Deci , E. L. ( 2000b ) \u2018When rewards compete with nature: the undermining\r\nof intrinsic motivation and self-regulation\u2019 pp. 14 \u2013 54 in Sansone , C. and Harackiewicz ,\r\nJ. M. (Eds.) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. The Search for Optimal Motivation and\r\nPerformance . Thousand Oaks, CA : Academic Press\r\nSchaufeli , W. B. , Salanova , M. , Gonzalez-Roma , V. and Bakker , A. B. ( 2002 ) \u2018 The measurement\r\nof engagement and burnout: A two sample confi rmatory factor analytic\r\napproach \u2019. Journal of Happiness Studies , 3 , pp. 71 \u2013 92\r\nSchneider , S. L. ( 2001 ) \u2018 In search of realistic optimism. Meaning, knowledge, and warm\r\nfuzziness . American Psychologist , 56 ( 3 ), pp. 250 \u2013 263\r\nSchunk , D. H. and Pajares , F. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Competence perceptions and academic functioning \u2019\r\npp. 85 \u2013 104 in Elliot , A. J. and Dweck , C. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Competence and\r\nMotivation . New York and London : The Guilford Press\r\nSeligman , M. E. P. ( 1990 ) Learned Optimism . New York, NY : Knopf\r\nSeligman , M. E. P. ( 2002 ) Authentic Happiness . New York, NY : Free Press\r\nSeligman, M. E. P. , Steen, T. A. , Park, N. and Peterson, C. ( 2005) \u2018 Positive psychology progress.\r\nEmpirical validation of interventions \u2019. American Psychologist , 60( 5), pp. 410\u2013 421\r\n28 The theory: everyone can succeed at work\r\nShepperd , J. A. , Ouellette , J. A. and Fernandez , J. K . ( 1996 ) \u2018 Abandoning unrealistic optimism:\r\nPerformance estimates and the temporal proximity of self-relevant feedback \u2019.\r\nJournal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 ( 4 ), pp. 844 \u2013 855\r\nSpence Laschinger , H. K. , Finegan , J. E. , Shamian , J. and Wilk , P . ( 2004 ) \u2018 A longitudinal\r\nanalysis of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction \u2019. Journal of Organizational\r\nBehaviour , 25 , pp. 527 \u2013 545\r\nSternberg, R. ( 1986) \u2018 A triangular theory of love\u2019. Psychological Review , 93( 2), pp. 119\u2013 135\r\nSternberg , R. ( 1999 ) Love is a Story: A New Theory of Relationships . Oxford : Oxford\r\nUniversity Press\r\nStoltenberg , C. D. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Enhancing professional competence through developmental\r\napproaches to supervision \u2019. American Psychologist , 6 , pp. 857 \u2013 864\r\nTeddlie , C. and Tashakkori , A . ( 2003 ) \u2018 Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed\r\nmethods in the social and behavioral sciences \u2019 pp. 3 \u2013 50 in Tashakkori , A. and Teddlie ,\r\nC. (Eds). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &amp; Behavioral Research . Thousand\r\nOaks, CA : Sage\r\nTurner , N. , Barling , J. and Zacharatos , A. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Positive psychology at work \u2019 pp. 715 \u2013\r\n728 in Snyder , C. R. and Lopez , S. J. (Eds.) Handbook of Positive Psychology . Oxford :\r\nOxford University Press\r\nUusiautti , S. ( 2008 ) \u201cT\u00e4n\u00e4\u00e4n teen el\u00e4m\u00e4ni parhaan ty\u00f6n\u201d Ty\u00f6menestys Vuoden\r\nTy\u00f6ntekij\u00f6iden kertomana [\u2018Today, I\u2019ll work better than ever\u2019. Success at work\r\ndescribed by the Employees of the Year]. PhD Dissertation, University of Lapland,\r\nRovaniemi, Finland\r\nUusiautti , S. and M\u00e4\u00e4tt\u00e4 , K . ( 2011 ) \u2018 Love for work as the way towards wellbeing \u2019. Global\r\nJournal of Human Social Science , 11 ( 9 ), pp. 63 \u2013 68\r\nVarila , J. and Lehtosaari , K. ( 2001 ) Ty\u00f6nilo - Ahkeruudella ansaittua, sattuman synnytt\u00e4m\u00e4\u00e4\r\nvai oppivan organisaation vaatimaa? [Joy of work \u2013 earned by diligence, occurs\r\nby accident or required by learning organization?] . Joensuu : University of Joensuu\r\nWeiner , B. ( 1992 ) Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories and Research . Thousand\r\nOaks, CA : Sage\r\nWhite , R. W. ( 1959 ) \u2018 Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence \u2019. Psychological\r\nReview , 66 ( 5 ), pp. 297 \u2013 333\r\nYoussef , C. M. and Luthans , F . ( 2007 ) \u2018 Positive organizational behaviour in the workplace:\r\nthe impact of hope, optimism, and resilience \u2019. Journal of Management , 33 ( 5 ), pp.\r\n774 \u2013 800","rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3719\/2018\/10\/29155240\/Chapter-2.pdf\">Chapter 2<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Everyone can succeed at work!<\/p>\n<p><strong>Introduction<\/strong><br \/>\nAn interest in themes such as wellbeing, happiness, quality of life and positive<br \/>\nfeelings has become germane to positive psychology, a fi eld offering studies on<br \/>\nthe positive characteristics, feelings and strengths of individuals, and one that<br \/>\nalso seeks to identify the nature of institutions that promote and enhance such<br \/>\npositive attributes (Aspinwall and Staudinger 2006 ; Seligman et al. 2005 ). In this<br \/>\nchapter, we introduce the background of our studies and the main concepts used.<br \/>\nWe realise that there are numerous concepts that could describe the phenomenon<br \/>\nof success and that therefore there was a need for careful selection. What follows<br \/>\nis a brief discussion of some basic theories and concepts, as well as an introduction<br \/>\nto our empirical studies.<br \/>\nPositive psychology and success at work<br \/>\nFocus on the positive<br \/>\nGable and Haidt ( 2005 : 104) briefl y defi ne positive psychology in the following<br \/>\nterms: \u2018Positive psychology is the study of the conditions and processes that<br \/>\ncontribute to the fl ourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions\u2019.<br \/>\nThe aim of positive psychology is to study the reasons why people feel<br \/>\njoy, show altruism, and create healthy families and institutions. This focus has<br \/>\nbeen criticised because it concentrates on exploring normal and healthy activities<br \/>\ninstead of helping dysfunctional people with a variety of problems. On the other<br \/>\nhand, perhaps focusing on problems has taken attention away from studying why<br \/>\nthe majority of people are actually psychologically, physically and socially<br \/>\nhealthy \u2013 or happy, so to speak (Gable and Haidt 2005 ). Simply stated, a study<br \/>\non successful workers will provide hands-on and positively-toned information<br \/>\nabout success at work.<br \/>\nWe will connect the concept of success with an important research target of<br \/>\npositive psychology, namely, happiness. Research on happiness has also increasingly<br \/>\ntaken root. In order to understand why some people are happier, regardless<br \/>\nChapter 2<br \/>\nThe theoretical starting point<br \/>\nEveryone can succeed at work<br \/>\n6 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\nof the setbacks encountered, than others, we have to understand the cognitive and<br \/>\nmotivational processes that maintain and even increase happiness and positive<br \/>\nattitudes (Lyubomirsky 2001 ). Here, success at work is dissected from a positive<br \/>\nperspective.<br \/>\nPositive psychology is also interested in whether the lifespans of positively<br \/>\nbehaving people differ from those of others. If they do, what factors play a key<br \/>\nrole during the lifespans of strong and optimistic people, and how can these<br \/>\nfactors be recognised? These questions are essential to research on the experiences<br \/>\nof successful workers and in seeking to identify the factors that have<br \/>\ncontributed to their successful careers. An individual\u2019s differences are traditionally<br \/>\ncharacterised by achievements as opposed to the processes in which he or she<br \/>\ntakes part (see, for example, Feldt et al. 2005 ); the process of achieving success<br \/>\nat work seems extremely interesting when considered from this point of view.<br \/>\nWe will also place the phenomenon in context and acknowledge the individual,<br \/>\ncommunal and social dimensions of success. At the subjective level, positive<br \/>\npsychology concentrates on subjective experiences, wellbeing, satisfaction, fl ow,<br \/>\njoy, pleasure and happiness, as well as on optimistic and hopeful attitudes and<br \/>\nconfi dence in the future. At the group level, the interest is in the civic skills<br \/>\nand institutions that turn individuals into better citizens \u2013 responsible, fl exible and<br \/>\nethical workers (Seligman 2002 ).<br \/>\nTurner et al . ( 2002 ) have introduced the Healthy Work Model (HWM). This heuristic<br \/>\nmodel explains how to create healthy work systems. The model presents healthy<br \/>\nwork characteristics as good work practices, positive psychological processes and<br \/>\nmechanisms, as well as various health-related outcomes. Healthy work systems<br \/>\nrequire good external environments and develop strategies for good work practices<br \/>\n(for example, autonomy, teamwork and leadership) that enhance positive psychological<br \/>\nprocesses and other mechanisms (for example, trust, perceived control and<br \/>\norganisational commitment) in order to increase healthy outcomes (for example,<br \/>\nwellbeing and proactivity). Happiness not only produces a quantitative improvement<br \/>\nby increasing effi ciency but also a qualitative one by making a better product or<br \/>\noutcome on the basis of pride, belief and commitment to one\u2019s job.<br \/>\nPositive emotions and experiences<br \/>\nThe importance of experiencing positive emotions can be reasoned in a variety of<br \/>\nways. Diener et al . ( 2009 : 187) broadly defi ne subjective wellbeing as experiencing<br \/>\nhigh levels of pleasant emotions and moods, low levels of negative emotions<br \/>\nand moods, and high life satisfaction. If the experience of success is considered<br \/>\npositive, it may be one factor that also increases wellbeing. Experiences also<br \/>\nrelate to people\u2019s perception of them. \u2018Moods and emotions, which together are<br \/>\nlabeled affect, represent people\u2019s on-line evaluations of the events that occur in<br \/>\ntheir lives\u2019 (Diener et al. 1999 : 277). For example, Fredrickson\u2019s ( 1998 ) broadenand-<br \/>\nbuild model of positive emotions explains why the propensity to experience<br \/>\npositive emotions has evolved into a ubiquitous feature of human nature and how<br \/>\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 7<br \/>\npositive emotions might be tapped to promote individual and collective wellbeing<br \/>\nand health. Positive emotions serve as markers of fl ourishing or optimal wellbeing<br \/>\n(Fredrickson 2001 ), and research on experiences can be useful for measuring<br \/>\nwellbeing (Kahneman et al. 2004 ; Kahneman and Krueger 2006 ).<br \/>\nFredrickson ( 2001 ) considers pride as a distinct positive emotion that follows<br \/>\npersonal achievements. In order to feel pride one has to succeed; in other words,<br \/>\none must experience success. Likewise, Lyubomirsky et al . ( 2005 ) claim that<br \/>\npositive affect or regard engenders success; positive emotions signify that one\u2019s<br \/>\nlife is going well and goals are being met.<br \/>\nTherefore, goals are also important for the emergence of the experience of<br \/>\nsuccess; the types of goals one has, the structure of one\u2019s goals, the success with<br \/>\nwhich one is able to attain one\u2019s goals, and the rate of progress toward one\u2019s goals<br \/>\ncan all potentially affect one\u2019s emotions and life satisfaction. The general conceptual<br \/>\nmodel is that people react in positive ways when they make progress toward<br \/>\ngoals and react negatively when they fail to achieve goals. Thus, a central idea is<br \/>\nthat goals serve as an important reference standard for the affect system (Diener<br \/>\net al. 1999 ).