Master Thesis - University of Tilburg - Tilburg University [PDF]

Master Thesis. The effect of online coaching interventions on employee's self-efficacy and resilience at work. A quantit

17 downloads 46 Views 2MB Size

Recommend Stories


Tilburg University Almanak 2013-2014
If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished? Rumi

Tilburg University Femininiteit en masculiniteit Willemsen, TM
Be grateful for whoever comes, because each has been sent as a guide from beyond. Rumi

Tilburg University Corporate Governance Convergence Goergen, M
Your big opportunity may be right where you are now. Napoleon Hill

Master Thesis IFRS 8, disclosure quality, and ... - University of Tilburg [PDF]
IFRS 8, disclosure quality, and cost of capital. An empirical study performed under European listed firms. C.J.M. Krabbenborg s782215. March 22th, 2012. Number of words: 13.984. Accountancy. Tilburg School of Economics and Management. Tilburg Univers

Tilburg University Social Media Celebrity Hou, Mingyi
Don't ruin a good today by thinking about a bad yesterday. Let it go. Anonymous

Tilburg University Kwetsbaar in balans Grotens, Henricus
The greatest of richness is the richness of the soul. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)

Tilburg University Medium security units Jeandarme, Inge
Your big opportunity may be right where you are now. Napoleon Hill

Master Thesis International and European Law Faculty of Law, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Happiness doesn't result from what we get, but from what we give. Ben Carson

Tilburg University Digital analysis of paintings Berezhnoy, IJ
Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it. Mich

Tilburg University Dynamics of multiple goal pursuit Louro, MJS
This being human is a guest house. Every morning is a new arrival. A joy, a depression, a meanness,

Idea Transcript


Master Thesis The effect of online coaching interventions on employee’s self-efficacy and resilience at work. A quantitative study in The Netherlands.

Niki Janssen ANR: S128779 Supervisor: Dr. M. van Woerkom 2nd assessor: Mrs. M.C. Meyers MSc January – October 2013 Improving deficits or using strengths? Human Resource Studies

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 1 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 4 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................................... 7 Individual strengths ............................................................................................................................. 7 Strengths-Use Interventions ............................................................................................................... 7 Self-efficacy ......................................................................................................................................... 7 The influence of strengths-use on self-efficacy .................................................................................. 8 Resilience............................................................................................................................................. 9 The influence of strengths-use on resilience .................................................................................... 10 Deficit Improvement interventions ................................................................................................... 11 The influence of deficit improvement on self-efficacy ..................................................................... 11 The influence of deficit improvement on resilience ......................................................................... 12 Combining a strength- and deficit-based intervention ..................................................................... 13 Conceptual Model ............................................................................................................................. 14 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Research design................................................................................................................................. 15 Interventions ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Sample and population ..................................................................................................................... 17 Measures ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Analyses ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................................................... 21 Hypothesis testing ............................................................................................................................. 23 Regression analysis after week 3................................................................................................... 23 Regression analysis after week 4................................................................................................... 25 Plots with data of week 5 .............................................................................................................. 26 Conclusion and discussion ..................................................................................................................... 29 Interpretation of the results .............................................................................................................. 29 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 31 Practical implications......................................................................................................................... 31 1

Directions for future research ........................................................................................................... 32 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 33 References ............................................................................................................................................. 34 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 38 Appendix 1: Frequencies population................................................................................................. 38 Appendix 2: Output reliability analyses Virtues in Action ................................................................. 39 Appendix 3: Output reliability analyses self-efficacy and resilience ................................................. 53 Appendix 4: Output Correlation Matrix ............................................................................................ 57 Appendix 5: Output Frequencies: Mean Self-efficacy and Resilience Week 1 and 3........................ 58 Appendix 6: Output regression analysis after week 3....................................................................... 59 Appendix 7: Output regression analysis after week 4....................................................................... 63 Appendix 8: Plots with data of week 5 .............................................................................................. 65 Appendix 9: Questionnaires .............................................................................................................. 66

