GENERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS AS ANTECEDENTS OF ...

GENERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS AS ANTECEDENTS OF ENGAGEMENT 

By 

Thomas H. Carlson 

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Quantitative Research Report 

in the Executive Doctor of Management Program 

at the Weatherhead School of Management 

Advisors: 

Richard Boland, Ph.D. 

Jagdip Singh, Ph.D. 

Antoinette Somers, Ph.D. 

Martin Zummersch, E.D.M. 

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY 

March 2009

GENERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS AS ANTECEDENTS OF PERFORMANCE 

ABSTRACT 

Organizations and their members at all levels are increasingly expected to perform, 

adapt, and to do ‘more with less’. Positive psychology and appreciative inquiry inform us 

that as organizations strive to become more productive, innovative, and agile their interests 

and objectives are well-served by understanding that they have at-hand greater capacity for 

performance and learning than perhaps they had realized. Positive psychology emphasizes 

the role of character strengths and virtues suggesting that individual characteristics, whether 

dispositional or acquired, differentiate between those who are better able to contribute to 

organizational performance and learning and those who are less so. Appreciative inquiry 

emphasizes relational characteristics as key distinctions. These characteristics are generative 

in nature; they are pragmatic and theoretical, positive and normative. This study examines 

the effects of selected individual and relational characteristics on organization member 

psychological engagement in work performance and self-development, and offers some 

insights to intervention design. Analysis of data captured from a not-for-profit healthcare 

organization suggests that: (1) individual characteristics have limited and negative effects on 

psychological engagement, (2) relational characteristics have positive effects on 

psychological engagement, and (3) women and men use distinctly different mechanisms to 

translate individual and relational characteristics into psychological engagement. This paper 

addresses these relationships in one organization at one point in time and therefore readers 

should be cautious in generalizing the results. 

Key words: Engagement, shared values, peer trust, leadership, gratitude, generative. 

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Abstract..................................................................................................................................... 2 

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 4 

Theory and Hypotheses Development...................................................................................... 6 

Research Method .................................................................................................................... 12 

Analysis and Findings............................................................................................................. 22 

Discussion............................................................................................................................... 26 

Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 29 

Implications............................................................................................................................. 30 

Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 31 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Survey Instrument Items and Sources.................................................. 32 

Appendix B: Item Correlations and Descriptive Statistics: Pearson Correlations.... 35 

Appendix C: Exploratory Factor Analysis................................................................. 36 

Appendix D: Final CFA Measurement Model........................................................... 37 

Appendix E: Analysis of Method Bias ...................................................................... 38 

Appendix F: Female Engagement.............................................................................. 39 

Appendix G: Male Engagement................................................................................. 40 

References............................................................................................................................... 41 

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Conceptual Model ...................................................................................... 12 

Figure 2: Hypothesized Model Constrained for Method Bias................................... 18 

List of Tables 

Table 1: Data Collection Sources .............................................................................. 13 

Table 2: Description of Respondent Profile............................................................... 14 

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among the Constructs: 

Pearson Correlations .................................................................................... 16 

Table 4: Analysis of Convergent and Discriminate Validity: Unconstrained .......... 17 

Table 5: Factor Loadings and Measurement Properties Derived from CMV- 

Constrained CFA Model.............................................................................. 20 

Table 6: Construct Reliability Comparison ............................................................... 21 

Table 7: Mediation Tests: Mathieu & Taylor (2006)................................................. 22 

Table 8: Hypothesis Test Results............................................................................... 23 

Table 9: Estimated Coefficients and Nomological Relationships for the Female 

and Male Models.......................................................................................... 26 

3

INTRODUCTION 

“The twentieth-century organization has not operated well in a rapidly changing 

environment. Structure, systems, practices and culture have often been more of a drag on 

change than a facilitator” (Kotter, 1996: 161). The ability to maintain competitive, and even 

achieve superior, levels of performance and learning are necessary organizational 

competencies. Bushe and Kassam (2005) and others have observed that a significant majority 

of change and adaptation efforts (estimated as 70% to 80%) fail to meet expectation. 

Neither methodology nor technology has offered effective solutions to this 

fundamental challenge. Perhaps, neither is the issue. The underlying issue is the organization 

itself; its socially constructed, culturally embedded, and unexamined norms of accepted 

behavior, interaction and practice which reproduce the conditions that frustrate their efforts 

to learn and perform. 

The fundamental curiosity which motivates this paper is exploration of the antecedent 

characteristics which facilitate psychological engagement in work performance and self- 

development. The intent is to provide insight into design and conduct of interventions which 

result in alternative forms of practice, organizational learning and improved performance. 

