We were thrilled to host the Shift Positive 360 training here in downtown DC with participants coming from as far away as North Carolina and Seattle, WA to participate!

Pete Berridge and Jen Ostrich wowed us with the level of detail, the content that they are sharing and the rarity of having training in a tool where there are no ongoing fees.

I have never felt more prepared to deliver a certification, than I did after this training.  And I’ve done a lot of certifications!  The combination of a positive/strengths focus and engaging a system makes it a very unique tool.  I used it on the Monday after the Friday training and got much deeper with my interview than I would have otherwise.

As one participant said, “It is more than a 360 – it is a framework for change!’

Let us know if you are interested in future certifications.

The benefits of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) glitter gold (see our previous blog post), but what do you need to assure success? While there is more than one way to host a productive AI summit, seasoned AI expert and summit facilitator Shannon Polly says that there are steps that you (or whoever would plan your AI summit) can take to prep for best outcomes:

• Know your organization – Is the organizational culture very top-down? Do you have buy-in from key leaders? Strive to get leaders on-board and solicit at least one of these people to lend their credibility to AI. This might look like a testimonial or keynote address at the beginning of the summit, and will certainly involve their participation in the four phases. If your organization doesn’t believe that focusing on strengths is the best way of approaching things, an AI summit won’t be useful.
• Make the time – Ensure that there is enough time to plan and execute the summit. There is no set formula on how much time you need. Consider reaching out to AI experts – like Shannon – to draft up a reasonable timeline.
• Secure the funding – As with time, there is not one financial model for making an AI summit happen. Consult AI experts, your financial team, and potential sponsors to figure out what you can afford. Modest AI summits can work, you just need to make sure that what you plan is within your means.
• Recruit the experts – You will want expertise both in facilitating the AI process, as well as in the industry itself. This may come from one individual, or (more likely) a complimentary team.
• Invite all stakeholders – The more stakeholders attending the summit, the better it will be. AI is a fundamentally democratic process that works best when as many organization stakeholders as possible contribute. If there are stakeholder cohorts that can’t or won’t participate, consider carefully whether an AI summit would be the best option for your organization at this time.
• Craft the question – Fine-tune the topic that will guide the entire summit. This will brand your summit internally and externally, and will orient the positive, transformative thinking of everyone involved. For example, the City of Cleveland has successfully used, “Sustainable Cleveland 2019: Building an Economic Engine to Empower a Green City on a Blue Lake.“
• Talk about it – Many people don’t know what AI is or they have misconceptions about it, making it critical that you can clearly describe for your people what AI is and what it isn’t. Talk about it with all of your stakeholders, framing things in terms of their lingo and interests. Each stakeholder is wondering, “What’s in it for me? What’s in it for our organization?” Make sure you can address those questions! Collect data and anecdotes to back up your claims and make them real for people. As an example, here’s how Shannon introduces AI.
• Know and use your strengths – Lots of practitioners leverage whatever strengths are their top strengths in order to facilitate an AI summit. Shannon names social intelligence, bravery, and creativity as qualities that facilitators can bring to the fore.
• Read the room – Ten years of professional acting experience equip Shannon to quickly and accurately read the pulse of a room. Even if you aren’t a professional actor, it’s important to get an in-the-moment sense of the group. This will help you to be flexible and rally energy, as well as notice and address questions and confusions if/when they arise.
• Trust the process – Shannon stresses that it’s key for you to believe in the AI summit process and that you can inspire this confidence in others. Positive transformation of the whole system won’t happen until the participants are open to it.

If you cover these bases, you’ll be well on your way to launching an AI summit that will spur your organization’s positive transformation. Be the catalyst! Reach out to AI expert Shannon Polly to start the revolution.

When you look at your colleagues, do you notice their best qualities? Even when you focus on others’ strengths, you may still feel like the organization is stuck. Maybe you’re mired in inefficient processes. Perhaps you contend with resistance to change. Do you see misalignment between your mission and daily practices? If you do, that’s normal! But it doesn’t have to stay that way. You can do better, because you’re already doing good.

If you’re grateful for other’s good points, and yet the organization seems stalled or stuck in some way, conditions are ripe for Appreciative Inquiry (AI). An Appreciative Inquiry summit is an organizational process intended to catalyze positive transformation by noticing what’s already going well, envisioning an optimal future, and leveraging strengths and creativity to get there. This happens when as many stakeholders as possible come together to design an actionable strategy in answer to a central positive question or topic.

En vogue fields like Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) have popularized promising-sounding processes like an AI summit, but what, if anything, can it actually do for you? In an interview with Gregor Nelson, seasoned AI facilitator and expert Shannon Polly offered insights on how the AI summit can work for you.

Benefits of the AI Summit

Savvy professionals like you want to see returns on their investments. Shannon explains why the AI summit is a valuable, viable tool for any and all groups:
• It’s well-designed – According to Shannon, the process always works if basic preconditions are met (see the next blog for more details). It happens in four phases:

1. Discovery: Recognize and appreciate what works
2. Dream: Imagine what might be
3. Design: Develop structures and systems to optimize what is and what might be
4. Destiny: Implement or the proposed design

If you have the resources and willingness for the AI process to work, it will!

1. It’s flexible – You can mute it in many different ways depending on the audience you have. You’ll likely get different layers of results depending on how much time you have, how many stakeholders you have in the room…but that the process itself always works.
2. It’s positive – The AI summit is positive in that it assumes that the organization and its associated individuals have strengths. The AI process focuses on what’s going right, and how you can capitalize on that to catalyze positive change in the entire organization.
3. It’s transformative – Rather than solving problems, AI transcends them by elevating the question from, “How do we fight this fire?” to, “How can we grow into the very best version of ourselves?” AI enables you to ascend to your highest mission, rather than merely weed-whacking mundane problems.
4. It’s actionable – The key to translating the AI summit into lasting success is to follow through and ask what you’re going to do with the information that you’ve created. You’ll start implementing your action plan in the final Destiny stage of the summit.

If you’re ready to lead your organization in unleashing its full positive strength, learn more from Shannon about how you can take advantage of AI and other positive psychology tools: http://positivebusinessdc.com/shannon-m-polly-mapp/

The situation was a friend and my boss has used an online software to collect data from our coaching sessions for purposes of billing and gathering themes from the coaching so that she may present data back to the client.  In addition, she has tried to have us put our coaching notes from the sessions up in two different pieces of software.  On a call a few months ago she asked the group if they would be willing to use the new software to put their notes on it – thus giving a way to find information more quickly and standardize the process for all the coaches.   A number of coaches on that call agreed to do so.  I subsequently called my friend and told her that I wouldn’t be willing to do that.  Her response was that she wasn’t going to read it.  I persisted in saying that I would not put my notes there.  It should be noted that my boss is not an ICF certified coach although many of the coaches on her team are ICF certified.

After perusing the ICF code of ethics for this class while thinking of this situation, it lead me to many questions.  The most pertinent clause for this situation is this one:

“11) Maintain, store and dispose of any records, including electronic files and communications, created during my coaching engagements in a manner that promotes confidentiality, security and privacy and complies with any applicable laws and agreements.”

To be fair to my boss, while my instinct is that this request does not promote ‘confidentiality, security and privacy’ I don’t actually know what she has proposed to her clients and what is involved in their agreements.  If they have agreed to this and it violates no laws, one would assume that the issue would be complete.  If my boss is not looking at the notes, would they still be considered secure and confidential?  Or is the mere fact that she has access to them a violation?  I also do not know if any of the other coaches complied by putting their notes on the site even though they said they did.

The next items that appear to be most pertinent are these:

“2) Commit to take the appropriate action with the coach, trainer, or coach mentor and/or will contact ICF to address any ethics violation or possible breach as soon as I become aware, whether it involves me or others.

3) Communicate and create awareness in others, including organizations, employees, sponsors, coaches and others, who might need to be informed of the responsibilities established by this Code.”