2

Abstract Self-efficacy and resilience both have been shown to be related to performance in the workplace. Conceptual and beginning empirical evidence was found that self-efficacy and resilience can be developed by the use of online coaching interventions. Therefore, three different online coaching interventions were conducted; a strengths-based intervention, a deficit improvement intervention and an intervention which combines strengths and deficits. Based on previous literature, it was expected that all of three interventions would positive affect self-efficacy and resilience of employees. However, the combined intervention was expected to have a greater impact on self-efficacy and resilience compared to the interventions solely based on either strengths or deficits. The expected relationships were examined through an online coaching intervention in which 120 Dutch respondents participated. During 3 weeks the respondents filled out various questionnaires and developed their strengths or weaknesses or a combination of both. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses. These analyses showed no significant relationships between any of the interventions and self-efficacy and resilience. However, additional analysis with data of week 4 showed significant relationships between strengths use and self-efficacy and resilience. Subsequently, self-efficacy was shown to be influenced by deficit improvement. Combining strengths- and deficits development appears to influence self-efficacy and resilience in a negative way. Discrepancies with the literature can be due to the limitations of the research, which are discussed. Finally, recommendations for future research and practical implications are proposed.

Keywords: Strengths-use, deficit improvement, online coaching intervention, self-efficacy, resilience

3

Introduction Self-efficacy is shown to be an important predictor of an employee’s performance. Many studies indicate that an organizations' performance will be higher if the employees experience high levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Bandura, Adams, Hardy & Howells, 1980; Feltz, 1982). Self-efficacy is a domain-specific belief that one can accomplish certain goals (Cox, 2005). Judgments of self-efficacy determine how much effort people will expand and how long they will persist in challenging obstacles. People who have high self-efficacy will exert more effort (Bandura, 1982). According to Bandura (1982), low levels of self-efficacy can create stress and impair performance by giving to much attention to concerns over failings and deficiencies. Next to self-efficacy, resilience, which is a state of development in which someone has the capacity to rebound or bounce back from negative events (Luthans, 2002), also has been shown to be related to performance in the workplace (Youssef &Luthans, 2007). Youssef and Luthans (2007) found that resilience has a unique contribution on different aspects of positive organizational behavior, such as job satisfaction, work happiness and organizational commitment. In addition, much research has been done on psychological capital, which consists of hope, optimism, self-efficacy and resilience. There is growing evidence that psychological capital is significantly related to desired employee behaviours (and negatively to undesired behaviours), attitudes and performance. The desired behaviours, attitudes and performance will contribute to the overall organizational performance (Avey, Avolio & Luthans, 2011). According to Avey, Avolio and Luthans (2011), constructs as self-efficacy and resilience are gaining more attention, but still are underrepresented in the organizational behaviour literature about desired employee attitudes and performance. However, conceptual and beginning empirical evidence is found that self-efficacy and resilience can be developed. Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman and Combs (2006) developed an online psychological capital intervention training model, but stated that additional research was necessary to find out whether psychological capital can be developed through such an intervention. They conducted a highly focused 2-hour web-based training intervention, including managers from all types of organizations. The results showed that the overall psychological capital of the managers increased with 3 percent after the short training session.

4

Since there is still beginning evidence, but not that much, it is important to further investigate whether an online coaching intervention can increase self-efficacy and resilience. Many different interventions can be found in the literature and practice, of which strengths-based intervention and deficiency-based interventions are parts. In the past, many studies in the field of employee development were focused on weaknesses and deficiencies of employees rather than on their strengths (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001). In recent years, a new perspective appeared which is called positive psychology. Approximately one decade ago Seligman, who is considered to be the founder of positive psychology, and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) edited a special issue of American Psychologist devoted to positive psychology. They argued that psychology was not producing enough knowledge about what makes life worth living. This represented a shift in attention from deficiencies to strengths and talents of employees. Positive psychology is the generic term for the study of positive emotion, positive character traits, and enabling institutions (Seligman & Steen, 2005).According to Biswas-Diener, Kashdan and Minhas (2011), professional attention to the topic of strengths has grown dramatically last years. The increase of the attention to strengths goes along with the creation of strengths assessments and interventions (Biswas-Diener, Kashdan & Minhas, 2011). The general definition for a positive psychology intervention is “any intentional activity or method that is based on (a) the cultivation of positive subjective experiences, (b) the building of positive individual traits, or (c) the building of civic virtue and positive institutions” (Meyers, van Woerkom & Bakker, 2012). Several theories describe possible relationships between strengths-use and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and resilience (Grant, Curtayne & Burton, 2009; Fredrickson, 2001). These theories will be further elaborated in the theoretical framework. Although, strengths-use is gaining more attention in literature last years, it is of importance that the opposite of it, the development of deficits, will not be forgotten. Deficit development appears to influence self-efficacy (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Ericsson, 2006) and resilience (Grotberg, 2003; Holahan, Moos & Schaefer, 1996) as well. Therefore, this research will not solely focus on the strengths-use but also on deficit improvement and on the combination of strengths-use and deficit improvement as well. Since deficit improvement always seemed to be the obvious way to develop employees, not much is written about this particular subject in the literature. This study can contribute to fill this gap in the literature. 5