Traditional interventions are framed as clarifying and improving ‘who does what, 

when, and how’. Thinking and action are focused on operational aspects organization 

function; job description, role interpretation, process and procedure, monitoring, metrics, and 

training. These traditional approaches fail to ‘fix’ the root-cause problem. 

The underlying problem is that the organization lacks the internal vitality to function 

effectively (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2003). It is not a purposeful community of practice 

(Wenger, 1998). It lacks a pervasive sense of shared values, beliefs and visions (Amis, Slack, 

4

& Hinings, 2002), and trust in peers and leadership (Maister, Green, & Galford, 2000; 

McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer, 2003) . It neglects the importance of relationship and fails to 

develop heightened levels productive interaction, and quality communications (Dutton & 

Heaphy, 2003; Gittell, 2003) which are the collaborative foundation for organizational 

learning (Argyris, 1982; Barrett, 1995; Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Bohm, 1996; Friedlander, 

1983; Hansen, 1999; Hansen, Mors, & Lovas, 2005)., and higher performance (Ouchi & 

Johnson,1978; Arthur, 1994; Ichniowski & Shaw, 1999). Group alignment of this type 

provides the basis for focused collective participation in pursuit of common objectives. 

Appreciative Inquiry is offered as a positive and even revolutionary theory of change 

(Bushe, 1995; Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000b; Srivastva & Cooperrider, 1990). Advocates of 

AI attribute its effectiveness to: creation and use of positive images (Cooperrider, 2000; 

Srivastva & Cooperrider, 1990; Weick, 2003) and generative questions (Adams, Schiller, & 

Cooperrider, 2004), identifying and building on strength (Clifton & Harter, 2003; 

Cooperrider, Sorensen, Yaeger, & Whitney, 2001), establishing perspective of abundance 

rather than deficiency (Cooperrider & Sekerka, 2003), and focusing on possibilities rather 

than problems (Luechauer, 2000; Thatchenkery, 2004). 

Research in positive psychology also provides supports the principles and 

perspectives of appreciative inquiry; ‘positive spirals’ (Fredrickson, 2003), broaden and build 

(Fredrickson, 2005) character strengths and virtues (Peterson & Park, 2004; Peterson & 

Seligman, 2003; Peterson, 2004), building and strengths (Cameron, 2003; Clifton & Harter, 

2003; Clifton & Hodges, 2004) and the role of constructive discourse (Cooperrider & Avital, 

2004). 

Testimony to the effectiveness of AI-based interventions is becoming more prevalent 

5

(Fry, Barrett, Seiling, & Whitney, 2002; Prowley, Fry, Barrett, & Bright, 2004; Srivastva & 

Cooperrider, 1990). However, testimony is not research. It isn’t surprising that Appreciative 

Inquiry has its critics. AI has been characterized as failing to provide linkages to other theory 

and practice (Golembiewski, 2001), as being based more on speculation and enthusiasm than 

empirical research (Head, 1997), and as having limited and only specific applicability (Bushe 

& Coetzer, 1995). 

The following sections of this paper discuss theories and constructs used to frame the 

research question, describe the research design, methodology, data collection, and analysis; 

present the findings as pre-intervention and post-intervention comparisons, and discuss those 

findings and their implications for both future research and practice. 

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT 

This section discusses the constructs upon which this study is based. This research 

accepts that organizations are the result of ongoing social construction and attempts to inform 

our understanding of how individual and shared generative characteristics influence 

employee engagement in work performance and self-development. 

Engagement 

The fundamental interest in this study is to inform our understanding of the individual 

and relational generative characteristics which are, or could be, antecedents to the ways in 

which work group members engage themselves in the performance of their work and their 

continued development. This is a somewhat different perspective than those of role 

engagement, task engagement, or organizational commitment. Rather, the interest here is in 

why group members decide to bring their real and whole ‘self’ to work and dedicate their 

attention and energy to achieving higher levels of performance and to the development of 

6

subject knowledge and craft skill (Kahn, 1990; Kahn, Cross, & Parker, 2003). That 

dedication is expressed as awareness (Seligman, 2002), heightened concentration and 

cognitive processes (Seligman, 2005), positive affectivity and positive emotional states 

(Seligman, 1990; Fredrickson, 2005), and greater productivity (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 

2002; Clifton & Harter, 2003). The constructs used here, engaged performance and engaged 

development, are subsets of the thirteen-item scale developed by Buckingham and Coffman 

(1999) and later used by Harter (Harter et al., 2002). This study uses those constructs to 

capture the influences of antecedent individual and relational generative characteristics. 

Generative characteristics are attributes of individuals and groups that capture the 

best of ‘what is’ (pragmatic), and provoke collective projection and visioning of the best of 

‘what might be’ (theoretical), ‘what can be’ (positive), and ‘what should be’ (normative). 