The challenge in the way the code is written is that the list structure implies that you are supposed to do all of these things, and some might say in the order in which they are written.  Am I supposed to contact the ICF regarding this apparent violation before I contact my boss?  And only after I do that contact my fellow coaches?

There is also no conditionality included in the content.  Should I contact the ICF even if I have contacted my boss and the other coaches and they have been made aware?  Should I contact ICF if I have contacted them and they have corrected the problem?  After digging a bit deeper the solution becomes less and less clear.  However, I have made a decision as to how to proceed.  I will contact my boss first, as that is more appropriate than contacting her employees (my fellow coaches).  After being made aware of the situation and letting her know the code that I am required to abide by, I will see if she wants to tell the other coaches or if she would like me to do that.  Depending on how she decides to resolve the situation will determine whether or not I contact the ICF.

Initially, I thought this was a cut and dry situation.  After peeling back layers of the onion, I see that regarding ethics there are many layers and many shades of grey depending on whom you ask.  I’d love to hear your thoughts…feel free to send a message to info (at) shannonpolly.com with your thoughts.

Here is the link to the recording that shares more insight on:

1) How to convince leaders to engage with the shift positive

2) Why a systems approach is the most successful for change

3) How using the Shift Positive 360 actually nets you more clients!

And don’t forget the to get a 10% discount on the certification (February 23-24 in DC) go to:  www.bitly.com/Pos360PBDC before January 31st.

Certification Training: February 23-24, 2017

Are you interested in being certified in the Shift Positive 360? The Shift Positive 360 is a narrative 360 approach used by executive and leadership coaches and HR leaders. This approach is grounded in positive psychology and focuses on engaging the client’s “people system” throughout the change process to ensure sustainable positive change.

Join the two-day certification training and become well versed in positive psychology, social systems, the method and methodology behind the Shift Positive 360, and experience your own shift throughout the training.

Register Here to take advantage of the special Positive DC Early Bird Special (Register by January 31, 2017) and save $250

In the certification process you will:

• Get grounded in key Positive Psychology concepts
• Feel confident in using the shift+ 360
• Be capable in garnering allies for your client
• Challenge the traditional 360 approach of confidentiality
• Be comfortable sharing feedback with your client
• Learn how to involve the social system over the entire engagement
• Understand how this approach actually leads to more clients
• Experience a mindshift for you—coach

You will receive 7.85 core competencies and 6.9 resource development CCEs from ICF for completion of this training.

Workshop Dates: Thursday + Friday February 23-24, 2017. AdvantEdge Business Centers, Downtown Washington DC.

Register Here by January 31, 2017 for the early bird discount.

Learn more about the Shift Positive 360 @ www.shiftpositive360.com

Pete Berridge and Jen Ostrich are both Hudson Institute PCC level coaches who co-founded the Shift Positive 360 method. Pete has a Masters in Applied Positive Psychology and began this method five years ago to use in his own executive coaching practice. Jen brings 15 years of navigating people systems across the complex advertising industry prior to coaching, and has used the Shift Positive 360 method exclusively for the last three years in her leadership coaching business. Together they have a collection of positive outcomes and have developed a coach certification training in the Shift Positive 360 at the request of many coaches and human resource professionals.

While there can be many answers to this question, I suggest that perspective-taking is an important one of them. Perspective-taking has been defined as the “active cognitive process of imagining the world from another’s vantage point or imagining oneself in another’s shoes to understand their visual viewpoint, thoughts, motivations, intentions, and/or emotions” (Ku, Wang, & Galinsky, 2015, p. 94). Even though perspective-taking (which is a cognitive process) has been argued to be different from empathy (which is understood to have an emotional component,) this distinction does not seem to be universally agreed upon. For instance, Coleman (2007) writes about three different types of empathy – emotional, cognitive, and compassionate, and refers to cognitive empathy as perspective-taking. To clarify my usage in this post, I will consider perspective-taking to be different from empathy, and will use the term to refer to one’s ability to actively engage in the process of understanding someone else’s point of view.

If we consider the context of the US elections, perspective-taking would entail actively seeking out someone with a different political view than one’s own and listening to what they have to say with an open mind and a genuine desire to understand. Interestingly, to really put oneself in someone else’s shoes, one needs to first take off one’s own shoes: It is only by suspending our own judgments and preconceived notions that we can truly take another’s perspective. By demonstrating this skill themselves, leaders can encourage their teams to do the same. This isn’t easy, of course, and given the delicacy of the situation, requires skill.
However, perspective-taking of this sort can be an important step towards a greater understanding of the situation and of the other person, which is crucial for an institution that wants its people to connect and cooperate with one another. In fact, research on perspective-taking indicates that it leads to enhanced interpersonal and intergroup relations.

Perspective-taking has been shown to increase positive connections, enhance coordination, and increase generosity and helping behavior in interpersonal relationships (Ku et al., 2015). Perspective-taking has also been shown to improve intergroup relations by reducing prejudice, stereotyping, and discriminatory views (Ku et al., 2015). Difficult times in an organization can be filled with negativity and a lack of connection among people, and leaders can employ perspective-taking as a tool to infuse more positivity in such situations. Furthermore, perspective-taking can be a critical skill for organizations that value diversity: it can enable leaders to leverage the benefits of diversity while reducing the challenges that arise when people with diverse ethnicities, views, and opinions come together.

It is important to note that perspective-taking is not an unmitigated good and can even have a negative impact. For instance, perspective-taking seems to have different effects in cooperative vs. competitive contexts: it reduces egocentrism and increases moral behavior in cooperative contexts and increases egocentric and self-serving behavior in competitive contexts (Ku et al., 2015). Similarly, if members of a group deeply identify with their group, attempts at understanding another group’s perspective result in an increase in negative judgments about the other group, perhaps because the context appears to be one of competition (Ku et al., 2015). It is important, then, for leaders to be aware of the nuances of perspective-taking so that they can use this tool effectively to foster greater understanding and cooperation in their organizations, while preventing its detrimental effects.

In essence, there are pros and cons to perspective-taking and while the pros seem to outweigh the cons, an effective use of this tool to manage conflicting teams and individuals requires leaders to have a nuanced understanding of how and when to lead from someone else’s shoes.

References

Ku, G., Wang, C. S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The promise and perversity of perspective-taking in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 79-102. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2015.07.003

Goleman, D. (2007, June 12). Three Kinds of Empathy: Cognitive, Emotional, Compassionate. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from http://www.danielgoleman.info/three-kinds-of-empathy-cognitive-emotional-compassionate/

Yashi Srivastava can be reached at: http://yashisrivastava.net

Join us to learn how positive psychology and social systems can transform feedback from its current broken state into the constructive, energizing experience is was intended to be. Pete Berridge, MAPP & PCC and Jen Ostrich, PCC, co-founders of the Shift Positive 360, will talk about why feedback and 360s are not as effective as they can be. Learn how positive psychology and social support systems can make all the difference in your client’s success in creating sustainable change.

In this webinar you will learn:

• The benefits of a solution-focused vs problem focused approach to feedback
• To challenge the notion of confidentiality with feedback and why it’s less effective
• How to set your clients up for successful change by creating their own “people system”

Pete Berridge and Jen Ostrich are both Hudson Institute PCC level coaches who co-founded the Shift Positive 360 method. Pete has a Masters in Applied Positive Psychology and began this method five years ago to use in his own executive coaching practice. Jen brings 15 years of navigating people systems across the complex advertising industry prior to coaching, and has used the Shift Positive 360 method exclusively for the last three years in her leadership coaching business. Together they have a collection of positive outcomes and have developed a coach certification training in the Shift Positive 360 at the request of many coaches and human resource professionals.

After spending a year studying well-being and human flourishing in the Master of Applied Positive Psychology (MAPP) program at Penn, I am more convinced that living a good life is like writing a good story. New chapters bring new possibilities, ideas, challenges, conflict, and resolution. Through experiencing each of these elements, I’ve learned and grown a lot since graduating in August 2015 and am excited to see what lies ahead.