To summarize, the purpose of this study, which is part of a larger study, is to give an answer on the following research question: What is the effect of online coaching interventions focusing on (a) strengths, (b) deficits or (c) strengths and deficits on employee’s self-efficacy and resilience at work? In order to answer this question, an online coaching intervention will be conducted in the Netherlands. The intervention is focused on the use of strengths, improvement of deficits or a combination of both, and will investigate whether it has an effect on engagement, psychological capital and happiness. During three weeks, respondents will participate in the online coaching tool and have to fill out different questionnaires.

6

Theoretical Framework Individual strengths In order to better understand the concept of a strengths-based online coaching intervention, a definition of strengths will be given. According to Forest, Mageau, Crevier-Braud, Bergeron, Dubreuil and Lavigne(2012), there are two definitions of strengths known in the literature. First, strength is defined by Linley and Harrington (2006a, p.88) as “capacities for feeling, thinking, and behaving in ways that are authentic and energizing to the user and that allow optimal functioning in the pursuit of valued outcomes”. Subsequently, Rath (2007) defined strength as “the ability to consistently provide near-perfect performance on a task”. As a result of these definitions, strength can be described as a distinctive characteristic that energizes and motivates people to develop themselves and function optimally (Forest et al., 2012).

Strengths-Use Interventions The typical goal of strengths interventions is to increase well-being or personal achievement through the identification and development of strengths. In the past, these interventions asked participants to self-identify and label their strengths, but more recently, strengths classifications have been developed to assist with strengths identification (Quinlan, Swain & Vella-Brodrick, 2012). The strengths intervention used in this study combines these two strategies of identifying strengths. The Values In Action classification of Peterson and Seligman (2004) will be used as a tool for participants in order to identify their strengths. However, participants are also allowed to identify their strengths by asking their acquaintances. The intervention will focus on both strengths-use and developing strengths. By using one's strengths, employees can develop them. Therefore, strengths-use and developing strengths will be used interchangeably.

Self-efficacy In order to understand the concept of self-efficacy and the relationship with the intervention, a definition of self-efficacy will be given. According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy is a construct that is derived from social cognitive theory, a theory in which behavior, cognitions and the environment all influence each other in a dynamic way. Wood and Bandura (1989a: p.408) determined that “self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action that are needed to meet given situational demands”.

Gist and Mitchell (1992) outline three important aspects of this

definition. First, self-efficacy is a judgment of perceived capability for performing a specific 7

task. Second, self-efficacy is a dynamic construct, which means that it can change over time when new information and experiences are acquired. Last, self-efficacy beliefs involve a mobilization component, thus people, who may have the same skills, may perform differently based on their utilization and combination of these skills in a changing context. To summarize, self-efficacy can be defined as “one’s confidence about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources or courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context” (Stajkovic&Luthans, 1998, p66). This definition corresponds to the definition used in this study, which is the definition of Luthans, Yousseff and Avolio (2007, p.3). They define self-efficacy as “having confidence to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks”.