<br \/>\nPositive feelings and experiences support problem-solving skills and the ability<br \/>\nto operate in an innovative way. The importance and potential of this may seem<br \/>\nsurprising, as feelings of happiness are simple and common in nature (Isen 2006 ).<br \/>\nConsidering the issue in the context of work, there are such interesting and useful<br \/>\nconcepts as work engagement (referring to work drive) (see Hakanen 2002 ;<br \/>\nHakanen et al . 2008 ; Schaufeli et al . 2002 ), fl ow (Csikszentmihalyi 2008 ;<br \/>\nCsikszentmihalyi et al . 2005 ), and joy of work (Varila and Lehtosaari 2001 ). All<br \/>\nthese concepts describe a positive feeling toward work that one may experience<br \/>\nafter active, motivated and engaged working, and which we will discuss in detail<br \/>\nlater in this book. According to Isen ( 2001 ; see also Isen and Reeve 2006 ), positive<br \/>\nfeelings sustain intrinsic motivation and help with successfully performing<br \/>\npleasing work tasks and new challenges as well as enjoying them. However, this<br \/>\ndoes not mean that one would not accomplish less interesting tasks any less<br \/>\nresponsibly. These concepts help with understanding the kinds of actions that<br \/>\nmay lead to the experience of success. But fi rst we look at a favorable way of<br \/>\nachieving success, namely, optimism.<br \/>\nOptimism<br \/>\nOptimism is one of the core concepts of positive psychology (Peterson 2000 ) and<br \/>\naffects how people pursue goals; if they believe their goals are achievable, they<br \/>\nare optimistic (Carver and Scheier 2002 ). This is why the concept of optimism is<br \/>\noften confused with hope. Gillham and Reivich ( 2004 ) explain that the difference<br \/>\nbetween these two concepts is that hope is often defi ned as a wish for something<br \/>\nwith some expectation that it will happen, while optimism is typically defi ned as<br \/>\na tendency or disposition to expect the best. Thus, hope typically refers to<br \/>\nexpectations in a specifi c situation, while optimism refers to general expectations.<br \/>\n8 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\nPeterson and Luthans ( 2003 ) consider optimism a vital part of hope, but emphasise<br \/>\nthat they still are distinctively separate concepts.<br \/>\nOptimism therefore determines how we experience events. The author of The<br \/>\nHappiness Advantage , Shawn Achor ( 2010 : 109), develops a remarkable notion:<br \/>\n\u2018By scanning our mental map for positive opportunities, and by rejecting the<br \/>\nbelief that every down in life leads us only further downward, we give ourselves<br \/>\nthe greatest power possible\u2019. This means that people have a habitual way of<br \/>\nexplaining events (Peterson 2000 ; Peterson et al . 1988 ).<br \/>\nPeterson ( 2000 ) suggests that instead of clinging to a pessimistic explanatory<br \/>\nstyle, an optimistic one deserves more attention. Furthermore, he separates \u2018little<br \/>\noptimism\u2019 from \u2018big optimism\u2019 as optimism may function differently depending<br \/>\non the level. Little optimism seems to be connected to concrete events, and this<br \/>\nis also interesting from the point of view of the experiences of success. Big optimism<br \/>\nprovides a general state, \u2018vigor\u2019 (see also Pajares 2001 ), whereas little<br \/>\noptimism leads to desirable outcomes in concrete situations (Peterson 2000 ).<br \/>\nOptimism is shown to be connected to higher life satisfaction, health, perseverance,<br \/>\nand resilience, whereas pessimism has connection to depression (Reivich<br \/>\nand Gillham 2003 ; Reivich et al. 2013 ). Still, like too much pessimism, too much<br \/>\noptimism is also likely to be harmful. Optimism and pessimism are also closely<br \/>\nrelated to the phenomenon of \u2018learned helplessness\u2019. Seligman ( 1990 ) observed<br \/>\nthat individuals who were exposed to uncontrollable negative events often overgeneralised<br \/>\nfrom this experience and became passive in other situations that were,<br \/>\nin fact, controllable. He also discovered that the behaviour can be turned the other<br \/>\nway round too, into \u2018learned hopefulness\u2019 or, in other words, \u2018learned optimism\u2019.<br \/>\nDispositional optimism refers to a general tendency to expect positive outcomes,<br \/>\nand these positive expectations can partly result from the individual\u2019s belief that<br \/>\nhe or she can control good outcomes (Gillham and Reivich 2004 ).<br \/>\nIt has also been argued that the best results in life can be achieved with \u2018realistic<br \/>\noptimism\u2019 (see Schneider 2001 ). Realistic optimism involves enhancing and<br \/>\nfocusing on the favorable aspects of our experiences. Consequently, Schneider<br \/>\n( 2001 : 253) includes the awareness of reality in optimism by stating that \u2018realistic<br \/>\noptimism involves hoping, aspiring, and searching for positive experiences while<br \/>\nacknowledging what we do not know and accepting what we cannot know\u2019. It is<br \/>\nworth noticing that realistic, positive expectations closely relate to self-awareness<br \/>\nand self-knowledge as well as to the concept of self-effi cacy, which refers to an<br \/>\nexpectation that one\u2019s behaviour will be effective (Bandura 1997 ). We will<br \/>\ndiscuss these factors in greater detail later in this chapter. When considering the<br \/>\nphenomenon of success at work, realistic optimism may be particularly important<br \/>\nas it can considerably predict the likelihood of achieving future goals and plans.<br \/>\nP eople strive for success<br \/>\nAccording to Krueger ( 1990 ), success can be considered the fullest expression of<br \/>\nmastery in any area of life. However, the concept is not that easily approachable; for<br \/>\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 9<br \/>\ninstance, what factors form the elements of success? To begin constructing the<br \/>\ndefi nition of success at work, the fi rst step is to think about and choose between<br \/>\ncertain psychological concepts that foster positive emotions, and that are acquired<br \/>\nthrough feelings of mastery and inner drive, which perhaps form the core of success.<br \/>\nIndeed, there are numerous theories that explain the connection between mastery<br \/>\nand performance that can be viewed from the point of view of success. Psychological<br \/>\nresearch is replete with concepts that defi ne human action, motives, as well as the<br \/>\noutcomes of these, which can all be seen as manifestations of mastery and performance;<br \/>\nbut the suggestion here is that their common nominator, the umbrella term,<br \/>\ncould be success.<br \/>\nNaturally, there are also external factors that infl uence all the aforementioned<br \/>\nstates and behaviours. For example, encouraging learning environments, loving<br \/>\nparents or supportive workplaces are likely to enhance one\u2019s success, while underestimating,<br \/>\noppressive or unstable environments are likely to hinder such positive<br \/>\ndevelopment. Therefore, this review will include a perspective on the individual<br \/>\nperson\u2019s success as always context-bound. What follows is a detailed introduction<br \/>\nof these concepts. They are partly overlapping and interconnected; in other words,<br \/>\nthey complement each other and coalesce in such a way as to form the heart of<br \/>\nsuccess.<br \/>\nSuccess is about competence<br \/>\nOriginally, White ( 1959 ) utilised the concept of competence to describe a<br \/>\nperson\u2019s ability to perform effi ciently in his or her environment. In order to do<br \/>\nthat, one\u2019s development must be seen as the acquisition of greater competence,<br \/>\nand the subjective side of competence is the sense of competence. Deci and<br \/>\nMoller ( 2005 ) view the concept from the perspective of motivation psychology<br \/>\nand have complemented White\u2019s thoughts by adding the need for competence as<br \/>\none dimension of competence. The term \u2018intrinsic motivation\u2019 refers to this need.<br \/>\nDeci and Ryan ( 2008 ) have later shown that autonomous motivation predicts<br \/>\npersistence and adherence and is advantageous for effective performance.<br \/>\nFurthermore, this is shown to be related to psychological health.<br \/>\nAdler ( 1982 ) is credited with an early defi nition of the elements of competence,<br \/>\nwhich provides a good way of analysing the multidimensional nature of the<br \/>\nconcept. Perhaps the most important element of an individual\u2019s competence is the<br \/>\nability to perform the social roles that the community and society have set for<br \/>\neach and every one of us. The second element is self-conception. A competent<br \/>\nperson has a stable and well-developed identity that includes awareness of his or<br \/>\nher strengths and weaknesses, an optimistic conception of the relationship with<br \/>\nthe surrounding world, and a realistic understanding of his or her abilities to<br \/>\ncontrol his or her destiny. The third element consists of interaction skills, which<br \/>\ninclude communication, credibility and reliability, sensitivity and empathy, and<br \/>\nnegotiation skills. The fourth element is the ability to regulate emotions, especially<br \/>\nthe negative ones such as fear, frustration, anger and guilt, and to learn to<br \/>\n10 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\nrecognise and control inappropriate reactions to these emotions. The fi fth dimension<br \/>\nof competence is the ability to develop and move from one developmental<br \/>\nstage to another. The sixth element refers to the ability to cope with stressful<br \/>\nexperiences, life crises and other events that one cannot prevent or infl uence. The<br \/>\nseventh element is the ability to acquire the resources that one needs in order to<br \/>\nget through a certain phase.<br \/>\nThe last element of competence is cognitive skills, that is, the ability to work<br \/>\nwith words, concepts, symbols and to process information. Causal thinking and<br \/>\nplanning, as well as understanding of social reality and social problem-solving<br \/>\nskills, are important areas of competence (Adler 1982 ).<br \/>\nCompetence is also related to how people perceive their control over the<br \/>\nactivities and tasks they undertake (for example, Paulsson et al . 2005 ). Karasek\u2019s<br \/>\n(see Karasek and Theorell 1990 ) model of work-control shows that in situations<br \/>\nin which people have a high-strain job with high demands and low control, they<br \/>\ncannot meet challenges effi ciently. On the other hand, while a low-strain job with<br \/>\nlow demands and high control enables optimal responses to challenges, it is not<br \/>\nlikely to bring about satisfaction or wellbeing. A passive job has low control and<br \/>\nlow mental strain and people can feel that their skills and abilities are misspent<br \/>\nand not optimally utilised. A state of indifference and lack of challenges can<br \/>\nexpand to other areas of life as people lose the courage to develop and test their<br \/>\nskills. In active jobs, people have a signifi cant amount of mental strain but also<br \/>\nhigh control. They can utilise their abilities, which may, for example, lead to the<br \/>\nexperience of total concentration and absorption, i.e., \u2018fl ow\u2019 (Csikszentmihalyi<br \/>\n2008 ; Csikszentmihalyi et al . 2005 ).<br \/>\nWhen considered from the point of view of success, competence combined<br \/>\nwith opportunities to actively use skills and strengths \u2013 whether at work, in<br \/>\nleisure, at school, in parenting, etc. \u2013 could be one of the core elements of<br \/>\nsuccess. Naturally, it is also about the person himself or herself and whether he<br \/>\nor she is ready to seize challenges.