Two exciting and unexpected things happened in the first six months following graduation: I was welcomed back to the MAPP program as an assistant instructor for the Capstone and Positive Psychology and Individuals courses and I was promoted to a new role at work that provides me the freedom and flexibility to use positive psychology to increase staff engagement.

Prior to this role, I worked as a case manager to help people with disabilities live independently in the community, which I absolutely loved despite the challenging experiences anyone in the social work field faces in their job. Unfortunately, during my nearly three years as a case manager, I witnessed the detrimental impact stress and burnout has on employees, an organization, and most importantly, the clients/consumers. After MAPP, I realized that helping social workers stay engaged, resilient, and connected to the meaning of their work may be the best way to sustain positive changes for both consumers and staff.

I’ve been working as an Organizational Engagement, Development, and Training Specialist for about 9 months now, and have been fortunate to pilot many new positive psychology interventions to keep staff engaged. I’ve worked with my supportive colleagues and two groups of Penn students through service learning projects to redesign our performance evaluations around the concept of Appreciative Inquiry, update our supervision templates, highlight successes in an internal newsletter, give monthly trainings on mindsets, post-traumatic growth, reciprocity, character strengths, and incorporate a 12 week long positive psychology based journal project into our new staff training curriculum. Currently, we’re gearing up for a project to create our core values, which will help solidify our new positive culture. To say the least, I am beyond grateful to work for an organization that is so eager and committed to increase staff engagement and implement new ideas.

When I’m not at my desk working on staff engagement, I’m out in the community helping individuals with hoarding behaviors throw away or donate some of their possessions. I didn’t originally plan on doing hoarding intervention work, but it has been one of the most rewarding and intellectually stimulating projects I’ve been involved with. The leading hoarding intervention model implicitly incorporates positive psychology concepts like designing your best future self, goal setting, and the cognitive skills of resilience, yet it is fundamentally designed to get rid of what’s “wrong,” i.e. the clutter. What if positive psychology could help hoarders build the life they want to live, thereby making it easier to declutter and downsize. Would teaching hoarders to use character strengths in the right amount make it easier to part with overly meaningful possessions or resist the rush of positive emotions in acquisition? Questions like these have yet to be answered.

I attended the annual OCD/hoarding conference this past July and had three full days to learn about the latest developments in hoarding intervention and meet the leading researchers in the field. I left the conference inspired and eager to blend positive psychology and hoarding intervention in theory, research, and application. I’m in no rush to fast forward, but I wonder if this work will carry into the next chapter of my story. Thanks for reading!

What is the greatest source of energy, creativity, and new business at work? People, provided they are fully engaged and supported by great leaders. In today’s workplace nothing of significance can be achieved alone. People are at the core of organizations because business, essentially, is about relationships. This really should come as no surprise. Relationships are central to well-being and a key feature of very happy people is the fact that they have good  interactions. Human beings are naturally social creatures and our interactions with others are just as vital as food and water. Over time, we have developed an innate ability to empathize and think socially in order to be able to cooperate with others. Surprisingly, research shows that most workplaces do not fully recognize the value of social in people’s lives. It’s time to rethink the importance of connections in our lives.

In this transformative and entertaining webinar, Robert Rosales, advisor, coach, and founder of Lead Academy, a positive leadership consultancy, shares the latest research on relationships from neuroscience, positive psychology and business. 

In this webinar, you’ll learn: 

• How positive social connections lead to a workplace that is energized and thrives
• How to create strong relationships that will make people more creative, healthy, and productive
• How great leaders make teams more productive

Register for the webinar HERE.

Rest is a useful habit. Our waking brains constantly seek out clues and make connections. Sleep helps our brains consolidate memories. Writing my capstone, like the bar exam I took three years ago, wore me out. In both cases, I felt like I was carrying a 10-pound brick on my shoulders. Putting aside intellectual work for a few months while my brain did its work in the background helped clear the fog.

However, I haven’t been idle – I’ve been training to work as a public speaker and preparing to work on creating the organization I overviewed in my capstone.

Public speaking wasn’t my idea. Scott Asalone, an assistant instructor in one of my classes and an alumnus of the MAPP program, suggested it. Among other things, he noticed that I enjoy being onstage. This is true – I feel more freedom to express the animated, boisterous portion of my personality on stage than in everyday life. Granted, I work in a court and you can’t go around pranking judges, but even outside of the court, one is expected to maintain a level of decorum that I sometimes find restrictive.

Speaking also allows me to share ideas and talk to an audience on behalf of others. I served in this role in law school, speaking on behalf of the students as editor-in-chief of the newspaper. There, I learned the importance of digging beneath the surface of the various sides of a debate to underlying factors, issues, and questions that are most important, but often unconsidered. I hope to continue this mode of inquiry, looking to history, law, psychology, and other sciences to inform the topics I take on.

I

It is this mode of inquiry that informed the four years of work that led to my capstone, and to the business proposal that came out of it. What I am working toward now is an organization that will (to borrow from my capstone) “channel the river.” Specifically, I am looking to foster equal results for lower-income and minority students, starting with law school. The fundamental idea driving this focus is that we humans are significantly similar to one another. Given similar circumstances, we should all achieve within the same range. However, educational attainment (and thus career prospects) tends to track household income before adjusting for ability. I believe that the available data and scientific research can be used to help more students from the lower half of the income divide to perform more like their peers from the upper half.

For now, I have to continue putting the pieces in place. Hopefully, I’ll be ready to give my first talk by the middle of next year, and start my organization by the end of next year. Keep your fingers crossed.

Then when Chris Peterson passed away in 2012, more students came together and wanted to honor him with a scholarship and decided to combine with the earlier efforts to give back to students.  That little scholarship that could didn’t know that it would take a year to get over the ‘mountain’ of red tape at Penn in order to rename the ‘fellowship’.  (‘I think I can.’)  There was some treacherous weather on the mountain of some critiques.  People said that MAPPsters wouldn’t give because they had to pay their own high tuition bills, that maybe we were moving too fast and not letting people grieve, that many MAPPsters had founded their own non-profits and perhaps we should be giving money to those organizations, that we should give the money to the University of Michigan instead because that was Chris’ ‘first’ school.  But the Little Scholarship that Could keep plugging along (‘I think I can’) and it came over the ‘red tape’ mountain thanks to some help by Andrea Allmayer, James Pawelski and the committee (Shannon Polly, Kathryn Britton, Susan Hwang, Adam Mussell, Emily VanSonnenberg and Marsha Snyder).

And it came down the other side to give its first scholarship in 2014. (‘I thought I could.) It gave another scholarship away last year (‘I thought I could’) and 28 authors contributed to the book (Character Strengths Matter) that would give it’s profits to the Little Scholarship That Could.

Then this Little Scholarship created it’s own mountain.  Last year, in honoring James Pawelski, we set a goal of raising $10,000 to honor James’ 10 years of service.  This Little Scholarship That Could got over that mountain and down the other side.  In the last year, we not only raised the $10,000 to honor James.  Through book sales and donations last year we’ve raised $26,000!

The MAPP alumni and donors are the engine of this Little Scholarship That Could.  Their love, kindness, wisdom and perseverance are the fuel that has gotten this scholarship over those mountains.

Our big, hairy, audacious goal is to create an endowment that is self-sustaining.  If everyone  reading this blog donated something today, we would be that much closer to our goal.  Please continue to fuel this Little Scholarship so that may continue to increase the tonnage of happiness in the world.  You can donate HERE.

The third recipient of the Christopher Peterson Memorial Fellowship is a person who embodies the philosophy that Chris embodied in word and deed, that ‘Other People Matter’.  The Fellowship provides tuition remission to one new MAPP student annually who demonstrates service to others, academic merit and economic need, and who meets diversity criteria.