The influence of strengths-use on self-efficacy Performance accomplishments are one of the major influences on self-efficacy. The successes of the employees raise their expectations (Bandura, 1977). This means that having positive past achievements and giving attention to these successes, the expectations of employees will grow and these expectations, in turn, will lead to higher self-efficacy. Hodges and Clifton (in press) addressed different studies in their study that supports this statement. One study was a web-based survey to the impact of strengths awareness on participant behaviors. The conclusion of their study was that focusing on strengths (being aware of them) increases the self-confidence of people. Not only being aware of one's strengths can increase the selfefficacy of employees. Using your strengths is even more important. According to Linley, Nielsen, Wood, Gillett and Biswar-Diener (2010), strengths-use can lead to goal attainment through different mechanisms. This goal attainment can be compared with the successes Bandura (1977) wrote about. Building on this theory, it can be expected that employees who use their strengths can experience higher levels of self-efficacy, because of the growing expectations caused by the accomplished goals. Bandura (1977) also asserted that people could be persuaded to believe that they have the skills and capabilities to succeed. Getting verbal encouragement from others helps people overcome self-doubt and instead focus on giving their best effort to the task at hand. In the strengths-based interventions, participants are assigned to ask their acquaintances about their strengths, which can be seen as verbal encouragement. The influence of performance accomplishments can be explained by the indirect relationship with positive emotions. An emotion can be classified as positive when the personenvironment relationship is beneficial (Lazarus, 1991). In general, variables such as joy, love, 8

pride, amusement, hope and enthusiasm are considered to be positive emotions. These emotions are a part of what is called subjective well-being (SWB). The SWB construct comprises emotional responses (i.e. positive and negative affect) and global judgments of life satisfaction (Proctor, Maltby & Linley, 2011). Govindji and Linley (2007) examined the relationship between strengths use and subjective well-being and found that strengths use is a unique predictor of the variance in SWB. In turn, other research has shown that individuals with positive SWB have consistently high levels of positive emotions (Proctor, Maltby & Linley, 2011). People in a positive mood are more likely to emphasize their control over the outcomes they will receive than those with negative emotion and are more tending to attribute positive consequences to personal rather than external causes. A study of Dunning and Storey (1991) showed that positive people actually do experience more positive outcomes and experiencing positive outcomes in turn will lead to success expectations and thereby to higher self-efficacy. The relationship between strengths-use and self-efficacy is also supported by Wood, Linley, Malty, Kashdan and Hurling (2011). The demonstrated in their longitudinal study among a local community in Northern England that people who use their strengths develop higher levels of self-esteem, which is often used interchangeably with self-efficacy. The expected relationship is formulated in the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 1a: The use of a strengths-based online coaching intervention has a positive effect on someone’s self-efficacy.

Resilience Resilience refers to the positive psychological capacity to rebound, to bounce back from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure, or even positive change, progress and increased responsibility (Luthans, 2002, p702). Luther, Cicchetti and Becker (2000) defined resilience as "a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity". In this study the following definition of resilience will be used: “a state of development that is characterized by: when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond to attain success” (Luthans, Youssef &Avolio, 2007). From this definition it can be concluded that individuals who are resilient are more flexible when demands are changing and will be more open for new experiences (Tugade, Fredrickson, & Barrett, 2004).

9

The influence of strengths-use on resilience Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan and Hurling (2011) stated that “if strengths use naturally leads to well-being over time, such interventions may be a way to build long term individual resilience and optimal functioning. Lietz (2008) developed a new focus on identifying and developing resiliency skills; the strengths based approach. This new approach recognizes the importance of building upon capacities the one has or can develop. An explanation why a strengths-based intervention may be a way to build resilience can be found in earlier research of Grant, Curtayne and Burton (2009). In their research they demonstrated that cognitive behavioral solution-focused coaching has increased the level of resilience via coaching and goals attainment. By integrating a perspective which focuses on solutions, the coaches help towards the development of personal strengths and on solution building rather than analyzing the problems (Pleunis, 2012). The growing resilience can be explained by the fact that people have to go through several steps, and while doing so they are expected to have to overcome challenges and barriers. Previous research showed more evidence for the relationship between solution-focused coaching and increased resilience of students (Green, Grant & Rynsaardt, 2007). It can be expected that this relationship can be applied to working people as well. Another reason why a strengths-based intervention has a positive effect on resilience can be found in the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001). As demonstrated in the previous section, strengths-use can lead to positive emotions. The broaden-and-build theory of Fredrickson (2001) suggests that positive emotions lead to broadened arrows of thoughts and actions that facilitate the building of important personal resources (social, physiological, and cognitive resources) (Meyers, van Woerkom & Bakker, 2012). It is called the broaden-andbuild theory because positive emotions appear to broaden people’s momentary thought-action repertoires and build their personal resources (Fredrickson, 2004). Furthermore, Fredrickson (2003) suggested that facilitating positive emotions can cause positive upward spirals, in which the created personal resources lead to the experience of positive emotions, which, in turn, will produce even more personal resources. The personal resources acquired during states of positive emotions are lasting. Through experiences of positive emotions, people transform themselves, becoming more resilient individuals (Fredrickson, 2004). For example, people will create a more positive cognitive mindset (cognitive resources), and thereby they can better resist against adversity at work. The expectation that arises from this theory is that