<br \/>\nSuccess is about motivation<br \/>\nThe role of motivation has already been mentioned in the previous section as one<br \/>\nof the core elements of competence. Indeed, motivation is also a crucial element<br \/>\nof success. Fundamentally, motivation can be considered a critical factor in any<br \/>\ntheory attempting to predict and explain behaviour and performance (Mitchell<br \/>\n1997 ). The ability to predict, understand and infl uence employees\u2019 motivation has<br \/>\nincreased markedly, and modern psychological studies try to pay attention to<br \/>\nwork motivation in a comprehensive manner (Latham and Pinder 2005 ).<br \/>\nActually, it is quite easy to list various obvious reasons why people work in the<br \/>\nfi rst place: work provides your daily bread, it activates and stimulates, it is a<br \/>\nsource of social contacts, it is a way of structuring one\u2019s time management, and<br \/>\nit can also be rewarding (Furnham 1992 ). These factors do not, however, say<br \/>\nmuch about the motivation that lies behind the foundation of true success at work.<br \/>\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 11<br \/>\nAccording to Eccles and Wigfi eld ( 2002 ; see also Campbell and Pritchard<br \/>\n1976 ), success can be discussed from four theoretical dimensions related to motivation.<br \/>\nFirst, many theories (such as Bandura 1997 ) focus on individual employees\u2019<br \/>\nbelief in their talents and effi ciency, the likelihood of success or failure, and<br \/>\nthe sense of being able to control their work results. All this starts from the question<br \/>\n\u2018Can I handle this task?\u2019 When people are aware of their talents, they actually<br \/>\ndo perform better and are more willing to seize new challenges.<br \/>\nThe second theoretical viewpoint is based on engagement, which has not been<br \/>\nconsidered in the theories of personal beliefs. Even if people knew that they could<br \/>\nsuccessfully perform a task, they would not necessarily have a compelling need<br \/>\nto do it (Eccles and Wigfi eld 2002 ) \u2013 in other words, they may not be interested<br \/>\nin it. Many recent studies have shown, for example, how the sense of meaningful<br \/>\nwork, brought on by power and responsibility, can enable employees to become<br \/>\nengaged in their work. The worker becomes like an entrepreneur; through<br \/>\nengagement, he or she takes success as his or her goal. Engagement theories, in<br \/>\nother words theories answering the question \u2018why\u2019, include intrinsic motivation<br \/>\ntheories and goal theories (see, for example, Deci et al. 1991 ; Latham and Pinder<br \/>\n2005 ). The benefi ts of this kind of positive approach are clear; it leads to greater<br \/>\npersistence, greater fl exibility in strategies to reach a goal, greater creativity in<br \/>\nsolutions, better outcomes, and higher subjective wellbeing (Schneider 2001 ).<br \/>\nIntrinsic motivation describes the need to learn new things and skills and to<br \/>\ndevelop toward greater autonomy, competence and self-determination. It also<br \/>\nincludes the structure of personality and the development of motivation. Action<br \/>\nthat is intrinsically motivated is experience valued as such. Action has an intrinsic<br \/>\nattribution and, thus, it does not threaten the feeling of autonomy, thereby leading<br \/>\nto satisfaction and positive experiences. Moreover, intrinsic motivation is not<br \/>\nregulated by extrinsic rewards or punishments, but doing becomes self-purposeful<br \/>\n(Ryan and Deci 2000a, 2000b).<br \/>\nThe positive experience connected to motivation and doing is worthy of further<br \/>\ninvestigation. For example, in the 1990s, Locke and Latham ( 1990 ) introduced a<br \/>\ntheory in which they combined work motivation and work satisfaction and called<br \/>\nthe model the \u2018high performance cycle\u2019. The cycle starts by giving an employee<br \/>\na challenging task. If the challenge includes an expectation of success, high<br \/>\nperformance is guaranteed, assuming that the employee is engaged in the goal,<br \/>\nreceives adequate feedback, and situational factors do not considerably affect<br \/>\nperformance. Similar fi ndings have resulted from various educational experiments<br \/>\n(for example, Gilpin 2008 ; Green et al. 2012 ; Oades et al. 2011 ) and<br \/>\nhobbies (for example, Carruthers and Hood 2005 ).<br \/>\nThirdly, there are theories that combine expectations and value constructs (for<br \/>\nexample, Weiner 1992 ). Expectation value refers to an evaluation of the outcome<br \/>\nof action and the likelihood of achieving the outcome (Mitchell 1997 ). These<br \/>\ntheories are based on the idea that employees are more interested in the outcomes<br \/>\nof work than working itself (Eccles and Wigfi eld 2002 ). In addition to achievements<br \/>\nand related outcomes, the goal or the benefi t value can be appreciation and<br \/>\n12 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\nbetter self-esteem. For example, Covington\u2019s ( 1992 : 74) self-worth theory<br \/>\nsupposes that \u2018individuals are thought to be only as worthy as their achievements\u2019.<br \/>\nExpectation value also includes an assessment of the instrumentality<br \/>\nbetween the fundamental goal (for example the performance) and the secondary<br \/>\noutcome (for example salary or promotion), and of the valence of these<br \/>\nsecondary outcomes (Mitchell 1997 ).<br \/>\nTheories that combine motivation and cognition (for example, Rosenthal<br \/>\nand Zimmerman 1978 ) provide a different perspective on success because they<br \/>\nare interested in an individual\u2019s ways of regulating his or her behaviour and<br \/>\nusing cognitive strategies in order to achieve his or her goals (Eccles and<br \/>\nWigfi eld 2002 ).<br \/>\nMitchell ( 1997 ) has presented a useful theory of work motivation that deserves<br \/>\na closer look. According to his interpretation, work motivation includes various<br \/>\ncomponents such as, for example, needs, goals, expectations, fairness, rewards,<br \/>\nsocial infl uences and work description. He lists seven features that can explain a<br \/>\nhigh motivation level in a work situation: the situation has to (1) correspond to<br \/>\nthe employee\u2019s needs, (2) involve goals, (3) reward for a good performance, (4)<br \/>\nbe fair and equal, (5) include stimulating tasks, (6) involve colleagues who also<br \/>\nwork diligently, and (7) have an accepting atmosphere with an emphasis on hard<br \/>\nwork and engagement. The employee responds to the work situation with his or<br \/>\nher skills, knowledge, goals, values and mood, whereas the work context includes<br \/>\nthe work task, colleagues, work environment and culture. When added together,<br \/>\nthese categories can infl uence motivation. Motivation, together with abilities,<br \/>\nwork knowledge and context-bound factors, leads to behaviour, which again<br \/>\nleads to performance \u2013 one of the cornerstones in considerations of success.<br \/>\nMitchell ( 1997 ) emphasises that all theories that attempt to describe performance,<br \/>\nwhether they are belief, goal, effi ciency or expectation value theories,<br \/>\nshare certain features. Goals describe what we want to do, self-effi cacy describes<br \/>\nwhat we think we can do and expectations describe our best evaluation of the<br \/>\nconsequences our action can have. All these infl uence motivation, either directly<br \/>\nor indirectly, and are also connected to effort, attention, persistence and<br \/>\nstrategies.<br \/>\nSuccess is about good performance<br \/>\nPerformance is often confused with its neighbouring concepts such as competence,<br \/>\nbehaviour or action. It is crucial to realise the differences between them.<br \/>\nPerformance is the result of behaviour; it is something measurable and comparable,<br \/>\nand a clearly defi nable result. This idea is based on the fi nding that positive<br \/>\nexperiences concerning one\u2019s own doing make for one of the most central dimensions<br \/>\nof good performance (Uusiautti 2008 ; Uusiautti and M\u00e4\u00e4tt\u00e4 2011 ; see also<br \/>\nLiden et al . 2000 ). It is important to analyse some of the core concepts that might<br \/>\nhelp with an understanding of the positive experience of doing. Competence,<br \/>\nindeed, is often confused with performance, but they are not synonymous (Kanfer<br \/>\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 13<br \/>\nand Ackerman 2005 ). Competence refers to a more stable state or to a person\u2019s<br \/>\ncharacteristic. Performance is a momentary happening and can vary according to<br \/>\nmany factors, even if competence is high in relation to the task at hand.<br \/>\nKanfer and Ackerman ( 2005 ) distinguish two dimensions of performance:<br \/>\nmaximal and typical performance. The former refers to a person\u2019s skills and<br \/>\nabilities and describes all that the person can do when inner states (for example,<br \/>\nsleep, concentration, etc.) are optimal and when it is possible to concentrate on<br \/>\nthe task. The latter dimension is typical behaviour, which refers to how the person<br \/>\nusually does things or how he or she is likely to perform. The researchers point<br \/>\nout that although maximal performance is an interesting research target, it would<br \/>\nperhaps be more benefi cial to pay attention to the difference between what the<br \/>\nperson can do and what he or she actually does. In Kanfer and Ackerman\u2019s ( 2005 )<br \/>\nmodel, performance consists of various factors, namely, abilities, skills and<br \/>\nknowledge, personality, motivation and self-image. Motivation is affected by<br \/>\npersonal interest and general motivational tendencies. Performance lays the foundation<br \/>\nfor a learning mechanism that is connected to features that increase<br \/>\ncompetence (see also Stoltenberg 2005 ).<br \/>\nThe concept of self-effi cacy is also closely related to competence and performance.<br \/>\nSelf-effi cacy means a person\u2019s assessment of his or her own abilities to<br \/>\nuse his or her resources and to regulate his or her behaviour in order to perform<br \/>\na task (Caprara and Cervone 2006 ; Judge et al . 1997 ; Mitchell 1997 ). It is therefore<br \/>\nsimilar to the aforementioned sense of competence. It has been shown that<br \/>\npositive self-effi cacy improves a person\u2019s performance and wellbeing in numerous<br \/>\nways (Schunk and Pajares 2005 ). People who have high self-effi cacy devote<br \/>\nmore to their activities and persevere more than those who estimate that their<br \/>\ncompetence is weaker. In addition, people with high self-effi cacy are likely to<br \/>\nselect more high-level goals and engage in them (Bandura 1997 ; Mitchell 1997 ).<br \/>\nHigh self-effi cacy, as the manifestation of accurate recognition of one\u2019s skills and<br \/>\nabilities, is also related to how optimistically and realistically one can estimate<br \/>\none\u2019s performances (Shepperd et al . 1996 ).<br \/>\nWork engagement \u2013 referring to work drive \u2013 can be used to describe wellbeing<br \/>\nand positive experiences at work. Schaufeli et al . ( 2002 ) have defi ned work<br \/>\nengagement as a positive, fulfi lling, work-related state of mind that includes three<br \/>\nsub-scales: vigor, dedication and absorption. Vigor refers to high levels of energy<br \/>\nand willingness to work well in typical and in challenging, confl ict-fi lled situations.<br \/>\nIt could be described as the feeling of \u2018bursting with energy\u2019 when working.