Our 2016 recipient of the Christopher Peterson Scholarship is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and a member of the top police cadre, the Indian Police Service, and since has served in the national capital, New Delhi, and other parts of India. He has investigated many perplexing, bizarre and sensational crimes and faced many unnerving and bloody riots. He has been awarded President’s Police Medals for Meritorious Service and Distinguished Service. He is working on women’s protection, children’s rights and access to justice. Presently, as the Inspector General of Police, he is the chief of police of a city having a population of 1.3 million, and commands 7,500 policemen and officers.

◦                      He has initiated many community policing programs like ‘Yuva’ to impart vocational skills training to children-at-risk & place them on gainful employment.

◦                      In India, Police are generally perceived as rude and insensitive organization that only works for the privileged, but majority of policemen come from the middle & lower-middle classes of the society and do feel for the underprivileged. However, sometimes, they fail to understand others’ point of view & behave insensitively. In this backdrop, Tajender initiated a training program on – “The Art of Empathizing at Workplace” to make police more humane & empathic to win people’s faith. The program’s success encourages Tajender to understand the result of positive emotions on human behavior.

Tajender is also a poet and writes in Hindi, though his mother tongue is Punjabi. His anthology was published in 2012. His poetic sensibilities travel from the comfort of home to the rude extension of urban spaces. His poems treat both realism and sensitive human relationships equally well. Now, he is trans creating his poems into English.

Congratulations to the 2016 recipient of the Christopher Peterson Scholarship – Tajender Luthra!

In our first reading, Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall and Oaten (2006) discuss two major points about self-regulation.  First, that self-regulation is a limited resource and like a muscle it can be depleted and it can be strengthened as well.  And second, while everyone has a capacity for self-regulation and an ability to increase that capacity, there are individual differences.  In regards to the first point, ego depletion was not caused by fatigue in their studies and, surprisingly, it wans’t caused by diminished self-efficacy.  Positive feedback did not reduce the effect of ego depletion.  Self-regulation can be improved by habit formation, increasing knowledge and understanding, increasing liking from familiarity and automatization.  The ‘bulking up’ of the muscle did not even have to be the specific content area they were trying to improve.

In their studies, having participants focus on their posture for two weeks had the biggest impact on improving specific areas.  Starting an exercise program led subjects to limit cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol, spending, and television viewing.  Again, in their studies self-efficacy showed no change.  In regards to individual differences there were two distinct scenarios: one where the link between traits and behavior emerge more strongly with ego depletion and the other where they weaken with ego depletion.  With the former, citizens conform to society’s rules and when they are depleted they revert to their natural disparate inclinations.  With the latter, some people regulate their behavior (say with dieting) more than others, therefore when they are depleted they act more similar to other people (eating what they wish).  A less supported argument in the article is that there is an increase in passivity with ego depletion.

In our second reading, Brown, K.W. and Ryan, R. M. (2004) (citation?) use a self determination theory perspective to discuss fostering healthy self-regulation via intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.  They described the spectrum of motivations – from amotivation, to the four types of extrinsic motivation (external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation and integrated regulation), to intrinsic motivation.  Then they go on to discuss how social context can foster or undermine autonomous motivation and “how individuals can best access and harness self-regulatory powers from within” (Brown & Ryan, 2004, p. 106).  While it is important for different social contexts (i.e. corporations, parents, schools) to create an experience of autonomy, competence and relatedness in order to foster self-regulation, it is how individuals can employ self-regulation that I will focus on for this theory paper.  Self-determination theory focuses on fostering internalization and integration of a specific value and adaptation to extrinsically motivated behavior.  One way to do this is to strengthen the muscle of mindfulness.  Individuals who are more mindful in activities also experience more autonomous motivation to engage in activities (Brown & Ryan, 2004, p. 117) (link to other article) and mindfulness creates “an opportunity for choices to be made that maximize the satisfaction of needs and desires within the parameters of the situation at hand” ( …as cited in Ceci & Ryan, 1980).  (or quote about. ‘redirection of such processes’) all of which can be increased through daily practice.

James Maddox explores self-efficacy in our third article:  what it is, where it comes from, and why it is important.  Albert Bandura defines self-efficacy as “people’s beliefs in their capabilties to produce desired effects by their own actions” (Maddox, 2002 as cited in Bandura, 1997, p. vii).  Maddox goes on to tell us a large list of what self-efficacy is not:  a perceived skill, prediction, causal attribution, self-esteem and a personality trait to name a few.  The definition came from the context of social cognitive theory.  We have self-reflexive capabilities that set the stage for self-regulation; the environment has reciprocal influences; self and personality are created and changed through social interactions; and we can self-regulate (Maddox, 2002).  Self-efficacy is developed in two ways:  through symbolic thought and a capacity for self-reflection; and it is influenced by responsiveness of environments.  Most pertinent to my theory of positive interventions is why self-efficacy is important.  Maddox links self-efficacy to five domains:  psychological adjustment; physical health; psychotherapy, performance experience and self-regulation.  It is the latter two that I will focus on.  Performance experience is the most effective tool for fostering self-efficacy.  “Seeing is believing,” as the saying goes.  And self-efficacy connects to self-regulation in three ways:  when we have goals to monitor our progress; self evaluative reactions to performance which influences goals that are set and determines activities, effort and persistence; and self-efficacy beliefs which influence efficiency and effectiveness.

Salovey, Caruso and Mayer discuss the scientific underpinnings of popular psychology’s most favored topic:  Emotional Intelligence (2004).  The authors have divided the skills of emotional intelligence (EI) into four categories:  perceiving emotions; using emotions to facilitate thought; understanding emotions; and managing emotions in order to enhance personal growth and social relations.  In regards to positive interventions I will focus on the second and final categories above.  People who score high on the ‘using emotions’ section of the MSCEIT use emotions to enhance reasoning as opposed to the other three categories which reason about emotions.   are able to harness emotions for problem solving, reasoning, decision making, creative endeavors and are also able to use emotions to attend to what is important and focus on what they do best in a given mood.  Managing emotions, Salovey, et al. say, is the most “superordinate skill” (2002, p. 448).  With this skill people must have self-efficacy about their ability to manage emotions as well as employing strategies to monitor, identify, and employ strategies to change mood and emotion.  Business students who score high on the MSCEIT have satisfactory social interactions and they elicit social support from others (a possible positive intervention).

References

Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and    personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1773-1801.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Fostering healthy self-regulation from within and   without: A self-determination theory perspective. In Linley, P. A. & Joseph, S. (Eds.), In Positive Psychology in Practice (pp. 105-124). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Maddux, J. E. (2002). Self-efficacy: The power of believing you can. In Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 277-287). New York: Oxford University Press.

Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Mayer, J. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in practice. In Linley, P. A. & Joseph, S. (Eds.), Positive Psychology in Practice (pp. 447-463). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

After thirty years of research the Gallup organization has discovered that “individuals gain more when they build on their talents, than when they make comparable efforts to improve their areas of weakness” (Clifton and Harter, p. 112, 2003).  Building on that statement, Clifton and Harter define a strength as refining a talent with skill and knowledge (p. 111, 2003).  In recent years, there has been a groundswell of support in the business community for a strengths-based approach. But now the question is how to measure and capitalize on those strengths?  If given with certain caveats, assessments like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the StrengthsFinder 2.0 and the Value in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) provide pertinent information for assessing aspects of character depending on the desired outcomes.

Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers created their assessment based on Jung’s theory of psychological types over five decades ago (Gardner & Martinko, 1996).  Since then it has experienced enormous popularity within corporations and around the world.  Since then it has become enormously popular within corporations and around the world.  Over 2 million MBTI assessments are sold annually (Pittenger, 1993).  Myers designed the MBTI because she believed that Jung’s theory could link “personality and job performance” (Pittenger, p. 468, 1993).  Despite its popularity, there are a number of arguments against the MBTI.  There is widespread debate about the oversimplification of Jung’s theories in the assessment.  In addition, it is a forced-choice scale.  The MBTI forces a “dichotomous category onto a continuous distribution” (Pittenger, p. 472, 1993).  And can one really argue that there are types of people?  Personality falls in a normal distribution with no inconsistencies in the data with the exception of psychopaths.  (Professor Peterson, in communication, February 8, 2009).  And if there are, do they break down neatly into 16 categories?  And what about context?  The structure of the MBTI gives no regard to the group of individuals or the situation that one is in.  There is also some evidence that types can change every two and a half years (Pittenger, 1993).  I have witnessed mixed results in my work but positive results in my own assessment.

Recently, I was facilitating a workshop where the participants were also receiving the results from their MBTI.  As I ran into a vivacious participant in the elevator he expressed concern that perhaps he was in the wrong profession.  All of his other colleagues were in the introverted corner of the 16 squares on the wall and only one other person of the 200 that weekend was in the opposite quadrant.  At the same time the Myers-Briggs gave him insight into the differences that might crop up between himself and other employees, it alienated him from his workplace.  “Maybe I don’t belong here,” he joked.  Listening to him made me worry that by placing people; literally, in boxes we tell them that there are only a few correct types for a certain profession.  Instead of seeing his extroversion as an essential asset of the team he saw himself as ‘other’.  When this goes so far as to make someone think they don’t even belong in a certain profession, assessments are misused.

That being said, the MBTI has grown in popularity and can be a useful tool because of its very simplicity.  My results on the MBTI are uncannily accurate.  As an ESFJ I show “‘conscious’ extraverted feeling and ‘unconscious’ introverted sensing (and as tertiary functions, extraverted intuition and introverted thinking)” (Professor Peterson, personal communication, February 8, 2009).  A section of my ESFJ interpretation says:  “Wherever they go, Providers take up the role of social contributor, happily giving their time and energy to make sure that the needs of others are met, that traditions are supported and developed, and that social functions are a success.  Providers are extremely sensitive to the feelings of others, which makes them perhaps the most sympathetic of all the types, but which also leaves them rather self-conscious, that is, highly sensitive to what others think of them” (Professor Peterson, personal communication, February 8, 2009).  Having an accurate description of my personality type and being able to contrast with the other types of people I work with, I have come to see that our differences are just differences and not character flaws as I had previously interpreted them.  It highlights the fact that we should expect some differences when dealing with others.  The MBTI can help counteract the mirror image fallacy where a person predicts that other people are just like them.

In contrast, the VIA-IS Classification of Strengths gives more options than the MBTI and is not a dichotomous scale.  It is more life oriented and less work oriented as it was created as a classification and not for the specific purpose of flexing a type or strength in a work setting.  In addition it does not carry the negative connotations that some of the types of the MBTI can carry.  Often, being an extroverted accountant or an introverted salesperson can be stigmatizing in a work setting.

As far as VIA-IS to MBTI concordance, my strengths focusing on others and the heart (extraverted feeling) do correspond to my signature strengths of: social intelligence, kindness, authenticity and humor.  It does not correlate to my signature strength of perseverance.  The overlap between these two assessments, as well as the following assessment, creates a certain confidence and a ‘sweet spot’ from which one can begin to work.  Businesses who are training new managers or who need to help create higher functioning teams would benefit from this assessment.

Businesses with more nuanced needs could benefit from the StrengthsFinder 2.0.  Studies from the Gallup organization indicate that people who focus on their strengths every day are “six times more likely to be engaged in their jobs” and more than “three times more likely to report having an excellent quality of life in general” (Rath, 2007).  Their research is reason alone to explore the StrengthsFinder 2.0 assessment.  Indeed, it is a finely shaded measure with 34 themes of which they pick the top 5 and show you how they interact.

Unfortunately, the StrengthsFinder 2.0 assessment was incredibly difficult to navigate.  I found myself panicked at the 20-second time limit and confused at the choice between two items that frequently bore no relation to each other.  The result of the test claimed that my top five strengths are:  Empathy, Positivity, Relator, Arranger and Individualization.  As I read the descriptions, two of them seemed to bear only vague resemblance to me:  Individualization and, to a lesser degree, Positivity.  Indeed, as I read Tom Rath’s book I recognized myself in two other strengths almost immediately:  Communication and Developer.  This complication with the assessment means that perhaps the most useful part of the assessment, the “Personalized Strengths Insights” which sees how your strengths interact, was not applicable for me.

While it is an indication of the problems with the assessment that it was not accurate for me, it is a testament to the detailed descriptions that I was able to recognize myself immediately in their description, quotes from ‘real people’ and “Ideas for Action”.  In addition, I recognized family members and co-workers in other descriptions and found their suggestions for how to work with others who have specific strengths incredibly helpful.  I think this assessment would be most useful to for-profit or non-profit organizations which are already at an advanced level of social functioning and wish to determine how to manage employees and work in a high functioning way.

The VIA-IS Classification of strengths has a more manageable number (24) than the StrengthsFinder 2.0 (34).  The VIA-IS is also more universal to life than the StrengthsFinder 2.0 which is created for people who work outside the home in presumably a large office.  The VIA classifies real strengths derived from extensive global and historical research where the StrengthsFinder 2.0 seems to reframe weaknesses as strengths (Command) or to chose items that are only strengths in North America (Competition, Strategic).

In comparing my VIA-IS scores to my StrengthsFinder 2.0 scores I see there is some correlation both to the strengths that Gallup would choose for me and those which I would choose for myself.   The VIA strengths correlate to the StrengthsFinder 2.0 on an almost one to one basis (Professor Peterson, in communication, February 8, 2009).  Based on these correlations, perhaps the strengths that Gallup would choose for me are more accurate than the ones I would choose for myself.  My second ranked signature strength of kindness corresponds to Empathy (which I might agree with) and Positivity (which I might not) was in my top 5.  My number one strength of social intelligence strength correlates to Individuation (which I also took issue with).  There is no correlate for humor and my persistence and honesty did not seem to translate to the StrengthsFinder 2.0.  Instead the latter assessment chose Arranger (which correlates to creativity) and Relator (which correlates to love and is akin to Developer which I would have chosen for myself).  And lastly, I would have chosen Communication which correlates to another strength which is not in my top five – teamwork.  Again, the concordance is not quite as simple as comparing the VIA to the MBTI, but there are similarities which highlight which strengths might be deemed ‘super strengths’.  And if one were to have to choose which strengths to focus on, it is helpful to have the reinforcement of multiple assessments to guide you.

So what do strengths have to do with it?  Everything.  It just depends on whether an organization is assessing work-place strengths or character strengths.  The MBTI would be beneficial for organizations with team building or basic management issues.  As long as the organization knows that a) the test might not be accurate after two and a half years; b) it should not be used for recruitment purposes; and c) it has the downside of typing and possibly alienating individuals.  I would recommend the StrengthsFinder 2.0 for organizations who have management and leadership needs and are looking for more nuanced and advanced ways to flex their strengths.  And finally, I would recommend the VIA for non-profit organizations interested in assessing character or companies focusing on managing the whole of a person.  I don’t think there is a downside to the VIA if it is taken for this purpose.

I see the MBTI assessing the mind, the StrengthsFinder 2.0 assessing the heart and the VIA-IS assessing the soul.  All three of these assessments have benefits when placed in the proper context.  You must, as Shakespeare’s Hamlet said, “let your own discretion be your tutor; suit the action to the word, the word to the action” (III.ii.16-18).  In the same way, if we suit the assessment to the audience we may “hold the mirror up to nature” (III.ii.22) and show that one does not need magic to see our strengths.
Bibliography

Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Investing in strengths. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R.             E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline     (pp. 111-121).             San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22, 45-83.

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational   Research,          63, 467-488.

Rath, T. (2007).  StrengthsFinder 2.0. Gallup Press:  New York.