10

the use of a strengths-based intervention(strengths-use) will lead to higher resilience, because of the created positive emotions. Taken this together, this has led to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1b: The use of a strengths-based online coaching intervention has a positive effect on someone’s resilience.

Deficit Improvement interventions As mentioned before, the concept of positive psychology is gaining more attention in the literature. This can imply that there’s also a shift in the use of interventions into a more positive way. However, there are some critics about the use of positive psychology and it doesn’t mean that the use of a deficit improvement is useless. Since deficit improvement always seemed to be the obvious way to develop employees, not much is written about this particular subject in the literature. However, other literature can be linked to the use of deficit improvement. One theory that supports deficit improvement is the theory of Ericsson (2006). He argued that expert performance can be reached through experience. Of course he noted that the best training environments are not sufficient to produces the very best performers, because there are substantial individual differences, like age. The fact that high performance levels can be reached through experience implies that a deficiency doesn’t necessarily has to be a barrier to success. Deficiencies can be developed by experience, so the weaknesses must be used instead of avoided. After practicing the deficits, they will be developed and can even become strengths and ultimately lead to higher performance.

The influence of deficit improvement on self-efficacy Gist and Mitchell (1992) did a theoretical analysis of the determinants of self-efficacy. According to them, three processes form someone’s self-efficacy. First, an analysis of task requirements has to be made (eg. What does it take to perform well). Second, an employee makes an attributional analysis of experience. This analysis involves the individuals’ judgments about why a particular performance level occurred. The last process that forms self-efficacy is the examination of self and determining the availability of specific resources and constraints for performing the task at different levels. This assessment requires consideration of personal factors (eg. Skill level) and situational factors. Especially when taking the last process in mind, and thinking of the experience theory of Ericsson (2006), it can be expected that someone’s overall skill level will be higher when that person minimizes 11

his or her deficits. This implies that an intervention focusing on improving deficits can lead to higher self-efficacy. This has led to the next hypothesis: Hypothesis 2a: The use of an online intervention focusing on improving deficits will have a positive effect on self-efficacy.

The influence of deficit improvement on resilience According to Grotberg (2003), resilience (in studies of children) is based on three categories; external supports (e.g., good role models), inner strengths (e.g., likability, optimism) and interpersonal and problem-solving skills (e.g., staying with a task until it is finished). Although this was based on studies with children, this theory of Grotberg can also be applied to the resilience of employees (Harland, Harrison, Jones & Reiter-Palmon, 2005). The last category of Grotberg’s framework (interpersonal and problem-solving skills) can be linked to deficit improvement. Dealing with your weaknesses can be seen as a kind of problem-solving. This suggests that problem-solving, which almost equals improving problems or deficiencies, can lead to increased resilience. Another explanation of the relationship between deficit improvement and resilience can be found in the different types of coping with challenges. Harland, Harrison, Jones and ReiterPalmon (2005) discuss in their study two types of coping with challenges. One form is avoidance-coping, which involves actions as engaging in substitute tasks to distract one, and trying to forget the issue causing stress. The other type is called approach-coping and involves actions such as logical analysis, positive reappraisal of the situation, seeking guidance and support, and taking problem-solving actions. Avoiding-coping is found to be less effective in causing resilience than approach-coping is (Holahan, Moos & Schaefer, 1996). The deficit improvement intervention in this study is focusing on developing weaknesses at work. This intervention involves employees who are seeking guidance and support in order to develop themselves. Subsequently, the intervention focuses on someone's weaknesses in a positive way. Weaknesses will not only be identified, but more important is the development of the deficiencies. This can be seen as a positive reappraisal of the situation. Meaning that deficit improvement can be seen as a kind of approach-coping, this implies that the use of a deficit improvement will lead to higher resilience. This has resulted in the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2b: The use of an online intervention focusing on improving deficits has a positive effect on someone’s resilience.