<br \/>\nDedication refers to having experiences such as appreciation for your work<br \/>\nand being fi lled with enthusiasm and inspiration. Absorption refers to having a<br \/>\ndeep focus on work and the pleasure that follows the completion of work (see also<br \/>\nHakanen 2002 ; Hakanen et al . 2008 ).<br \/>\nWork engagement, when understood from this defi nition, is similar to the<br \/>\nconcept of fl ow (see Csikszentmihalyi 2008 ). Flow is a subjective state of feeling<br \/>\ncontrol \u2013 or, better yet, feeling that you can act without any control, without<br \/>\nhindrance (Csikszentmihalyi et al . 2005 ). According to Gardner et al . ( 2001 ),<br \/>\n14 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\ncontrary to common belief, fl ow is more often experienced at work than in<br \/>\nleisure. Furthermore, features such as gender and cultural norms affect the experience<br \/>\nof fl ow. However, here, the focus is on the experience of fl ow at work.<br \/>\nFlow at work is usually experienced when goals are high and feedback is immediate<br \/>\nand fair. In addition, the work itself has to include continuous challenges<br \/>\nthat match employees\u2019 skills. Nevertheless, fl ow is a temporary feeling, whereas<br \/>\nwork engagement is a more stable and comprehensive state that does not<br \/>\nfocus on any particular task, behaviour, or individual. Flow is equivalent to<br \/>\nabsorption from the sub-scales of work engagement (Csikszentmihalyi 2008 ;<br \/>\nHakanen 2002 ).<br \/>\nSuccess is about positive strategies<br \/>\nAlthough top performances or steady, quality performance can lead to success, it<br \/>\ncan also be seen as a more comprehensive process. Namely, people who want to<br \/>\ndevelop and seize opportunities in life can be seen as following a positive strategy.<br \/>\nThis is an interesting perspective on the phenomenon of success. Carver and<br \/>\nScheier ( 2005 ) have pointed out that it is also important that people realise when<br \/>\ngoals can be met and when it is time to give up. Ultimately, it is about the ability<br \/>\nto estimate the situation and act accordingly. Likewise, future expectations<br \/>\ngreatly affect how people react to changes and challenges. An optimistic attitude<br \/>\nplays a salient role (Carver and Scheier 2002 ), however, the strategy of success<br \/>\ncan also be described in other ways.<br \/>\nFor example, Locke ( 2002 ) claims that success requires persistent trials. One<br \/>\nhas to think about what a desirable goal is and why, what kinds of intermediate<br \/>\ngoals should be set, how to reach the goal, how to prioritise demands that are<br \/>\ncontradictory in relation to the goal, how to overcome future obstacles and<br \/>\nsetbacks \u2013 how to achieve a dream?<br \/>\nBaltes and Freund ( 2006 ; see also Freund and Baltes 1998 ) refer to the SOC<br \/>\nmodel, which provides a general framework for understanding developmental<br \/>\nchange and resilience across one\u2019s lifespan. The fundamental idea is that people\u2019s<br \/>\nlives are awash opportunities and limitations that can be \u2018mastered adaptively as<br \/>\nan orchestration of three components: selection, optimization, and compensation\u2019<br \/>\n(Freund and Baltes 1998 : 531) \u2013 SOC.<br \/>\nOn the other hand, Covey ( 2006 ) considers success as a strategy in which<br \/>\nknowledge, skills and will are combined. Knowledge answers the question of<br \/>\nwhat to do and why. Skills can make it happen whereas will is synonymous with<br \/>\nmotivation or the need to achieve something. As these three dimensions meet, a<br \/>\nstrategy leading to success can emerge.<br \/>\nNaturally, the constant pursuit of success can lead to an endless treadmill. The<br \/>\ntheory of the hedonic treadmill (see Brickman et al . 1978 ; Diener et al . 2006 )<br \/>\nclaims that people constantly strive for a happier life because they believe that<br \/>\ngreater happiness awaits right around the corner from achieving the next goal or<br \/>\nsolving the next problem. Success is there but not yet achieved.<br \/>\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 15<br \/>\nSuccess happens in context<br \/>\nEven though one possessed the most exquisite level of competence and high<br \/>\nmotivation, one is still tied to a certain time and place. Behaviour depends on<br \/>\ncontext and outcome. In addition, contexts are dynamic and change during an<br \/>\nindividual\u2019s lifespan (Baltes and Freund 2006 ). However, according to selfdetermination<br \/>\ntheory (SDT), people are by nature active and self-motivated, curious<br \/>\nand interested, vital and eager to succeed because success itself is personally<br \/>\nsatisfying and rewarding (Deci and Ryan 2008 ).<br \/>\nContext-bound factors can be viewed from two perspectives: fi rst, there is the<br \/>\nactual work context; second, an employee\u2019s personal development always<br \/>\nhappens in context. The actual work context always infl uences work motivation<br \/>\nand the ways that employees perceive and experience their work. Considered<br \/>\nfrom the point of view of success, certain features, such as interesting or challenging<br \/>\nwork, could be keys.<br \/>\nNotwithstanding, there are several characterisations of work. In the 1970s,<br \/>\nKaufman ( 1974 ) noticed that work-related challenges were also positively correlated<br \/>\nwith work performance, professional expertise and competence later in<br \/>\none\u2019s career. Ever since, researchers have agreed that work involving the right<br \/>\namount of challenges can increase productivity and motivation. In addition to<br \/>\nchallenges, work outcomes should somehow be measurable or recognisable (by<br \/>\nothers too). Moreover, responsibility and opportunities for self-development<br \/>\nboost motivation, satisfaction and engagement (see, for example, Almost and<br \/>\nSpence Laschinger 2002 ; Spence Laschinger et al . 2004 ) and, according to<br \/>\nLaubach ( 2005 ), these features are best realisable in informal organisations in<br \/>\nwhich employers can offer autonomy, fl exible schedules and an opportunity to<br \/>\nparticipate in decision-making.<br \/>\nIndeed, good performances and motivated working not only depend on the<br \/>\nemployee but also on the contents of work and the conditions in the workplace<br \/>\n(Latham and Pinder 2005 ). On the other hand, there are also different kinds of<br \/>\njobs and, for example, in monotonous or predictable jobs, autonomy is not likely<br \/>\nto be a very important feature.<br \/>\nHackman and Oldham ( 1976 ) have defi ned three core dimensions of work,<br \/>\nnamely, autonomy, the nature of tasks, feedback, the signifi cance of tasks and the<br \/>\nselection of required skills. These dimensions infl uence three psychological states:<br \/>\nthe experience of the importance of the work, responsibility over the results and<br \/>\nawareness of the real consequences of the work. The fundamental idea is that an<br \/>\nemployee, for example John, will perceive his work positively if he knows that he<br \/>\nhas performed well in a task he considered important. John\u2019s personal need for<br \/>\ngrowth speaks to how powerfully he reacts to the psychological states. Thus, the<br \/>\ndimensions of work and psychological states have impact on both individual and<br \/>\nwork outcomes; these are high work motivation, high performances at work and<br \/>\nhigh work satisfaction, and little absenteeism and turnover of workers.<br \/>\nAs a matter of fact, jobs that require high performance, without the attendance<br \/>\nof negative psychological strain, offer good opportunities for controlling one\u2019s<br \/>\n16 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\nwork, allow employees to utilise their skills and provide the scope to develop and<br \/>\nlearn new skills. Karasek and Theorell ( 1990 ) call them \u2018active jobs\u2019. We think<br \/>\nthat active jobs can present an opportunity for success but, naturally, it is also a<br \/>\nmatter for an employee himself or herself and whether he or she is ready to seize<br \/>\nthe opportunities provided by an active job.<br \/>\nThis leads us back to the individual. Moving from a particular work context to<br \/>\na wider perspective on success requires an acknowledgement of interactions with<br \/>\nthe surrounding environment in one\u2019s positive development. Every one of us has<br \/>\na personal history; we have not become like this in the wink of an eye, and we<br \/>\ntake our entire background with us to the workplace. Some of us have learned to<br \/>\nperceive challenges positively, while others tend to stick to the familiar.<br \/>\nDevelopment, including positive development, always happens in context.<br \/>\nMagnusson and Mahoney ( 2006 ) present four theses on the nature of phenomena<br \/>\nwhen dissecting positive development, all of which can also be relevant for<br \/>\nthe conceptualisation of success. First, the individual acts and develops as an<br \/>\nactive, intentional part of the integrated, multidimensional, dynamic and adaptive<br \/>\nperson-environment system. The nature of this system changes along one\u2019s lifespan<br \/>\nthrough developmental processes, societal changes and as a result of constant<br \/>\nindividual-environment interaction processes. Second, the individual develops<br \/>\nalong the course of time as an integrated, undivided organism within a multidimensional,<br \/>\ndynamic, adaptive, maturing and learning process. This interaction<br \/>\nprocess involves mental, biological and behavioural factors of the individual and<br \/>\nsocial, cultural and physical features of the environment. Third, the preconditions<br \/>\nprovided by the environment, including the possibilities, limitations, demands<br \/>\nand expectations, are especially important for research on positive development.<br \/>\nFourth is the theoretical model that aims to explain that a human being\u2019s positive<br \/>\ndevelopment has to include and integrate his or her mental, biological and behavioural<br \/>\naspects as well as the physical, social and cultural features of this individual\u2019s<br \/>\nenvironment (Magnusson and Mahoney 2006 ).<br \/>\nThese viewpoints felicitously highlight the basic idea of positive development<br \/>\nfrom the point of view of success. Positive development cannot be defi ned without<br \/>\nreferring to the individual but merely that attention must be paid to natural<br \/>\nfeatures, resources and limitations within his or her cultural, physical and historical<br \/>\ncontext (Magnusson and Mahoney 2006 ).<br \/>\nWhat this means is that success, when considered from this positive point of<br \/>\nview, also needs to be seen in context. First, the processes have a holistic nature that<br \/>\nmeans that success is merely a result of the functional interaction of its elements<br \/>\nrather than how each element infl uences entity. Second, the inner processes, such<br \/>\nas mental, biological and behavioural functions, and outer processes, such as opportunities,<br \/>\nobligations and rules, and how well these processes are synchronised,<br \/>\ncontribute to the possibility of success.<br \/>\nIt is therefore relevant to ask whether the lifespans of positively acting people<br \/>\ndiffer from those of others and, if they do, how. Basically, the discussion of the<br \/>\nphenomenon of success seeks to analyse how it can be enhanced, the ways of<br \/>\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 17<br \/>\nconceptualising it as positive development and, most importantly, it opens up<br \/>\ndiscussion on how the elements can be recognised. The next chapters will sink<br \/>\nsome teeth into this interesting matter.