Shakespeare, William (1982). Hamlet.  (Proudfoot, R., Thompson, A., and Kastan, D.S., Eds.).  Italy:          Methuen & Co. Ltd.  (Original work published in 1601).

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

                                                                                    (Niebuhr, 1987, p. 251)

            The Serenity Prayer is the common name for an originally untitled prayer, most commonly attributed to the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.  This prayer has been adopted by Alcoholics Anonymous and other twelve-step programs.  There are three strengths mentioned in this prayer, two of which qualify as virtues as well.   The VIA-IS Classification of Strengths acknowledges courage as a virtue with its subsequent strengths of bravery, persistence, honesty and zest.  It also delineates wisdom and knowledge as a virtue with the subset of strengths that include:  creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning and wisdom or perspective.  It would follow, then, that serenity (or tranquility/peacefulness) would qualify as the twenty-fifth strength.

What is Serenity?

            Serenity is the state or quality of being serene, calm, or tranquil.  The import of the historical use of this word is highlighted by its past usage.  It has been used as a title of honor, respect, or reverence, used in speaking of or to certain members of royalty.  Even more interesting in terms of character strengths is the second definition of serenity:  calmness of mind; evenness of temper; undisturbed state; coolness; composure.  Serenity gives us the ability to have ‘grace under pressure.’  It is this definition of evenness of temper that qualifies serenity to be the twenty-fifth strength.

Serenity and the Criteria for Strengths

            Serenity (or tranquility/peacefulness) seems to follow the many different criteria that are true for character strengths (Peterson, 2006, p. 141-142).  It is ubiquitous and fulfilling, it is morally valued and it does not diminish others.  An antonym for serenity would be anxiety.  It seems likely that serenity is also distinct, trait-like and measurable in nature.   It might be a challenge to find a two-year old who is a prodigy in serenity, but I would guess that there are some lucky parents who have them.  I could name a number of paragons of serenity including Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Dalai Lama.  Likewise, there are some individuals where serenity is absent (Jim Kramer or Jim Carrey).  And serenity is nurtured by societal norms and phrases (“calm down”, “the calm in the storm”).

Institutions that exist to promote serenity and/or peace are numerous and varied:  i.e. the Nobel Peace Prize, UN Peacekeeping Forces, and the Japanese Peace Bell.  Serenity may be seen as an internal characteristic – having serenity within oneself – whereas its synonym peace can also be defined as dealing with external forces.  Serenity may then be more closely linked to the concept of inner peace.  But Mahatma Gandhi‘s conception of peace was not as an end, but as a means: “There is no way to peace; peace is the way” (retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace, on March 6, 2009).  There are other institutions that exist to foster serenity including mindfulness meditation, massage, Reiki and other healing arts.

In addition, it is possible to have too little and much of a good thing.  As I mentioned above too little serenity is anxiety.  While not all anxiety causes harm to others, it has been shown to occur in some forms of mental disturbances which cause stress to the person experiencing it.  Too much serenity could lead to extreme passivity, apathy or inactivity.  An image that comes to mind is the stereotypical California hippie who has smoked too much marijuana and “just wants to be, man.”  In this case, our hippie friend isn’t harming anyone but he also isn’t doing himself much good.  Also, serenity in the face of injustice would seem to be misplaced.  So, context is an important factor in judging how much or how little serenity is needed in a certain situation.

When I looked at the circumplex of strengths (Peterson, 2006, p. 158) I realized that there was a gap in the quadrant that focuses on the self/heart which currently houses curiosity, hope and zest.  As this is one of the lesser populated quadrants of the circumplex I began to think that the twenty-fifth strength would belong here.  Serenity can lead to calmness of the mind, but it is not just cerebral in nature.  And as discussed above, while its synonym of peacefulness can allude to interactions with others, serenity is self-focused.  It also seems that serenity is quite distinct from curiosity, hope and zest.  While these latter three strengths have a very strong outward-looking focus, the main tenet of serenity is calm within oneself.  This calm can have a positive effect on others, but the strength is clearly internally focused.

I think it would not be difficult to test serenity.  If I were to add it to the VIA-IS I might include statements like:  Even when things are stressful, I keep my head about me; People tell me I have a calming effect on them; and I rarely get agitated or anxious.  Despite these suggestions for testing, there needs to be further empirical examination to determine what will really test serenity.  Serenity protects against excess stress and anxiety, and for that reason I would categorize it in the strengths of temperance.  Like prudence and self-regulation, serenity is about controlling excess emotion and mental distress.  Without a certain degree of serenity it would be difficult to get ourselves through a day or interact effectively with others.

Is Serenity Distinct from Other Strengths?       

Serenity is not culture bound.  While some cultures that have a strong focus on meditation or contemplation may be better at achieving serenity than others, it is not specific to a certain culture the way competition is specific to America or other western cultures.  In addition, serenity is a component of other strengths, but it is not a complex blend of basic strengths.  As a component of strengths we see serenity in a number of the 24 VIA strengths.  It would be difficult to have wisdom without a modicum of serenity.  Can you imagine someone constantly twirling their hair or incessantly tapping their toes trying to give you sage advice?  It would make communicating their words quite difficult.  The sister strengths in temperance all have an aspect of serenity to them.  Self-regulation, prudence, humility and forgiveness all require an inward focus and sense of tranquility in order to be effective.  In addition fairness, integrity and appreciation of beauty and excellence all have an aspect of serenity without completely overlapping with it.

Spirituality and serenity are also inextricably linked.  Many images from religious tradition show figures in calm or serene poses even when put in extraordinarily stressful circumstances:  i.e. Jesus on the cross and Buddha emaciated and meditating under a tree.  There are numerous religious prayers for easing anxiety and promoting serenity as well:

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? ….Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?”  (Matthew 6:25-30 King James Version)

While serenity may be an aspect and aid in the successfulness of these other strengths, its qualities are distinct.  Freedom from worry aids in the ability to capitalize on all other strengths.  If one is caught up in worry then one cannot utilize any of the other focused strengths because the focus will always be looking inward.  Alternatively, for the self focused strengths, perseverance is the one that necessitates serenity the most.  In fact, the only place where one could argue that serenity is a combination of other strengths is with perseverance.  Perseverance could be seen as serenity combined with zest.

Searching for Serenity

If research is ‘me-search’ (Prof. Duckworth, in communication, October 25, 2008) then, in the interest of full disclosure, this paper is the search for the twenty-fifth strength that I frequently lack.  When I was in graduate school ten years ago, I had an Alexander Technique teacher that told me I had “too many doors in my brain open.”  She also likened me to a circus tent – calm on the outside but with many rings and activities going on underneath the big top.  I took her observations to heart and while it took me a number of years to achieve success at closing a few of those doors in my brain I have discovered a number of ways to do that.  The Alexander Technique and exercise were both somatic interventions that calmed my anxiety which frequently wreaked havoc in my personal and professional lives.  I have also recently begun to meditate.  While I am far from being Jon Kabat-Zinn, I have seen the positive repercussions in my ability to take on the stress of working and going to school and my ability to let go of the ‘things I cannot change’.

The philosopher W.W. Bartley juxtaposes Niebuhr’s prayer with a Mother Goose rhyme (1695) expressing a similar sentiment to the Serenity Prayer:

For every ailment under the sun

There is a remedy, or there is none;

If there be one, try to find it;

If there be none, never mind it.

(Retrieved at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer on March 7, 2009)

Positive psychology has long advocated that one can improve ones life circumstances.  Seligman (2007) espouses the effectiveness of relaxation, meditation, psychoanalysis and cognitive therapies in the treatment of anxiety, which, along with depression and anger, he claims, can largely be controlled by disciplined effort.  Ironically, one can work at achieving serenity so that you then have the ability to accept the things you cannot change.
References

Niebuhr, R. (1987).  The Essential Reinhold Niebuhr: Selected Essays and Addresses.  New          Haven:  Yale University Press.