12

Combining a strength- and deficit-based intervention

Although the general emphasis in positive psychology is on strengths, many clinical researchers have recognized the need for clients to balance or integrate their psychological work on both strengths and weaknesses (Rust, Diessner & Reade, 2009). Rather than solely developing and using strengths or improving deficits it could be useful to combine the two types of interventions. This resulted in a combined intervention which focuses on both strengths and weaknesses. This combined intervention is supported by Smith (2006). She proposes a more balanced view of human nature, one that recognizes the inherent paradox in life circumstances and the need to assess strengths and deficits. In their study to life satisfaction, Rust, Diessner and Reade (2009), found that participants who focused on character strength and one relative character weakness showed as much gain in life satisfaction as did those who focused on two character strengths. However, a combined intervention is a relatively new construct and not much is written about it. Therefore the relationship between the combined intervention and self-efficacy and resilience can solely be based on logical reasoning. Taking together the expected positive relationships between a strengths-use intervention and a deficit improvement intervention on self-efficacy it can be expected that people treated with a combination of both interventions will achieve higher self-efficacy compared to the group threatened with an intervention solely based on either strengths or deficits. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated: Hypothesis 3a: The use of an online strengths-based intervention in combination with an online deficit improvement intervention will lead to higher self-efficacy compared to using an online intervention solely based on strengths or deficits. In the previous sections it is found that resilience can be increased by both a strengths-based online coaching intervention and a deficit improvement online coaching intervention. This can imply that the use of a combination of both interventions will possibly lead to higher resilience than the use of only one of the interventions. Therefore the last hypothesis is formulated: Hypothesis 3b: The use of an online strengths-based intervention in combination with an online deficit improvement intervention will lead to higher resilience compared to using an intervention solely based on strengths-use or deficit improvement.

13

Conceptual Model To visualize all the expected relations between the different interventions and the dependent variables self-efficacy and resilience, a conceptual model is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

14

Methods In this section the research design, sample and population, operationalization of the concepts and analyses will be explained successively.

Research design The research question of this study will be answered through data obtained from an online coaching intervention. The data were retrieved by questionnaires within an online coaching intervention. These questionnaires were part of a broader study of Tilburg University and the Erasmus University Rotterdam. Potential respondents were approached in different ways. First, a message was placed on the website www.gelukswijzer.nl, with a very broad network. This web community was developed to conduct a large-scale and long-term research into the happiness of Dutch citizens. Subsequently, students tried to reach acquaintances (family, colleagues and friends) from their own network to participate in the online coaching intervention. At last, a flyer was uploaded on various linked-in groups, mainly focused on personal development and coaching. This way of reaching respondents is a combination of purposive sampling and convenience sampling. A purposive sample is a non-representative subset of some larger population and is constructed to serve a very specific need or purpose. In this research, only working people could participate in the online coaching intervention. However, within the group of working people, it was a matter of "taking what you get". As much working people as possible were reached to participate in the research. The respondents were promised that the results would only be used for study purposes. The data were collected during 3 weeks. Every week, the respondents were asked to fill in the same questionnaire, which makes this a longitudinal study. However, only the data of week 1 (before the intervention) and week 3 (after the intervention) will be used in this research. This study is of deductive nature, which means that the hypotheses to be tested are derived from the already existing theory. The hypotheses form the conceptual model that is displayed in figure 1 (page 14). This study is also of a testing nature, because it will test if the conceptual model is a good reflection of reality. For the online coaching intervention, which will be further described below, the respondents were divided in four groups. The first group was only treated with the strengths-use intervention, the second group was coached by a deficit improvement intervention, and the third group had both the strengths-based and deficit improvement intervention. The fourth 15

group, the control group, only had to fill out the starting questions and the weekly questionnaires, but the respondents in this group were not treated with any kind of coaching intervention.