<br \/>\nTop workers: who are they?<br \/>\nWe have now introduced the fundamental ideas directing our research on success.<br \/>\nBut how do they appear in practice, if at all? Understood as the result of an inner<br \/>\ndrive to work well and as an expression of mastery, success is an indication of<br \/>\npositive attitudes and wellbeing at work. Given such a defi nition, everyone has an<br \/>\nequal chance to succeed at work; in other words, more people would be considered<br \/>\nsuccessful.<br \/>\nExperience has already shown that healthier and more satisfi ed employees<br \/>\nwork better (Rissa 2007 ). However, not everyone\u2019s goal of success at work is the<br \/>\nsame, and a variety of motivating factors can be recognised. One may aim to earn<br \/>\na living, the another\u2019s goal may be to achieve top expertise in his or her professional<br \/>\nfi eld, to enhance the quality of life, or to strive for a personally signifi cant<br \/>\nlong-term goal (Locke 2002 ) \u2013 not to mention that success is experienced<br \/>\nsubjectively and that personal achievements are evaluated in different ways<br \/>\n(Maddux 2002 ).<br \/>\nThe purpose of this book is to introduce the positive sides of work: how you<br \/>\ncan not only manage your work life, but also succeed. We will introduce our<br \/>\nempirical research on the phenomenon. Although we take a specifi c viewpoint of<br \/>\nsuccess, it is not very straightforward to fi nd suitable people to represent top<br \/>\nworkers. How do you defi ne whether someone has achieved success at work or<br \/>\nnot? Who can defi ne this?<br \/>\nHow to study success at work?<br \/>\nAs referenced in the introduction to this book, we considered any employee in<br \/>\nany occupation as having the chance to succeed. However, in order to fi nd the top<br \/>\nworkers, we could not just go into workplaces to interview employees. Instead,<br \/>\nwe decided to contact workers who had received a top-worker award in their<br \/>\nfi eld. Every now and then in Finland \u2013 and we know that the same is true for<br \/>\nnumerous other countries \u2013 people are selected as excellent workers in their<br \/>\nspecifi c fi elds.<br \/>\nThe main research on which this book is based included participants who<br \/>\nrepresented top workers from different occupations (see Uusiautti 2008 ). Each<br \/>\nparticipant was nominated \u2018Employee of the Year\u2019 by Finnish labour unions as<br \/>\nmost Finnish workers are members of a labour union in their respective fi elds.<br \/>\nThese top workers were considered representatives of successful workers and<br \/>\nsuitable informants for describing their experiences of success at work. The selection<br \/>\nof successful employees was not done by the researchers, thereby ensuring<br \/>\nthat there was public justifi cation for selecting the participants. The criteria for<br \/>\n18 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\nthe award of \u2018Employee of the Year\u2019 were gathered for the 20 occupations from<br \/>\nwhich the participants were chosen (examples of these professions include fi elds<br \/>\nsuch as psychology, policing, teaching, etc.). The criteria were mostly found on<br \/>\nthe internet, but some of them were obtained through email inquiries to the labour<br \/>\nunions.<br \/>\nWe will now briefl y introduce how the participants were described with reference<br \/>\nto the criteria for Employee of the Year. In different occupations, the award<br \/>\nemphasised different qualities that could be categorised into three groups. Firstly,<br \/>\nhaving a high professional standard was named as one of the most important<br \/>\nqualities among the participants. Regarding this quality, expertise was recognised<br \/>\nas referring not only to excellent work quality but also to the ability to actively<br \/>\ndevelop one\u2019s work and skills. The following occupations best represented this<br \/>\ntheme: priest, police offi cer, nurse and psychologist. The second group consisted<br \/>\nof employees\u2019 actions that led to making their work and occupation recognised.<br \/>\nExamples of these actions included paying attention to the contents of the occupation<br \/>\n(for example work tasks), publicly discussing current topics regarding<br \/>\ntheir occupational fi eld, and facilitating the recognition of Finnish profi ciency<br \/>\nabroad. For example, the criteria for the \u2018Artisan of the Year\u2019, \u2018Journalist of the<br \/>\nYear\u2019, and \u2018Athlete of the Year\u2019 awards typifi ed this theme. The difference<br \/>\nbetween these two themes was that the fi rst emphasised winners who had developed<br \/>\ntheir fi eld through their own professional development, while the second<br \/>\nemphasised winners who used their profi ciency to gain publicity.<br \/>\nSome of the rewarded employees were selected not by their colleagues but<br \/>\nthrough competitions. These competitions differ remarkably, depending on the<br \/>\noccupation (for example \u2018Chef of the Year\u2019 and \u2018Cleaner of the Year\u2019). However,<br \/>\none feature was common among them, namely, professional skills in several<br \/>\nsectors were evaluated (for example, customer service skills and working methods)<br \/>\nas these depicted core occupational expertise. In other words, only a true<br \/>\nprofessional can win this kind of competition. Therefore, employees who had<br \/>\nwon a competition were also asked to participate in this research. On the other<br \/>\nhand, employees who had been selected for these competitions from their workplace<br \/>\nhad also already been nominated by their colleagues as excellent workers.<br \/>\nIn addition to the three themes mentioned above, the criteria for \u2018Employee of<br \/>\nthe Year\u2019 awards can be studied by analysing the specifi c words describing the<br \/>\nawards. Three different categories were found: attributes that described top workers,<br \/>\naction-related attributes and profession-specifi c qualifi ers. The most common<br \/>\nattributes were adjectives such as competent, innovative, punctual, celebrated,<br \/>\neffective, open-minded and social. Action-related descriptions covered factors<br \/>\nsuch as developing work and occupation, improving one\u2019s occupation, making<br \/>\none\u2019s occupation noted in Finland and abroad, dedication to one\u2019s occupation and<br \/>\nactive cooperation. Profession-specifi c qualifi ers were language profi ciency, tidiness,<br \/>\nexpertise, care for one\u2019s own and others\u2019 wellbeing at work, punctuality, a<br \/>\nwell-functioning business idea, courage to create new ideas, cooperation skills<br \/>\nand service skills. Top workers\u2019 attributes were essentially words that described<br \/>\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 19<br \/>\nemployees, regardless of occupation. Action-related attributes paid attention to<br \/>\nhow an employee had been working or what an employee had done in order to<br \/>\nearn the nomination. Profession-specifi c qualifi ers referred directly to occupation<br \/>\nand specifi c profession-bound skills. Thus, one qualifi er could describe several<br \/>\noccupations but with different meanings (for example, tidiness can be considered<br \/>\ndifferently among taxi drivers, chefs and cleaners).<br \/>\nIt was interesting to note that the criteria for Employee of the Year did not<br \/>\ndiffer substantially between fi elds. The aim of this introduction was to give an<br \/>\nidea of the kinds of characteristics emphasised in the criteria. Nevertheless, it is<br \/>\nworth deliberating on how much this actually framed the picture of successful<br \/>\nemployees used in this research, as winners of Employee of the Year awards<br \/>\nwere, and still are, mainly selected by their own labour unions. For example,<br \/>\nmaking one\u2019s occupation renowned can be advantageous for a particular union,<br \/>\nthereby infl uencing one\u2019s chances of being selected. Additionally, persons who<br \/>\nare more sociable could be seen as more appealing, further infl uencing the likelihood<br \/>\nof their selection for Employee of the Year.<br \/>\nNonetheless, and most importantly, Employee of the Year winners are top<br \/>\nworkers rewarded in their own fi elds. Thus, they constitute a group of successful<br \/>\nand excellent workers.<br \/>\nThe data and analyses<br \/>\nThe research consisted of two phases. In the fi rst phase, success at work was<br \/>\nanalysed by focusing on motivation as well as on work engagement. In addition,<br \/>\nthose work characteristics considered most rewarding by participants were studied.<br \/>\nThe participants were nominated employees of the year in a variety of occupational<br \/>\nfi eld 1 . Altogether, 44 employees were contacted. Of this fi gure, 16 participated by<br \/>\nanswering the questionnaires. Five of them were men and 11 were women. Seven<br \/>\nof those who responded to the questionnaires were interviewed during the fi rst<br \/>\nphase of the study. Participants were between 29 and 71 years old (mean = 49).<br \/>\nTheir occupations represented different fi elds and could be divided into the following<br \/>\nprofessional groups: academic occupations, artistic occupations and labourers.<br \/>\nThe research used a mixed-methods approach (see, for example, Creswell<br \/>\n2002 ; Teddlie and Tashakkori 2003 ). Data were collected via questionnaires and<br \/>\ninterviews. Questionnaires consisted of both quantitative and qualitative sections.<br \/>\nThe quantitative section was designed to assist answering the open-ended questions.<br \/>\nThe participants were asked to describe:<br \/>\n\u2022 their experiences about their work (How do you usually feel about your work<br \/>\n[for example, rewarding\/frustrating, interesting\/boring] and why?);<br \/>\n\u2022 the significance of their work (How important do you consider your work,<br \/>\nand why?);<br \/>\n\u2022 their job satisfaction (Are you usually satisfied with your work, and why?<br \/>\nPlease, also write about what inspires you about your work);<br \/>\n20 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\n\u2022 work-related challenges (Is your work challenging? Do you think that you<br \/>\nare capable of handling these challenges? How so?);<br \/>\n\u2022 whether their work was rewarding (Is your work rewarding?);<br \/>\n\u2022 the most important characteristics of their work (Mention three things that<br \/>\nyou consider to be most important about your work. Why have you chosen<br \/>\nthis particular work\/occupation?);<br \/>\n\u2022 themselves as workers (In your opinion, what kind of employee are you?<br \/>\nPlease describe yourself as a worker).<br \/>\nThe interviews were based on the questionnaires and were qualitative theme<br \/>\ninterviews, i.e., all themes included in the interviews were decided beforehand,<br \/>\nbut the order and form of the questions were not (Hirsj\u00e4rvi et al . 2000 ). In other<br \/>\nwords, the interviewer ensured that all the predetermined topics were discussed,<br \/>\nbut the order and extent could vary (Eskola and Vastam\u00e4ki 2001 ). In this research,<br \/>\nthe researcher analysed the questionnaires before each interview and, based on<br \/>\nthat analysis, determined the focus of each interview. For example, if a participant<br \/>\nhad found it diffi cult to answer a certain question on the questionnaire, that<br \/>\ntheme was discussed more thoroughly in an interview. Therefore, the themes in<br \/>\nthe interviews were the same for everyone (work motivation, experiences about<br \/>\nwork and participants\u2019 characteristics as workers) but were given varying degrees<br \/>\nof emphasis according to the participants\u2019 answers on the questionnaires.