Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: development and validation of a questionnaire

Figures & data

Table 1. Study 1: Items, means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and factor loadings of the strengths use and deficit correction scales (N = 338).

Item wording				Factor
	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4
POS for strengths use
This organization gives me the opportunity to do what I am good at	4.08	1.72	.96	.899	−.007	−.067	−.028
This organization allows me to use my talents	3.96	1.77		.889	−.033	−.008	.062
This organization ensures that my strengths are aligned with my job tasks	3.93	1.65		.878	.056	.000	.042
This organization makes the most of my talents	3.70	1.78		.835	.005	.038	.081
This organization focuses on what I am good at	3.76	1.77		.825	.003	.120	.052
This organization applies my strong points	3.73	1.72		.809	−.058	.123	.073
This organization allows me to do my job in a manner that best suits my strong points	4.24	1.51		.742	.022	−.001	−.009
Deficit correction behaviour
At work, I focus on developing the things I struggle with*	4.13	1.47	.93	.029	.935	−.058	−.117
I engage in activities to develop my weak points at work	3.96	1.63		.060	.858	−.140	.062
In my job, I concentrate on my areas of development*	3.91	1.65		.019	.745	.040	.027
In my job, I make an effort to improve my limitations	4.27	1.44		.062	.733	.100	.015
In my job, I work on my shortcomings	3.87	1.58		−.015	.685	.044	.130
At work, I seek training opportunities to improve my weaknesses	3.96	1.76		−.131	.667	.073	.194
At work, I seek feedback regarding my areas of development	3.88	1.73		.009	.625	.111	.063
I reflect on how I can improve the things in my job that I am not good at	4.15	1.54		−.102	.604	.169	.185
Strengths use behaviour
At work, I focus on the things I do well*	4.50	1.51	.92	−.134	−.093	.849	.102
In my job, I make the most of my strong points	4.61	1.41		.006	.047	.841	−.008
I organize my job to suit my strong points	4.58	1.44		.000	−.030	.832	−.008
I capitalize on my strengths at work	4.55	1.39		.040	.043	.800	.039
I seek opportunities to do my work in a manner that best suits my strong points	4.66	1.37		−.013	−.008	.797	.021
I draw on my talents in the workplace*	4.51	1.42		.228	−.059	.653	.084
In my job, I try to apply my talents as much as possible	4.86	1.27		.175	.097	.591	−.091
I actively look for job tasks I am good at*	4.17	1.54		.002	.087	.551	−.057
I use my strengths at work	4.68	1.25		.180	.156	.417	−.108
POS for deficit correction
In this organization, I receive training to improve my weak points	2.84	2.01	.92	−.022	−.036	−.018	.900
This organization focuses on improving my areas of development*	3.15	1.92		.141	−.056	−.063	.884
This organization requires me to work on my shortcomings	3.14	1.86		.056	−.085	.053	.864
In this organization, my development plan aims to better my weaknesses	3.45	1.80		−.052	.201	.079	.678
In this organization, performance appraisals address my areas of development	3.26	1.98		−.005	.133	.031	.669
This organization emphasizes the development of my weak points*	2.85	1.73		.019	.035	−.003	.628
This organization expects me to improve the things I am not good at	3.73	1.81		.081	.225	.028	.559
In this organization, I receive feedback regarding my limitations*	3.16	1.93		.138	.216	−.060	.553

*Based on the results of study 2, these items were not included in the final scale.

Table 2. Study 2: Results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the strengths use and deficit correction scales (N = 361).

Model	χ^2	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
1: Four-factor model (POS for strengths use, POS for deficit correction, strengths use behaviour, deficit correction behaviour)	1664.89	489	.88	.87	.08	.06
2: Two-factor model (POS and behaviour)	4125.23	494	.63	.61	.14	.12
3: Two-factor model (strengths use and deficit correction)	4183.39	494	.63	.60	.14	.13
4: Refined four-factor model	783.30	276	.92	.91	.08	.05

Table 3. Study 2: Results of the invariance testing based on gender and age.

Grouping	Model	χ^2	df	χ^2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR	∆χ^2	∆df	p
Gender*	Configural	1189.04	492	2.42	.90	.89	.09	.06	40.09^a	40	.63
	Metric	1206.35	512	2.36	.90	.89	.09	.06	17.31^b	20	.63
	Scalar	1232.13	532	2.32	.90	.89	.09	.06	25.78^c	20	.17
Age**	Configural	1192.32	492	2.42	.90	.88	.09	.06	40.16^a	40	.46
	Metric	1223.15	512	2.39	.90	.89	.09	.07	30.82^b	20	.06
	Scalar	1232.48	532	2.32	.90	.89	.09	.07	9.34^c	20	.98

Notes: *male n = 152, female n = 200 **≤ 35 years n = 185, ≥ 36 years n = 167. ^a = Configural vs. scalar;

^b = configural vs. metric; ^c = scalar vs. metric; p = model comparison significance

Table 4. Correlations among the dimensions of strengths use and deficit correction, job characteristics and well-being (N = 361).

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.
1. POS for strengths use
2. Strengths use behaviour	.48**
3. POS for deficit correction	.51**	.35**
4. Deficit correction behaviour	.36**	.54**	.52**
5. Supervisor support	.16**	.23**	.20**	.17**
6. Exhaustion	−.15**	−.19**	−.18**	−.08	−.39**
7. Cynicism	−.28**	−.24**	−.29**	−.12*	−.45**	.66**
8. Vigour	.37**	.49**	.39**	.37**	.33**	−.23**	−.37**
9. Dedication	.46**	.47**	.49**	.38**	.31**	−.27**	−.50**	.78**

*p < .05, **p < .01 (one-tailed testing)

Table 5. Correlations among the strengths use and deficit correction dimensions, POS, proactive behaviour, and personal initiative (N = 133)*.

	POS	Proactive personality	Personal initiative
Strengths use behaviour	.47	.45	.51
Deficit correction behaviour	.28	.40	.51
POS for strengths use	.68	.23	.33
POS for deficit correction	.37	.21	.21

*All correlations are significant at p < .01 (one-tailed testing)

Table 6. Study 3: Correlations between dimensions of strengths use and deficit correction and self-rated and manager-rated performance (N = 133).

	Self-rated performance^a	Performance appraisal organization behavior^b	Performance appraisal organization results^c
Strengths use behaviour	.32**	.19*	.21**
Deficit correction behaviour	.14	.11	.05
POS for strengths use	.30**	.18*	.17*
POS for deficit correction	.10	−.01	−.02

**p < .01, *p < .05, (one-tailed testing). Correlations with ^a are Pearson correlations. Correlations with ^b and ^c are Spearman correlations.