Interventions In this study, a distinction was made between three different intervention groups and a control group. The respondents in the different intervention groups had to take almost the same steps in order to finish the e-coaching sessions. Strengths-use intervention For the respondents in the strengths-use group the intervention started in week 1 with filling out a shortened version of the Values in Action test (VIA) (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The choice to remove various characteristics has been made on the basis of face validity. Therefore, for example, love and spirituality were released from the test. After shortening, the test consisted of 73 statements that all refer to a characteristic. A division was made between 14 characteristics (e.g. creativity or team player). The cronbach’s alpha of the scales used in the VIA test ranges from .54 to .84. The statements could be answered on a 5-point likert scale, ranging from “doesn’t fit me at all” (1) to “typical of me” (5). Filling out this test resulted in a list of one’s strong and weak characteristics. In addition, the respondents did the “Reflected best self” exercise (Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy & Quinn, 2005). For this assignment the participants asked about 5 to 7 acquaintances about their strengths. In week 2, the participants had to choose two strong points, based on the assignments in week 1, which they wanted to develop. A concrete plan was made by the respondents about applying and developing their strengths on the work floor. In the third week, the respondents had to use and develop their strengths based on the action plan created in week 2. After that week, the respondents reflected on their goals and actions about the development of their characteristics. Next to these assignments, the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire to measure their engagement, happiness and the four elements of psychological capital (hope, optimism, resilience & self-efficacy) in the first, second and third week. Deficit improvement intervention Respondents in the deficit improvement group also started in week 1 with the shortened version of the VIA test (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). After filling out this test, respondents received a list of their weaknesses. In addition, the “Reflected self” exercise was carried out. The respondents had to ask their acquaintances about their development opportunities. 16

Based on the results of the VIA and the “Reflected self” exercise, the respondents chose two characteristics they wanted to develop in the next weeks. They made a concrete plan to develop their deficits. In the next week, this plan was carried out in order to develop their deficits. Besides the VIA test and the “Reflected self” exercise, the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire to measure their engagement, happiness, hope, optimism, resilience and selfefficacy in the first, second and third week. Strengths-use and deficit improvement intervention Respondents in this group also started the intervention with the shortened version of the VIA test (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). This test resulted in a list on which their strong and weak points were ranked. In addition, they asked their acquaintances about one strong point and one characteristic that could be improved. Based on these exercises, the respondents chose one strong point to use more and one characteristic they wanted to develop in the next week. Again a plan was made in order to improve or use these characteristics. In the first, second and third week of the intervention the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire to measure their engagement, happiness, hope, optimism, resilience and selfefficacy. Control group. The respondents assigned to the control group didn’t receive any kind of coaching intervention. They only had to fill out the starting questionnaire about the demographical characteristics, and in the first, second and third week, they had to answer the questions about psychological capital, engagement and happiness. Respondents who completed the questionnaires of the control group were asked to participate in the strengths-use intervention. Thereby, 10 persons have participated in both the control and strengths-use group. The data of these persons were treated as if it were two different respondents.

Sample and population In total, 313 respondents subscribed for the online coaching program. Only 120 of them filled out the questionnaires of week 1, 2 and 3. This means a response rate of 38,3%. In the strengths-use group, 35 participants completed the program, 26 participants completed the deficits improvement intervention, 25 persons completed the intervention which combined strengths-use and deficit improvement and 34 respondents completed the questionnaires in the control group. The average age of the respondents was 38,23. The youngest respondent was 20 and the oldest participant was 63. Slightly more women participated in the intervention, namely 72 women (60%) against 48 men (40%). The respondents work an average of 31,7 17

hours a week, which is very high. This is probably due to the fact that only working people were allowed to subscribe for the intervention. The respondents were mostly high educated, 87 participants (72,5%) completed higher professional education or university.