<br \/>\nIn this research, the data were analysed through qualitative content analysis<br \/>\nwith predetermined categories derived from a theoretical background (such as ,<br \/>\nfor example, the key concepts mentioned). Qualitative content analysis emphasises<br \/>\na relevant selection and rational organisation of categories (Kracauer 1952 ;<br \/>\nMayring 2000 ). This formed the basis for analysis. Furthermore, these categories<br \/>\nwere divided into reasonable subcategories that emerged in the data (based on the<br \/>\nnumber of references).<br \/>\nThe second phase of the research concentrated on the process of becoming a<br \/>\ntop worker. In this phase, the employees of the year (n = 8) were Nurse of the<br \/>\nYear, Farmer of the Year, Police Offi cer of the Year (n = 2), Psychologist of the<br \/>\nYear, Priest of the Year (n = 2) and Artisan of the Year. Six of them were men<br \/>\nand two were women. Participants were between 36 and 64 years old (mean =<br \/>\n49). In the interviews, the participants were asked to discuss the following<br \/>\nthemes: factors that enhance success, diffi culties and obstacles they had<br \/>\nconfronted, and choices and decisions they had made during the course of their<br \/>\nlives. As this was a piece of narrative research, the data were collected using<br \/>\ninterviews.<br \/>\nNarrative research can be defi ned as research that utilises or analyses data<br \/>\ncollected via narratives (for example, biographies) or other similar ways (for<br \/>\nexample, anthropologists\u2019 observational narratives). Thus, a narrative can be<br \/>\neither a research object or a means to study a phenomenon (Lieblich, Tuval-<br \/>\nMashiach, and Zilber 1998 ). Narrative research does not focus on objective and<br \/>\ngeneralized facts but on local, personal, and subjective information \u2013 this is<br \/>\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 21<br \/>\nconsidered a strength of narrative research because informants\u2019 voices can be<br \/>\nheard authentically (Guba and Lincoln 1994 ). Narratives can also be used when<br \/>\nanalyzing the reasons for actions (Moilanen 2002 ). To best serve this research the<br \/>\nnarrative interview was complemented with characteristics of the themed interview,<br \/>\nthereby aiming at a thick description of the phenomenon of success at work<br \/>\n(see Rubin and Rubin 1995 ).<br \/>\nPolkinghorne ( 1995 ) distinguishes the analysis of narratives and narrative<br \/>\nanalysis. The former means categorising by types, for example, and metaphors.<br \/>\nThe latter refers to the composition of a new narrative based on various original<br \/>\nnarratives. Both of these analytical methods were used in this research. On the<br \/>\none hand, the participants\u2019 narratives were categorised by predetermined categories<br \/>\nand, on the other hand, a narrative of becoming a top worker was composed<br \/>\n(see also Kuusela 2003 ).<br \/>\nIn this research, an analysis of narratives and narrative analyses was conducted.<br \/>\nThe analysis consisted of narrative structuring, which tries to put together a cohesive<br \/>\nnarrative of experiences and events during interviews (Kvale 1997 ).<br \/>\nFurthermore, the analysis typifi ed a category-content-focused approach, with<br \/>\nparts of narratives being placed in different categories (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiac,<br \/>\nand Zilber, 1998 ).<br \/>\nAs the participant group was quite a selective one, some reliability issues need<br \/>\nto be addressed. To what extent are the stories of top workers biased? Certainly,<br \/>\nthey already had a particular attitude and idea of the purpose of the study when they<br \/>\nanswered the questionnaire and were interviewed. Indeed, the aim was to study<br \/>\ntheir positive experiences, although the themes and questions did also cover negative<br \/>\nhappenings. However, they were regarded as top workers, examples of<br \/>\nsuccessful people, and that starting point may have affected their responses.<br \/>\nHowever, especially in the interviews, the participants thoroughly contemplated<br \/>\ntheir experiences. In the second phase, in particular, when they described their<br \/>\nentire life stories, their answers could not have been structured entirely on the basis<br \/>\nof extrinsic norms or expectations and were thus considered reliable and valuable.<br \/>\nFurthermore, when the participants describe their experiences of success, there was<br \/>\nno reason to think that they were not be honest. Consequently, the question was<br \/>\nmerely about what the participants considered so important that it was worth telling.<br \/>\nStudies on the factors contributing to success at work<br \/>\nResearch on employees of the year forms the main study on which this book is<br \/>\ngrounded. However, we have complemented and viewed the phenomenon of<br \/>\nsuccess from various perspectives, especially in Chapter 5 when we discuss external<br \/>\nfactors that infl uence the process. We include Professor Kaarina M\u00e4\u00e4tt\u00e4\u2019s<br \/>\nresearch on Finnish married couples (N = 342) who had been married for more<br \/>\nthan ten years. In her study, couples, inspired by a writing competition arranged<br \/>\nby a Finnish magazine, wrote about the secret of their own long-lasting marriage,<br \/>\nas well as the variety of solutions they had tried in terms of combining work and<br \/>\n22 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\nfamily. The theoretical basis of the study was grounded in many theories and<br \/>\nprevious research on marital quality and marital stability, especially Sternberg\u2019s<br \/>\nTriangular theory of Love ( 1986 ), the Love is a Story theory (Sternberg, 1999 ),<br \/>\nGottman\u2019s publications (1994; 1999), and A Vulnerability-Stress-Adaption Model<br \/>\nof Marriage by Karney and Bradbury ( 1995 ). The participants were a good representation<br \/>\nof the gamut of Finnish married couples; they represented different age<br \/>\ngroups, most of them had been married for 10-15 years, and they had one or two<br \/>\nchildren. For many of the writers, this was their fi rst marriage; for others, this was<br \/>\nat least their second marriage. The stories did not only describe the bright sides of<br \/>\nmarriage; there were also some rough experiences and survival stories. What they<br \/>\nhad in common was that the relationships endured more than ten years. The data<br \/>\nanalysis was based on inductive content analysis and the qualitative categorising<br \/>\nof the written stories. In addition, the question about the kinds of solutions couples<br \/>\nemployed in order to combine work and family produced interesting results.<br \/>\nIn Chapters 4 and 5 we also lean on a research project called \u2018Love-based<br \/>\nLeadership \u2013 An Interdisciplinary Approach,\u2019 which focuses on enhancing<br \/>\nemployees\u2019 happiness at work by supporting their individual strengths and creating<br \/>\nproductive work communities that are ready for change \u2013 thus, the starting<br \/>\npoint and emphasis is on an individual. This study approach can be identifi ed<br \/>\nwithin the area of positive psychology called positive organisational behaviour<br \/>\n(POB) (see Youssef and Luthans 2007 ). Luthans ( 2002 : 59) defi nes POB as \u2018the<br \/>\nstudy and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and<br \/>\npsychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively<br \/>\nmanaged for performance improvement in today\u2019s workplace\u2019. The viewpoint is<br \/>\ninterested in positivity and psychological resources that illustrate capacity that<br \/>\nmust be theory- and research-based and validly measurable as well as \u2018state-like\u2019<br \/>\n(i.e., open to change and development) and have a demonstrated performance<br \/>\nimpact. This viewpoint offers a great addition to the analysis of the process of<br \/>\nbecoming a successful worker.<br \/>\nIn this study, 13 leaders were interviewed. The interviews consisted of four<br \/>\nthemes, from leaders\u2019 strengths to their understanding of caring leadership, and<br \/>\nfrom positive and love-based work communities to interrelationships between<br \/>\npositive, appreciative and happy experiences and leadership. The interviewees<br \/>\nincluded deans and associate deans (n = 5) and department chairs or department<br \/>\nmanagers (n = 8). Seven participants (three women and four men) came from a<br \/>\ngeneral university and a university of applied sciences in Finland, while six (all<br \/>\nmen) came from one university in the USA. The purpose of including participants<br \/>\nfrom two countries was to gather experiences that were as diverse as possible.<br \/>\nAnd indeed, leaders revealed a rich store of personal perceptions and experiences.<br \/>\nIn this book, we will especially employ the fi ndings to analyse how leadership<br \/>\ncan enhance employees\u2019 success (see also Peterson and Luthans 2003 ).<br \/>\nHaving introduced the theoretical assumptions and empirical solutions, it is<br \/>\ntime to move on to practical examples and viewpoints concerning success at<br \/>\nwork. Let us have the top workers reveal their secrets!<br \/>\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 23<br \/>\nNote<br \/>\n1 Employees of the year represented the following awards: in the fi rst phase, Coach of<br \/>\nthe Year, Artisan of the Year, Cleaner of the Year, Nurse of the Year, Doctor (of<br \/>\nMedicine) of the Year, Industrial Designer of the Year, Farmer of the Year, Textile<br \/>\nArtist of the Year, Psychologist of the Year, Police Offi cer of the Year and Graphic of<br \/>\nthe Year and, in the second phase, Nurse of the Year, Farmer of the Year, Police Offi cer<br \/>\nof the Year, Artisan of the Year, Priest of the Year, and Psychologist of the Year.<br \/>\nReferences<br \/>\nAchor , S. ( 2010 ) The Happiness Advantage. The Seven Principles of Positive Psychology<br \/>\nthat Fuel Success and Performance at Work . New York, NY : Crown Business<br \/>\nAdler , P. T. ( 1982 ) \u2018 An analysis of the concept of competence in individuals and social<br \/>\nsystems \u2019. Community Mental Health Journal , 18 ( 2 ), pp. 34 \u2013 45<br \/>\nAlmost , J. and Spence Laschinger , H. K. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Workplace empowerment, collaborative<br \/>\nwork relationships, and job strain in nurse practitioners \u2019. Journal of the American<br \/>\nAcademy of Nurse Practitioners , 14 ( 9 ), pp. 408 \u2013 420<br \/>\nAspinwall, L. G. and Staudinger, U. M. ( 2006) \u2018 Ihmisen vahvuuksien psykologia: kehittyv\u00e4n<br \/>\ntutkimuskent\u00e4n kysymyksi\u00e4 [A psychology of human strengths: Questions from a developing<br \/>\nfi eld of study]\u2019 pp. 21\u2013 33 in Aspinwall, L. G. and Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.) Ihmisen<br \/>\nvahvuuksien psykologia [A Psychology of Human Strengths]. Helsinki: Edita<br \/>\nBaltes , P. B. and Freund , A. M. ( 2006 ) \u2018 Ihmisen vahvuudet ja viisaus [The human strengths<br \/>\nand wisdom] \u2019 pp. 34 \u2013 46 in Aspinwall , L. G. and Staudinger , U. M. (Eds.) Ihmisen<br \/>\nvahvuuksien psykologia [A Psychology of Human Strengths] . Helsinki : Edita<br \/>\nBandura , A. ( 1997 ) Self-effi cacy: The Exercise of Control . New York, NY : Freeman<br \/>\nBrickman , P. , Coates , D. and Janoff-Bulman , R. ( 1978 ) \u2018 Lottery winners and accident<br \/>\nvictims: is happiness relative? \u2019 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 36 ( 8 ),<br \/>\npp. 917 \u2013 927<br \/>\nCampbell , J. P. and Pritchard , R. D. ( 1976 ) Motivation theory in industrial and organizational<br \/>\npsychology \u2019 pp. 63 \u2013 129 in Dunnette , M. D. (Ed.) Handbook of Industrial and<br \/>\nOrganizational Psychology . Chicago, IL : Rand McNally Publishing Company<br \/>\nCaprara , G. V . and Cervone , D. ( 2006 ) \u2018 Persoonallisuus toimivana, itses\u00e4\u00e4telev\u00e4n\u00e4 j\u00e4rjestelm\u00e4n\u00e4<br \/>\n[Personality as a functional, self-regulating system] \u2019 pp. 69 \u2013 82 in Aspinwall , L.