Perrault, C. (2007).  Tales of mother goose.  New York: LeClue.

Peterson, C. (2006).  A primer in positive psychology.  New York:  Oxford University Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2007).  What you can change and what you can’t:  The complete guide to successful self improvement.  New York: Vintage Press.

A Word about Kindness

Included in the VIA Classification under Strengths of Humanity – kindness involves “positive traits manifest in caring relationships with others, what Taylor et al. (2000) described as dispositions to tend and befriend” (Peterson, 2006, p. 143).   The strengths of humanity are brought to bear in one-to-one relationships and are interpersonal.  Kindness, as defined by Peterson, is:  “doing favors and good deeds for others; helping them; taking care of them” (2006, p. 143).

Kindness, in addition to being ubiquitous, also seems to be a frequently attainable signature strength.  It is among the most commonly endorsed strengths, in 54 countries, “from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe” (Peterson, 2006, p. 153).  Kindness is also the most common signature strength in the United States and it is consistent across gender, age, education (Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2006).  A study done analyzing signature strengths that aid in recovery from physical illness found that along with bravery and humor, kindness was a key factor (Peterson, Park & Seligman, 2006).  After extensive research on signature strengths, Peterson tells us that character strengths that “orient us toward others in turn make us happy” (Peterson, 2006, p. 155).

Lenten Kindness

My task was to pick one of my top five signature strengths and implement a strategy to increase it.  I identified with and chose kindness.  Ever the optimist, I did not think that boosting this strength would be difficult.  I disagreed with the notion that working on a relative weakness would mean more progress because there is a further distance to travel.  Rather, I thought that working on something I enjoyed doing would yield better results.  And ever the multi-tasker, I decided to combine this assignment with my Lenten obligation.

For Lent, Catholics are supposed to give up meat on Fridays, fast on the holy days and give something up that we enjoy during the 40 days of Lent that mirror the 40 days that Jesus was fasting in the desert in order to be better Catholics.  I had heard of people taking on something to do during Lent instead of giving something up, but to me that seemed weak.  How can volunteering at a hospital compare with suffering through sugar withdrawal?  This year, however, I realized that this was a specific example of ‘red cape/green cape’ thinking (Pawelski, personal communication, September 5, 2008).  So, I decided that practicing acts of kindness would fulfill this assignment and my Lenten obligation at the same time.

I realized that my Lenten experiment was the class exercise but in a different context.  By choosing to do acts of kindness (one of my top strengths) over giving up chocolate (self-regulation, my 24^th strength) I was mirroring the assignment.  The objectives of the two exercises are different, however.  The purpose of Lent is to make you more resilient because of the self-imposed suffering.  The purpose of the class assignment was to see if kindness could be bolstered and if you enjoyed the exercise.

Not So Random Acts of Kindness

I tracked my ‘kind acts’ almost daily and attempted to make note of the virtue occasions that I might have missed (Franklin, 1791).  I also decided to test the results of the experiment by taking my positivity ratio frequently (www.positivityratio.com) and to retake the VIA, the PANAS, and the SWLS at the end of the session.  As research supports, I found that when I was in a positive mood, I was much more willing to help others regardless of being assigned the task of bolstering my strength (Carlson, Charlin & Miller, 1988 as cited in Peterson & Seligman, 2004).  Also consistent with the research, I found that a positive mood made me more likely to help when “giving help (was) pleasant and help (did) not require sustained effort” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 332).

If we are to tease apart kindness and add generosity and compassion – a.k.a. “kindness on steroids” (Peterson, personal communication, March 29, 2009), to the list of distinctions, most of my ‘acts’ fell under kindness.  But the most rewarding fell under compassion and generosity.  I did many small acts including baking for other people, adjusting my schedule to accommodate others and writing thank you notes.  My inconsistent Loving-kindness meditations may have oriented me to have greater compassion for others, and my husband assisted in encouraging my generosity.

One highlight that brought the largest degree of well-being was the multiple things I did for my brother’s wedding.  Research supports the idea that doing a group of kind things all in one day versus spread out, leads to higher levels of well-being (Lyubomirsky, 2008).  The most satisfying of those things was organizing the guests to send me positive stories about my brother and his fiancée and then putting them into an elaborate guest book that they can savor for weeks and months to come.  And in a rare moment of self-restraint, I made a wedding toast that was only positive and touching, using those stories, and did not make any jokes in which I would have been gratified with laughs and applause.

Interestingly, the acts that were more difficult were also more gratifying in the end.  The activities around the wedding took an enormous amount of work and were the most gratifying of the entire exercise.  These activities that take the most work are frequently the opportunities I miss.  The activities that revolve around generosity are also ones that I miss.  Ironically I was thinking about this assignment in church and when the collection basket came around I chose to give the pocket of change rather than the $20 in my wallet.

Awareness and Guilt

Working on this assignment gave me more awareness that I was doing acts of kindness.   As research has shown, I found that monitoring those acts made me happier and made me think of myself as a kind person (Otake, Shimai, Tanaka-Matsumi, Otsui. and Fredrickson, (2006).  A number of our readings from last semester support this view.  Csikszentmihalyi focuses on the mechanics of consciousness and controlling the conscious mind in pursuit of happiness (1990).  William James equates attention and effort and both maintain that we must focus on that attention to effort (i.e. action) in order to achieve happiness (1892).  Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall and Oaten found scientific evidence to support James’ theories that habit formation can be reinforced with practice (2006).  Ben Franklin’s self-examination of virtues also supports the need for practice.  Through practice, we develop self-efficacy.  Maddox believes self-efficacy is developed through symbolic thought and capacity for self-reflection (2002).  Writing this paper was an opportunity for self-reflection.  Another moment of self-reflection came with the gratitude expressed from the recipient of my kindness.  Rightly or wrongly, I discovered that when my kindness was acknowledged by another person, it seemed more valid.

Perhaps because I measure kindness in some degree by how it is received, I found there were a number of things I did out of guilt, i.e. extrinsic motivation (Brown & Ryan, 2004).  Even though I knew I should be doing school work I grumbled as I baked in my kitchen for my friends who were coming over.  I would feel guilty if they came and I hadn’t baked anything.  And when I picked up the tab at various locations for my future sister-in-law’s shower it was out of guilt for not tipping the previous barman enough when another guest had to pay him for me.  Does guilt or extrinsically-motivated kindness still count?  While the phrase to “kill with kindness” tends to refer to winning someone over with kindness who might otherwise be a grouch, it could also refer to the dark side of kindness.  Then again, it could refer to killing oneself with trying to be kind.

How Did Kindness Fare?

I took the test on www.positivityratio.com for almost two weeks but the website came up with ‘not enough data to calculate’ so I am unsure how practicing kindness added to my wellbeing.  Interestingly, when I retook the VIA Classification of Signature Strengths kindness actually moved down from 2^nd to 4^th.  When I retook the PANAS my score went down slightly.  When I took the SWLS my score went up by one point.  In addition, I asked my husband if he thought I was happier during this period and he said he wasn’t sure that he could tell a difference.  Surprisingly, almost all of the measures that I chose did not support a boost in kindness or happiness.

If I am honest, there was a flaw in the design of the experiment.  I could have incorporated using my signature strength in new ways, which has been proven to be effective (Seligman, Steen, Park & Peterson, 2005).  In addition, while my happiness ranking on the VIA decreased, I did have an addition to my top five:  Capacity to Love and Be Loved.  Since this is a sister strength to kindness, perhaps my experiment was successful to a certain degree while not a complete success.