Generative characteristics promote dialogue, collaboration, collective experimentation, and 

seek practical actionable knowledge (Cooperrider, 2000; Cooperrider & Sekerka, 2003; 

Watkins & Mohr, 2001). 

Relational Generative Characteristics 

The body of literature which explores commitment and group alignment is extensive. 

The interest here is in the perspectives drawn from Appreciative Inquiry and Positive 

Psychology. Both accept the underlying premise that both social and practice norms are 

socially constructed. Social construction is a process of continuous negotiation and change in 

which identity, meaning, sense of group and individual belonging are formed and maintained 

(Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Wenger, 1998; Gergen & Thatchenkery, 2004). Essential to 

these notions are identification, articulation, and enactment of shared values, and 

development of trust in others, both peers and leadership. Shared values provide the 

7

fundamental connection of commonality and ‘community’ among group members (Amis, 

Slack, & Hinings, 2002; Kahn et al., 2003; Wrzesniewski, 2003). Shared values and meaning 

provide the basis for articulation of the vision of positive futures, shared goals and objectives, 

and positive perspectives regarding strengths, abundance, and possibility (Cameron, 2003; 

Clifton & Harter, 2003; Cooperrider, 2000; Fredrickson, 2003). 

Peer trust provides the basis for group members to interconnect and interact in ways 

which are open, authentic, and free of undo hesitation or condition (Maister et al., 2000; 

McEvily et al., 2003; Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2003). It is an essential, if implicit, element 

of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) which has a positive influence on interpersonal 

risk taking, learning, and performance. 

Other qualitative research and field reports (Fry et al., 2002) provide support to these 

notions and to the power of their interaction. Further, qualitative research previously 

conducted within the organization, which is the subject of this study, indicated that 

participants of a newly formed group actively sought to form and deliberately articulated a 

‘manifesto’ of shared values, articulated their vision of how they would work together in 

pursuit of their objectives, and consciously and publicly agreed to enact behaviors which 

fostered trust and psychological safety. The effect of their effort was dramatically increased 

information sharing, knowledge sharing, learning, and performance (Carlson, 2007). 

These understandings lead to the first four hypotheses: 

Hypothesis 1. Shared values have a direct and positive influence on engaged 

performance. 

Hypothesis 2. Shared values have a direct and positive influence on engaged 

development. 

Hypothesis 3. Peer trust has a direct and positive influence on engaged performance. 

8

Hypothesis 4. Peer trust has a direct and positive influence on engaged development. 

Individual Generative Characteristics 

Individual generative characteristics are traits that are viewed by many researchers in 

AI and positive psychology as essential to effective personal interaction and relationship 

development (Barrett, Thomas, & Hocevar, 1995; Bohm, 1996; Cooperrider & Srivastva, 

2000a). The specific individual traits chosen for inclusion in this study are communicative 

adaptability (Duran, 1983) and gratitude (Emmons, 2003; Emmons, McCullough, & Bono, 

2004; Peterson & Seligman, 2003). 

Communicative adaptability is represented by the social experience dimension of the 

original construct (Duran, 1983). It is intended to measure respondent ability to perceive 

social cues and circumstances, and adapt interaction goals and behaviors accordingly. As 

such it provides insight into group members’ perceived and self-assessed ability to accurately 

sense and appropriately reconcile tension which exists among self, others, situation, and 

objective. It measures respondent comfort and facility at ‘fitting in’ and functioning 

harmoniously as part of a group. It was selected because it is a learned skill, an acquired trait, 

that reflects to some degree respondent social and emotional intelligence (Boyatzis & McKee, 

2005; Goleman, 1995). 

Gratitude is a relatively recently developed construct which derives from research in 

positive psychology. Regarded as a dispositional trait (Emmons, 2003; Emmons & Shelton, 

2005a), gratitude is the ‘generalized tendency to recognize and respond with positive 

emotions to others’ benevolence’ (Lopez & Snyder; 2005). It is conceptualized as both 

conscious and active (Emmons, McCullough, & Tsang, 2005b; Emmons et al., 2004). The 

notion of gratitude is particularly interesting for two reasons. It is regarded by some as the 

9

core virtue from which others stem (Peterson & Seligman, 2003). The more practical reason, 

and the one which applies most strongly here, is that research has shown that gratitude has 

strong positive correlations with other character strengths and dispositional attributes which 

are generally viewed as positive and therefore desirable in oneself and in other group 

members (Biswas-Diener & Dean, 2007). Among the attributes with which gratitude is 

highly correlated are altruism and generosity, hope, helping, sharing, empathy, life 

satisfaction, and positive emotional affect. For that reason gratitude, to a degree, serves as 

proxy for that set of character traits and associated behaviors. These models suggest the 

following hypotheses: 

Hypothesis 5. Communicative Adaptability has a direct and positive effect on 

engaged performance. 