<br \/>\nG. and Staudinger , U. M. (Eds.) Ihmisen vahvuuksien psykologia [A Psychology of<br \/>\nHuman Strengths] . Helsinki : Edita<br \/>\nCarruthers , C. and Hood , C. D. ( 2005 ) \u2018 The power of positive psychology \u2019. Parks and<br \/>\nRecreation , Oct 2005 , pp. 30 \u2013 37<br \/>\nCarver , C. S. and Scheier , M. F. ( 2002 ) Optimism pp. 231 \u2013 243 in Snyder , C. R. and Lopez ,<br \/>\nS. J. (Eds.) Handbook of Positive Psychology . Oxford : Oxford University Press<br \/>\nCarver , C. S. and Scheier , M. F. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Engagement, disengagement, coping, and catastrophe<br \/>\n\u2019 pp. 527 \u2013 547 in Elliot , A. J. and Dweck , C. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Competence<br \/>\nand Motivation . New York and London : The Guilford Press<br \/>\nChang , E. C. ( 2001 ) (Ed.) \u2018 Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and<br \/>\npractice \u2019 (pp. 53 \u2013 75 ). Washington, DC, US : American Psychological Association<br \/>\nCovey , S. R. ( 2006 ) \u2018 Tie menestykseen. 7 toimintatapaa henkil\u00f6kohtaiseen kasvuun ja<br \/>\nmuutokseen [ Road to Success. 7 Methods of Personal Growth and Change ]\u2019 ( 5th Ed.).<br \/>\nJyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4 : Gummerus<br \/>\n24 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\nCovington , M. V. ( 1992 ) Making the Grade: A Self-worth Perspective on Motivation and<br \/>\nSchool Reform . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press<br \/>\nCreswell , J. W. ( 2002 ) Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods<br \/>\nApproaches . ( 2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage<br \/>\nCsikszentmihalyi , M. ( 2008 ) Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience ( 10th Ed.).<br \/>\nNew York, NY : HarperPerennial<br \/>\nCsikszentmihalyi , M. , Abuhamdeh , S. and Nakamura , J. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Flow \u2019 pp. 598 \u2013 608 in A.<br \/>\nJ. Elliot , A. J. and Dweck , C. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Competence and Motivation . New<br \/>\nYork and London : The Guilford Press<br \/>\nDeci , E. L. and Moller , A. C. ( 2005 ) \u2018 The concept of competence. A starting place for<br \/>\nunderstanding intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation \u2019 pp. 579 \u2013<br \/>\n597 in Elliot , A. J. and Dweck , C. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Competence and Motivation .<br \/>\nNew York and London : The Guilford Press<br \/>\nDeci , E. L. and Ryan , R. M. ( 2008 ) \u2018 Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological<br \/>\nwellbeing across life\u2019s domains \u2019. Canadian Psychology , 49 ( 1 ), pp. 14 \u2013 23<br \/>\nDeci , E. L. , Vallerand , R. J. , Pelletier , L. G. and Ryan , R. M. ( 1991 ). \u2018 Motivation and education:<br \/>\nthe self-determination perspective \u2019. Educational Psychologist , 26 ( 3 and 4 ), pp.<br \/>\n325 \u2013 346<br \/>\nDiener, E. , Lucas, R. E. and Napa Scollon, C. ( 2006) \u2018 Beyond the hedonic treadmill. Revising<br \/>\nthe adaptation theory of wellbeing \u2019. American Psychologist , 61( 4), pp. 305\u2013 314<br \/>\nDiener , E. , Oishi , S. and Lucas , R. E. ( 2009 ) \u2018 Subjective wellbeing: the science of happiness<br \/>\nand life satisfaction \u2019 pp. 187 \u2013 194 in Lopez , S. J. and Snyder , C. R. (Eds.) Oxford<br \/>\nHandbook of Positive Psychology . Oxford : Oxford University Press<br \/>\nDiener , E. , Suh , E. M. , Lucas , R. E. and Smith , H. L. ( 1999 ) \u2018 Subjective wellbeing: three<br \/>\ndecades of progress \u2019. Psychological Bulletin , 125 ( 2 ), pp. 276 \u2013 302<br \/>\nEccles , J. S. and Wigfi eld , A. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Motivational beliefs, values, and goals \u2019. Annual<br \/>\nReview of Psychology , 53 ( 1 ), pp. 109 \u2013 132<br \/>\nEskola , J. and Vastam\u00e4ki , J. ( 2001 ) \u2018 Teemahaastattelu: opit ja opetukset [Theme interview:<br \/>\ntenets and instruction] \u2019 pp. 24 \u2013 42 in Aaltola , J. and Valli , R. (Eds) Ikkunoita tutkimusmetodeihin<br \/>\nI [Introduction to Research Methods I] . Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4 : Gummerus<br \/>\nFeldt , T. , M\u00e4kikangas , A. and Kokko , K. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Persoonallisuus ja ty\u00f6hyvinvointi<br \/>\n[Personality and wellbeing at work] \u2019 pp. 75 \u2013 94 in Kinnunen , U. , Feldt , T. and Mauno ,<br \/>\nS. (Eds.) Ty\u00f6 leip\u00e4lajina Ty\u00f6hyvinvoinnin psykologiset perusteet [Work as a Job. The<br \/>\nPsychological Foundations of Wellbeing at Work] . Keuruu : Otava<br \/>\nFredrickson , B. L. ( 1998 ) \u2018 What good are positive emotions? \u2019 Review of General<br \/>\nPsychology, 2(3), pp. 300-319<br \/>\nFredrickson , B. L. ( 2001 ) \u2018 The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the<br \/>\nbroaden-and-build theory of positive emotions \u2019. American Psychologist , 56 ( 3 ), pp.<br \/>\n218 \u2013 226<br \/>\nFreund , A. M. and Baltes , P. B. ( 1998 ) \u2018 Selection, optimization, and compensation as strategies<br \/>\nof life management: correlations with subjective indicators of successful aging \u2019.<br \/>\nPsychology and Aging , 13 ( 4 ), pp. 531 \u2013 543<br \/>\nFurnham , A. ( 1992 ). Personality at Work: the Role of Individual Differences in the<br \/>\nWorkplace . London : Routledge<br \/>\nGable , S. and Haidt , J. ( 2005 ) \u2018 What (and why) is positive psychology? \u2019 Review of General<br \/>\nPsychology , 9 , pp. 103 \u2013 110<br \/>\nGardner , H. , Csikszentmihalyi , M. and Damon , W. ( 2001 ) Good Work. When Excellence<br \/>\nand Ethics Meet . New York, NY : Basic Books<br \/>\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 25<br \/>\nGillham, J. and Reivich, K. ( 2004) \u2018 Cultivating optimism in childhood and adolescence\u2019. The<br \/>\nANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 591, pp. 146\u2013 163<br \/>\nGilpin , J. M. ( 2008 ) \u2018 Teaching happiness. The role of positive psychology in the classroom<br \/>\n\u2019. Pell Scholars and Senior Theses , 12 , pp. 1 \u2013 23<br \/>\nGottman , J. ( 1994 ) What Predicts Divorce? The Relationships between Marital Process<br \/>\nand Marital Outcomes . Hillsdale : Erlbaum<br \/>\nGottman , J. ( 1999 ) The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work . New York, NY :<br \/>\nCrown Publishers<br \/>\nGreen, J. , Liem G. A. , Martin, A. J. , Colmar, S. , Marsh, H. W. and McInerney, D. ( 2012)<br \/>\n\u2018 Academic motivation, self-concept, engagement and performance in high school: key<br \/>\nprocesses from a longitudinal perspective \u2019. Journal of Adolescence , 35( 5), pp. 1111\u2013 1122<br \/>\nGuba , E. G. and Lincoln , Y. S. ( 1994 ) \u2018 Competing paradigms in qualitative research \u2019 pp.<br \/>\n105 \u2013 117 in Denzin , N. K. and Lincoln , Y. S. (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research .<br \/>\nThousand Oaks, CA : Sage<br \/>\nHackman , J. R. and Oldham , G. R. ( 1976 ) \u2018 Motivation through the design of work: test of<br \/>\na theory \u2019. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance , 16 , pp. 250 \u2013 279<br \/>\nHakanen , J. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Ty\u00f6uupumuksesta ty\u00f6n imuun \u2013 positiivisen ty\u00f6hyvinvointik\u00e4sitteen<br \/>\narviointimenetelm\u00e4n suomalaisen version validointi opetusalan organisaatiossa [From<br \/>\nburnout to work engagement \u2013 validation of the Finnish version of evaluation method<br \/>\nto positive concept of wellbeing at work in educational organizations] \u2019. Ty\u00f6 ja ihminen ,<br \/>\n16 , 42 \u2013 58<br \/>\nHakanen , J. , Perhoniemi , R. and Toppinen-Tanner , S. ( 2008 ) \u2018 Positive gain spirals at work:<br \/>\nfrom job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness<br \/>\n\u2019. Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 73 , pp. 78 \u2013 91<br \/>\nHirsj\u00e4rvi , S. , Remes , P. and Sajavaara , P. ( 2000 ) Tutki ja kirjoita [Reseach and Write] .<br \/>\nVantaa : Tummavuoren Kirjapaino<br \/>\nIsen , A. M. ( 2001 ) \u2018 Some perspectives on positive affect and self-regulation \u2019. Psychological<br \/>\nInquiry , 11 ( 3 ), pp. 184 \u2013 187<br \/>\nIsen , A. M. ( 2006 ) \u2018 My\u00f6nteinen tunne ihmisen vahvuuden l\u00e4hteen\u00e4 [Positive feeling as a<br \/>\nsource of human strength]\u2019 pp. 186\u2013 201 in Aspinwall, L. G. and Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.)<br \/>\nIhmisen vahvuuksien psykologia [ A Psychology of Human Strengths]. Helsinki: Edita<br \/>\nIsen , A. M. and Reeve , J. ( 2006 ) \u2018 The infl uence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic<br \/>\nmotivation: facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behaviour, and selfcontrol<br \/>\n\u2019. Motivation and Emotion , 29 , pp. 297 \u2013 325<br \/>\nJudge , T. A. , Locke , E. A. and Durham , C. C. ( 1997 ) \u2018 The dispositional causes of job satisfaction<br \/>\n\u2019. Research in Organizational Behaviour , 19 , pp. 151 \u2013 188<br \/>\nKahneman , D. and Krueger , A. B. ( 2006 ) \u2018 Developments in the measurement of subjective<br \/>\nwellbeing \u2019. The Journal of Economic Perspectives , 20 ( 1 ), pp. 3 \u2013 24<br \/>\nKahneman , D. , Krueger , A. B. , Schkade , D. A. , Schwarz , N. and Stone , A. A. ( 2004 ) \u2018 A<br \/>\nsurvey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method \u2019.<br \/>\nScience , 306 , pp. 1776 \u2013 1780<br \/>\nKanfer , R. and Ackerman , P. L. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Work competence: a person-oriented perspective \u2019<br \/>\npp. 336 \u2013 353 in Elliot , A. J. and Dweck , C. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Competence and<br \/>\nMotivation . New York and London : The Guilford Press<br \/>\nKarasek , R. and Theorell , T. ( 1990 ) Healthy Work. Stress, Productivity, and Reconstruction<br \/>\nof Working Life . New York, NY : Basic Books<br \/>\nKarney, B. and Bradbury, T. N. ( 1995) \u2018 The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability:<br \/>\nA review of theory, method and research \u2019. Psychological Bulletin , 111, pp. 3\u2013 34<br \/>\n26 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\nKaufman , H. G. ( 1974 ) \u2018 Relationship of early work challenge to job performance, professional<br \/>\ncontributions, and competence of engineers \u2019. Journal of Applied Psychology ,<br \/>\n59 ( 3 ), pp. 377 \u2013 379<br \/>\nKracauer , S. ( 1952 ) \u2018 The challenge of qualitative content analysis \u2019. The Public Opinion<br \/>\nQuarterly , 16 , pp. 631 \u2013 642<br \/>\nKrueger , D. W. ( 1990 ) \u2018 Success and success inhibition \u2019 pp. 246 \u2013 260 in Sternberg , R. J. and<br \/>\nKolligian , J. Jr. (Eds.) Competence Considered . New Haven, CN : Yale University<br \/>\nPress<br \/>\nKuusela, P. ( 2003) \u2018 Metafora, metateoria ja sosiaalitieteet [Metaphor, metatheory and social<br \/>\nsciences]\u2019 pp. 77\u2013 104 in Eskola, J. and Pihlstr\u00f6m, S. (Eds) Ihmist\u00e4 tutkimassa.<br \/>\nYhteiskuntatieteiden metodologian ajankohtaisia kysymyksi\u00e4 [ Studying Human Beings.<br \/>\nCurrent Questions in the Methology of Social Sciences ]. Kuopio : Kuopio University Press<br \/>\nKvale , S. ( 1997 ) Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun [ The Qualitative Interview ]. Lund :<br \/>\nStudentlitteratur<br \/>\nLatham , G. P. and Pinder , C. C. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Work motivation theory and research at the dawn<br \/>\nof the twenty-fi rst century \u2019. Annual Review of Psychology , 56 , pp. 485 \u2013 516<br \/>\nLaubach , M. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Consent, informal organization and job rewards: a mixed methods<br \/>\nanalysis \u2019. Social Forces , 83 ( 4 ), pp. 1535 \u2013 1566<br \/>\nLiden , R. C. , Wayne , S. J. and Sparrowe , R. T. ( 2000 ) \u2018 An examination of the mediating<br \/>\nrole of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships,<br \/>\nand work outcomes \u2019. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 ( 3 ), pp. 407 \u2013 416<br \/>\nLieblich , A. , Tuval-Mashiach , R. and Zilber , T. ( 1998 ) Narrative Research: Reading,<br \/>\nAnalysis and Interpretation . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage<br \/>\nLocke , E. A. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Setting goals for life and happiness \u2019 pp. 299 \u2013 312 in Snyder , C. R. and<br \/>\nLopez , S. J. (Eds.) Handbook of positive psychology . Oxford : Oxford University Press<br \/>\nLocke , E. A. and Latham , G. P. ( 1990 ) \u2018 Work motivation and satisfaction: light at the end<br \/>\nof the tunnel \u2019. Psychological Science , 1 ( 4 ), pp. 240 \u2013 246<br \/>\nLuthans , F. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Positive organizational behaviour. Developing and managing psychological<br \/>\nstrengths \u2019. Academy of Management Executive , 16 ( 1 ), pp. 57 \u2013 72<br \/>\nLyubomirsky , S. ( 2001 ) \u2018 Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive<br \/>\nand motivational processes in wellbeing \u2019. American Psychologist , 56 ( 3 ), pp. 239 \u2013 249<br \/>\nLyubomirsky , S. , King , L. and Diener , E. ( 2005 ) \u2018 The benefi ts of frequent positive affect:<br \/>\ndoes happiness lead to success? \u2019 Psychological Bulletin , 131 , pp. 803 \u2013 855<br \/>\nMaddux , J. E. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Self-effi cacy. The power of believing you can \u2019 pp. 277 \u2013 287 in<br \/>\nSnyder , C. R. and Lopez , S. J. (Eds) Handbook of Positive Psychology . Oxford : Oxford<br \/>\nUniversity Press<br \/>\nMagnusson , D. and Mahoney , J. L. ( 2006 ) \u2018 Holistinen l\u00e4hestymistapa my\u00f6nteisen kehityksen<br \/>\ntutkimuksessa [A holistic approach in research on positive development] \u2019 pp. 232 \u2013<br \/>\n250 in Aspinwall , L. G. and Staudinger , U. M. (Eds.) Ihmisen vahvuuksien psykologia<br \/>\n[ A Psychology of Human Strengths ]. Helsinki : Edita<br \/>\nMayring , P. ( 2000 ) \u2018 Qualitative content analysis \u2019. Forum: Qualitative Social Research ,<br \/>\n1 ( 2 ). Available online at: http:\/\/www. qualitativeresearch.net\/fqs\/fqs-e\/2-00inhalt-e.<br \/>\nhtm (last accessed 4 April 2014)<br \/>\nMitchell , T. R. ( 1997 ) \u2018 Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts \u2019.<br \/>\nResearch in Organizational Behaviour , 19 , pp. 57 \u2013 149<br \/>\nMoilanen , P. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Narrative, truth, and correspondence: a defence \u2019 pp. 91 \u2013 104 in<br \/>\nHuttunen , R. , Heikkinen , H. L. T. and Syrj\u00e4l\u00e4 , L. (Eds) Narrative Research. Voices of<br \/>\nTeachers and Philosophers . Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4 : Kopijyv\u00e4<br \/>\nThe theory: everyone can succeed at work 27<br \/>\nOades , L. G. , Robinson , P. , Green , S. and Spence , G. B. ( 2011 ) \u2018 Towards a positive<br \/>\nuniversity \u2019. The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and<br \/>\npromoting good practice , 6 ( 6 ), pp. 432 \u2013 439<br \/>\nPajares , F. ( 2001 ) \u2018 Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation \u2019. The Journal of<br \/>\nEducational Research , 95 ( 1 ), pp. 27 \u2013 35<br \/>\nPaulsson , K. , Iverg\u00e5rd , T. and Hunt , B. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Learning at work: competence development<br \/>\nor competence-stress \u2019. Applied Ergonomics , 36 , pp. 135 \u2013 144<br \/>\nPeterson , C. ( 2000 ) \u2018 The future of optimism \u2019. American Psychologist , 55 ( 1 ), pp. 44 \u2013 55<br \/>\nPeterson , C. , Seligman , M. E. P. and Vaillant , G. E. ( 1988 ) \u2018 Pessimistic explanatory style<br \/>\nis a risk factor for physical illness: a thirty-fi ve year longitudinal study \u2019. Journal of<br \/>\nPersonality and Social Psychology , 55 , pp. 23 \u2013 27<br \/>\nPeterson , S. J. and Luthans , F. ( 2003 ) \u2018 The positive impact and development of hopeful<br \/>\nleaders \u2019. Leadership and Organization Development Journal , 24 ( 1 ), pp. 26 \u2013 31<br \/>\nPolkinghorne , D. E. ( 1995 ) \u2018 Narrative confi guration in qualitative analysis \u2019. Qualitative<br \/>\nStudies in Education , 8 , pp. 5 \u2013 23<br \/>\nReivich , K. and Gillham , J. ( 2003 ) Learned optimism: The measurement of explanatory<br \/>\nstyle pp. 57 \u2013 74 in Lopez , S. J. and Snyder , C. R. (Eds.) Positive Psychological<br \/>\nAssessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures . Washington, DC : American<br \/>\nPsychological Association<br \/>\nReivich , K. , Gillham , J. E. , Chaplin , T. M. and Seligman , M. E. P. ( 2013 ) \u2018From helplessness<br \/>\nto optimism: The role of resilience in treating and preventing depression in youth\u2019<br \/>\npp. 201 \u2013 214 in Goldstein , S. and Brooks , R. B. (Eds.) Handbook of Resilience in<br \/>\nChildren . New York, NY : Springer<br \/>\nRissa , K. ( 2007 ) Well-being Created Productivity: The Druvan Model . Helsinki : The<br \/>\nCentre for Occupational Safety and the Finnish Work Environment Fund<br \/>\nRosenthal , T. L. and Zimmerman , B. J. ( 1978 ) Social Learning and Cognition . New York,<br \/>\nNY : Academic Press<br \/>\nRubin , H. J. and Rubin , I. S. ( 1995 ) Qualitative Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data .<br \/>\nThousand Oaks, CA : Sage<br \/>\nRyan , R. M. and Deci , E. L. ( 2000a ) \u2018 Self-determination theory and the facilitation of<br \/>\nintrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing \u2019. American Psychologist ,<br \/>\n55 ( 1 ), pp. 68 \u2013 78<br \/>\nRyan , R. M. and Deci , E. L. ( 2000b ) \u2018When rewards compete with nature: the undermining<br \/>\nof intrinsic motivation and self-regulation\u2019 pp. 14 \u2013 54 in Sansone , C. and Harackiewicz ,<br \/>\nJ. M. (Eds.) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. The Search for Optimal Motivation and<br \/>\nPerformance . Thousand Oaks, CA : Academic Press<br \/>\nSchaufeli , W. B. , Salanova , M. , Gonzalez-Roma , V. and Bakker , A. B. ( 2002 ) \u2018 The measurement<br \/>\nof engagement and burnout: A two sample confi rmatory factor analytic<br \/>\napproach \u2019. Journal of Happiness Studies , 3 , pp. 71 \u2013 92<br \/>\nSchneider , S. L. ( 2001 ) \u2018 In search of realistic optimism. Meaning, knowledge, and warm<br \/>\nfuzziness . American Psychologist , 56 ( 3 ), pp. 250 \u2013 263<br \/>\nSchunk , D. H. and Pajares , F. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Competence perceptions and academic functioning \u2019<br \/>\npp. 85 \u2013 104 in Elliot , A. J. and Dweck , C. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Competence and<br \/>\nMotivation . New York and London : The Guilford Press<br \/>\nSeligman , M. E. P. ( 1990 ) Learned Optimism . New York, NY : Knopf<br \/>\nSeligman , M. E. P. ( 2002 ) Authentic Happiness . New York, NY : Free Press<br \/>\nSeligman, M. E. P. , Steen, T. A. , Park, N. and Peterson, C. ( 2005) \u2018 Positive psychology progress.<br \/>\nEmpirical validation of interventions \u2019. American Psychologist , 60( 5), pp. 410\u2013 421<br \/>\n28 The theory: everyone can succeed at work<br \/>\nShepperd , J. A. , Ouellette , J. A. and Fernandez , J. K . ( 1996 ) \u2018 Abandoning unrealistic optimism:<br \/>\nPerformance estimates and the temporal proximity of self-relevant feedback \u2019.<br \/>\nJournal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 ( 4 ), pp. 844 \u2013 855<br \/>\nSpence Laschinger , H. K. , Finegan , J. E. , Shamian , J. and Wilk , P . ( 2004 ) \u2018 A longitudinal<br \/>\nanalysis of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction \u2019. Journal of Organizational<br \/>\nBehaviour , 25 , pp. 527 \u2013 545<br \/>\nSternberg, R. ( 1986) \u2018 A triangular theory of love\u2019. Psychological Review , 93( 2), pp. 119\u2013 135<br \/>\nSternberg , R. ( 1999 ) Love is a Story: A New Theory of Relationships . Oxford : Oxford<br \/>\nUniversity Press<br \/>\nStoltenberg , C. D. ( 2005 ) \u2018 Enhancing professional competence through developmental<br \/>\napproaches to supervision \u2019. American Psychologist , 6 , pp. 857 \u2013 864<br \/>\nTeddlie , C. and Tashakkori , A . ( 2003 ) \u2018 Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed<br \/>\nmethods in the social and behavioral sciences \u2019 pp. 3 \u2013 50 in Tashakkori , A. and Teddlie ,<br \/>\nC. (Eds). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &amp; Behavioral Research . Thousand<br \/>\nOaks, CA : Sage<br \/>\nTurner , N. , Barling , J. and Zacharatos , A. ( 2002 ) \u2018 Positive psychology at work \u2019 pp. 715 \u2013<br \/>\n728 in Snyder , C. R. and Lopez , S. J. (Eds.) Handbook of Positive Psychology . Oxford :<br \/>\nOxford University Press<br \/>\nUusiautti , S. ( 2008 ) \u201cT\u00e4n\u00e4\u00e4n teen el\u00e4m\u00e4ni parhaan ty\u00f6n\u201d Ty\u00f6menestys Vuoden<br \/>\nTy\u00f6ntekij\u00f6iden kertomana [\u2018Today, I\u2019ll work better than ever\u2019. Success at work<br \/>\ndescribed by the Employees of the Year]. PhD Dissertation, University of Lapland,<br \/>\nRovaniemi, Finland<br \/>\nUusiautti , S. and M\u00e4\u00e4tt\u00e4 , K . ( 2011 ) \u2018 Love for work as the way towards wellbeing \u2019. Global<br \/>\nJournal of Human Social Science , 11 ( 9 ), pp. 63 \u2013 68<br \/>\nVarila , J. and Lehtosaari , K. ( 2001 ) Ty\u00f6nilo &#8211; Ahkeruudella ansaittua, sattuman synnytt\u00e4m\u00e4\u00e4<br \/>\nvai oppivan organisaation vaatimaa? [Joy of work \u2013 earned by diligence, occurs<br \/>\nby accident or required by learning organization?] . Joensuu : University of Joensuu<br \/>\nWeiner , B. ( 1992 ) Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories and Research . Thousand<br \/>\nOaks, CA : Sage<br \/>\nWhite , R. W. ( 1959 ) \u2018 Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence \u2019. Psychological<br \/>\nReview , 66 ( 5 ), pp. 297 \u2013 333<br \/>\nYoussef , C. M. and Luthans , F . ( 2007 ) \u2018 Positive organizational behaviour in the workplace:<br \/>\nthe impact of hope, optimism, and resilience \u2019. Journal of Management , 33 ( 5 ), pp.<br \/>\n774 \u2013 800<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":60,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"_candela_citation":"[]","CANDELA_OUTCOMES_GUID":"","pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-65","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/65","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/60"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/65\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":82,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/65\/revisions\/82"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/65\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=65"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=65"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/atd-herkimer-psychologyofwork\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=65"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}