I realized that while I enjoy doing things for others, the distance is much shorter when moving my 2^nd strength of kindness up to 1^st than moving self regulation (my 24^th) up to, say, 12^th.  The math simply doesn’t support the amount of growth that is possible.  Even my creativity was tapped when thinking of new ways to be kind.  Then I ran the risk of falling into the ‘more is better’ trap and crossing over to the dark side of kindness.  I ran the risk of feeling a little guilty about not doing enough because of my own habituation to kind acts.  I was happy doing things for others, but would I have been happier if I had chosen to give up chocolate?  Maybe I’ll find out next Lent.  (Although that would definitely decrease the happiness of my husband.)
References

Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and       personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion             moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1773-1801.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Fostering healthy self-regulation from within and      without: A self-determination theory perspective. In Linley, P. A. & Joseph, S. (Eds.), In             Positive Psychology in Practice (pp. 105-124). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Cameron, K. (2008). Positive Leadership:  Strategies for extraordinary performance.  San Francisco:  Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Chapter 2: The anatomy of consciousness. In Flow: The             psychology of       optimal experience (pp. 23-42). New York: Harper Perennial.

Franklin, B. (1962). (Moral virtues).  The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (pp. 67-75).  New York:  Touchstone. (originally published 1791)

James, W. (1892). Selections from Principles of Psychology: Briefer Course.

Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want. New York:             Penguin Press.

Maddux, J. E. (2002). Self-efficacy: The power of believing you can. In Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 277-287). New York: Oxford University Press.

Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K. and Fredrickson, B. (2006).  Happy people become happier through kindness: a counting kindness intervention.  Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 361-375.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 118-129.

Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Character strengths of character and recovery from illness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 17-26.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press/Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology         progress: Empirical validation of interventions. Positive psychology progress: American

          Psychologist, 60, 410-421.

Tedeschi, R. G. & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation:  Growth in the aftermath of suffering.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications.

            First of all, psychotherapy out in the field is not of a fixed duration.  Clients attend sessions until they feel they have improved (or until they decide that the treatment is not working).  The stringent requirements of efficacy studies mean that people are seen for a specific number of sessions, regardless of their condition at the end of those sessions.  This is a flaw of efficacy studies, because despite the fact one participant might not have made progress by the end of their sessions, it is possible that they could improve if given further treatment.  Therefore, efficacy studies run the risk of discounting a treatment option because it was not effective in a certain time frame.

            Another restriction of efficacy studies is that participants are selected because they experience one kind of disorder.  Outside the laboratory, patients are rarely diagnosed with one disorder as comorbidity is much more common (Seligman, 1995).  Consequently, a treatment successfully tested in an efficacy study might not be effectual on a patient with multiple disorders.

            And lastly, the most important requirement of an efficacy study is random assignment.  This means that participants are assigned to an experimental group or a control group.  This allocation does not occur in therapeutic treatment outside the laboratory.  Psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers do not decide on a method of treatment before they meet.  And in the course of treatment they might decide that a different approach would be more effective and therefore switch approaches.  Therefore, just because the pre-determined approach does not work in a study, does not mean that it will not work with a specific patient.

            Ten years after this paper, Martin Seligman joined with Tracy Steen, Nansook Park, and Christopher Peterson, (2005) to conduct what seems analogous to an efficacy study on positive interventions as a way to increase happiness.  Their study was randomized and placebo-controlled (p. 415) although it was carried out via the internet and not in a laboratory.  Because of these similarities to an efficacy study there were limitations to the results.  While Seligman, et al. found significant long-term results for two exercises (‘three good things’ and ‘using signature strengths in a new way’), the authors offer possible improvements for the study (increase time spent on each intervention and couple with other interventions).  They also delineate shortcomings of their study (i.e. the need for “longitudinal, placebo-controlled design” (p. 419)).

            Seligman et al. (2005) have furthered the field of positive psychology with their study of positive interventions.  Unfortunately it includes some of the same limitations Seligman so eloquently highlighted ten years earlier.  Unmistakably, there are shortcomings in efficacy studies done in laboratories, which is why they should be combined with studies done in the field before determining their effectiveness.

References

Seligman, M.E.P. (1995). The effectiveness of psychotherapy: The consumer reports study.  American Psychologist 50(12), 965-974.

Seligman, M.E.P.; Steen, T.A.; Park, N.; & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress:  Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist 60(5), 410-421.

Goal theory finds its roots in Aristotle’s final causality where action is caused by an intention.  This theory assumes that introspective reports provide valid statistics for “formulating psychological concepts and measuring psychological phenomena” (Locke, 1996, p. 118).  In order to study goals directly, T.A. Ryan suggested to Locke that he ask individuals about their immediate objectives.  Ryan and Locke chose this method because it was philosophically sound, consistent with evidence that human action is normally purposeful and the approach was successful.  The studies conducted by Locke, Gary Latham and others reinforce the connection between goal theory and hope theory, specifically agency thinking and pathways thinking.

There are clear links between the findings of goal theory, agency thinking and positive interventions.  Locke and Latham discovered that the more specific or explicit the goal, the more precisely performance is regulated assuming commitment and ability (synonymous with agency thinking).  High commitment to goals is attained when the individual is convinced that the goal is important and attainable.  In addition to directly effecting performance, self-efficacy influences the difficulty level of the goal chosen and the commitment to that goal (Locke, 1996, pp. 118-122).  Goal theory and agency thinking are essential to successful positive interventions.

There are also direct links between goal theory and hope theory’s pathways thinking.  Locke and Latham found that self-efficacy influences the response to negative feedback or failure (an example of pathways thinking), and the right choice of task strategies.  Goal setting is most effective when there is feedback showing progress in relation to the goal (an opportunity for redirection of the pathway).  Goals also stimulate planning in general.  When people strive for goals on complex tasks, they are least effective in discovering suitable task strategies if they have no prior experience or if there are high levels of performance or time pressure.  Goal-setting and goal-related mechanisms can be taught and/or adopted in the absence of training for the purpose of self-regulation (Locke, 1996, pp. 118-122).

Goal theory and hope theory both include goal pursuit components but treat them differently.  Goal theory, optimism, self-efficacy and problem-solving give different weights to these components while hope theory equally emphasizes all of them (Snyder, 1994 as cited in Lopez and colleagues, 1994, p. 389).  With hope theory, a goal is anything that an individual desires to experience, create, get, do or become (Lopez and colleagues, 2004, p. 388).  Similarly, a positive intervention is anything that an individual desires to experience, create, get, do or become that increases well-being away from zero.

Hope theory has four components:  hope finding, hope bonding, hope enhancing and hope reminding.  Hope finding strengthens a clients’ expectations that the therapist can and will help them.  Hope bonding is the creation of a healthy and hopeful therapeutic relationship that grounds them in a hopeful therapeutic context…  Hope enhancing strategies involve enlisting clients in tasks that conceptualize reasonable goals more clearly, produce numerous pathways to attainment, summon the energy to maintain pursuit and reframe insurmountable obstacles as challenges to be overcome.  Lastly, hope reminding is the feedback loop that promotes daily use of hopeful thoughts (Lopez and colleagues, 2004, p. 390).  Three of these four elements are essential to positive interventions.  (Hope bonding is specific to the therapist-client relationship and does not apply to positive interventions.)  Hope finding is the central element of a positive intervention (what is the goal of the intervention), while hope enhancing and hope reminding are useful in long term positive interventions but not necessary for all of them.

As I have illustrated, a successful positive intervention requires a merging of the essential principles of goal theory and hope theory.  A positive intervention necessitates the participant to have:  a specific goal for the intervention, hope that the goal will be achieved, strategies to reach those goals (pathways thinking), and sustaining inspiration for using those tactics (agency thinking).

“The Grand essentials of happiness are:  something to do, something to love, and something to hope for.” – Allan K. Chalmbers

References

Locke, E. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting, Applied &             Preventive Psychology 5, 117-124.

Lopez, S. J., Snyder, C. R., Magyar-Moe, J. L., Edwards, L., Pedrotti, J. T. Janowski, K.,            Turner,            J. L., & Pressgrove, C. (2004). Strategies for accentuating hope. In        Linley, P. A. &           Joseph, S. (Eds.), Positive Psychology in Practice (pp. 388- 404).  Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.