Measures The data were collected in The Netherlands so all items were administered in Dutch. Self-efficacy: In this research self-efficacy is defined as “having confidence to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks” (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007 p.3). In order to measure self-efficacy of the respondents an already existing scale of Luthans, Avolio and Avey (2007) was used. This scale consisted of 6 items, which could be answered on a 6point likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). The cronbach's alpha of this scale ranges from .75 to .85 (Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Norman, 2007). Because the total questionnaire became too large, it was decided to shorten the scale from 6 items to 4 items. In this research the cronbach’s alpha ranges from .82 in week 1 to .85 in week 3. An example of the used items is: "I feel confident enough to give a presentation to a group of colleagues". Resilience: Resilience is defined as: “a state of development that is characterized by: when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond to attain success”(Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007 p.3). This variable was as well measured on interval scale. This scale includes 6 items, which could again be answered on a 6-point likertscale (Luthans, Avolio & Avey, 2007), ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (6). Because the questionnaire was very large, this scale was also shortened into 4 items. The cronbach’s alpha of the total scale ranges from .66 to .72 (Luthans, Avey, Avolio & Norman, 2007). After shortening the scale, the cronbach’s alpha ranges from .87 in week 1 to .93 in week 3. The statement “Normally, I can manage the difficulties at work very well” is an example of the items. The output of the reliability analysis of both dependent variables (selfefficacy and resilience) can be found in the appendix. Control variables: Schwarzer, Bäβler, Kwiatek and Schröder (1997) found that women obtained lower scores on self-efficacy than men. Thus, gender can influence the effect of the interventions on selfefficacy. Subsequently, Wasonga, Christman and Kilmer (2003) found that age and gender influenced factors predicting resilience. Employment status (working full- or part-time) was also found to influence someone's resilience (London, 1993). Therefore, age, gender and 18

working hours per week will be included as control variables. Age, gender and working hours per week were measured in the intake questionnaire. Age and average working hours per week were both measured through an open question, which makes these variables numerical variables. The variable gender was obviously divided into two categories, man or woman. Thereby this variable is a nominal variable. Subsequently, respondents could reflect on the actions they had planned in order to reach their goals. This variable was measured in week 3 through the question “Did you manage to complete the planned action?” The item had to be answered on a 7-point likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally not) to 7 (totally). This variable will be included as control variable as well.

Analyses The different hypotheses will be tested in SPSS through the use of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis in order to give an answer on the research question. With the use of this analysis, answers can be given to three important questions. First: Is there any effect of the interventions on self-efficacy and resilience? The second question that has to be answered is: Do all the different interventions influence the level of self-efficacy and resilience? And the last question is: Which of the treatments has the largest effect on self-efficacy and resilience? If the answer on the first question is no, then the second and third question are redundant. In hierarchical multiple regression analysis, a certain order of entering the variables into the regression equation can be determined. This is needed to control for hidden relationships with other variables. In the first block, the independent variables (the different intervention groups) are entered and in the second block, the control variables (age, gender and working hours per week) are entered. Within this analysis the different interventions are the independent variables and will be converted into dummy variables. A dummy variable is one that takes the value 0 or 1 and dummies are used as devices to sort data into mutually exclusive categories (the respondents were classified to only 1 group). Because there were 4 different groups, three dummy variables were generated. For the strengths group dummy, all respondents in the strengths-use group were coded with value 1 and respondents in all other groups were coded with value 0. For the deficit group dummy, all respondents classified to the deficit improvement group got the value 1 and all other respondents got value 0. Finally the dummy for the group that combined strengths-use and deficit improvement was made. All respondents in the combination group got the value 1 and all other participants got the value 0. The control group was not converted into a dummy variable because this was the reference group. Self-efficacy and resilience are the dependent variables within this analysis. The data of these 19

variables were retrieved in the first, second and third week. Only the data of week 1 and week 3 were used in the analysis. First the average score per respondent in week 1 and week 3 on self-efficacy and resilience were measured. After that a new variable of resilience and selfefficacy was made, which indicates the change in these variables after completing the coaching program (score week 3-score week 1). This variable can now be used in the regression analysis as dependent variable. Any outliers will be treated as missing values, and the missing values will be deleted pair wise. Now only the respondents with a missing value on a used item will be deleted.

20

Results In this section, the results of the regression analyses will be described. First information on the descriptive level of the variables used in the analyses will be given.

Descriptive statistics To obtain information on the descriptive level, bi-variate analyses were carried out. Table 1 presents the mean sum scores, standard deviations and intercorrelations for the variables that will be used in the regression analyses for hypothesis testing and other variables that may provide relevant information. The correlation matrix can also be found in the appendix. Table 1: Reports of means (M), standard deviations (SD) and Pearson’s correlations.

** p

Smile Life

When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have a thousand reasons to smile

Get in touch

© Copyright 2015 - 2024 PDFFOX.COM - All rights reserved.