Hypothesis 6. Communicative Adaptability has a direct and positive effect on 

engaged development. 

Hypothesis 7. Gratitude has a direct and positive effect on engaged performance. 

Hypothesis 8. Gratitude has a direct and positive effect on engaged development. 

Trust in Leadership 

Numerous and recent studies have sought to inform our understanding of the role of 

leaders and leadership in organizations. Shein (2004) speaks to the role of leader and 

leadership in creating and maintaining culture. Others speak to the leaders’ role in creating 

inspirational vision and messages of hope and possibility which galvanized the thinking and 

efforts of the work group (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005; Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002; 

Cooperrider, 2000; Srivastva & Cooperrider, 1990). McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer (2003) 

discuss the importance of trust as a shared and valued organizing and leadership principle. 

Regardless the perspective, leaders and leadership are evaluated by the work group in large 

10

part based on perceptions and observations of behaviors seen as authentic; caring about, 

listening to, and including the work group in their thinking, planning, and action. For those 

reasons the construct which represents trust in leadership is procedural justice (Moorman, 

1991). The construct overall addresses very fundamental group member questions about 

inclusion and confidence. As such trust in leadership is conceptualized as having a 

moderating effect on the direct relationships to engagement, and that provides the basis for 

the final hypotheses: 

Hypothesis 9. Trust in leadership has a partial mediating effect on the relationship 

between shared values and engaged performance. 


between shared values and engaged development. 


between peer trust and engaged performance. 


between peer trust and engaged development. 


between communicative adaptability and engaged performance. 


between communicative adaptability and engaged development. 


between gratitude and engaged performance. 


between gratitude and engaged development. 

Control Variables 

Based on similar studies in the literature and prior research in the same organization 

(Carlson, 2007) tenure and gender were used as control variables. Their inclusion leads to the 

final hypotheses. 

11

Hypothesis 17. Tenure moderates the effects of antecedent variables on both engaged 

performance and engaged development. 

Hypothesis 18. Gender moderates the effects of antecedent variables on both 

engaged performance and engaged development. 

The conceptual model is represented in Figure 1 below. 

Peer Trust 

Shared Values 

Communicative 

Adaptability 

Gratitude 

Setting and Sample 

Leadership Trust 

FIGURE 1: 

Conceptual Model 

Gender Tenure 

RESEARCH METHOD 

Engaged 

Performance 

Engaged 

Development 

This study was conducted in cooperation with the medical operations division of a 

not-for-profit health care organization. Areas which participated in the data collection 

include: the Clinical Leadership group which is comprised of directors, managers, physicians, 

and other key clinical staff from across the division; pharmacists and technicians from four 

large pharmacy locations; physicians, nurses and other patient care providers from each of 

the Specialty Care departments; and the applications development staff from the information 

technology group which provides support to the medical operation division. A total of 316 

12

esponses were received. Appendix A illustrates the demographic characteristics of the 

respondents. 

Data Collection and Preparation 

Development of the survey instrument was guided by the results of a previous 

qualitative study conducted within the same organization, prior review of relevant literature, 

and selected previously validated constructs. The instrument was tested in ‘walk through’ 

sessions to ensure the appropriateness of the questions. 

In order to mitigate the likelihood of method error the survey instrument was 

administered in three different modes and at different times (Babbie, 2007). Table 1 below 

summarizes the data collection sources. 

TABLE 1: 

Data Collection Sources 

Population Online Meetings Mail % Participation 

Clinical leadership 176 134 76.1 

Other Clinicians 190 53 61 60.0 

Pharmacy 72 33 45.9 

Info. Tech. 36 35 97.2 

Total 474 134 88 94 66.7 

The Clinical Leadership Group received qualified invitations and the necessary link via email. 

Those choosing to participate completed the survey online (SurveyMonkey). A total of 134 

responses were received (102 in the first wave, 32 in the second) from a population of 176 

(76.1%). In the cases of the IT group and four clinical departments (Neurology, G/I, Podiatry 

and Orthopedics) potential participants were invited, hardcopy survey instruments distributed, 

completed and collected during regularly scheduled monthly meetings. From the IT group 35 

responses were received from 36 attendees (97.2%; four staff members were not in 

attendance). From the clinical groups 53 responses were received from 55 attendees (96.4%; 

13

in total 12 staff were not in attendance). The remainder of the clinical staff (including the 12 

not in attendance at the monthly meetings), as well as staff members in the pharmacy units 

received invitations, hardcopy survey instruments, and stamped return envelops by mail. A 

total of 61 responses were received from the remaining clinical population of 135 (45.2%). 

From the pharmacy units a total of 33 responses were received from a population of 72 

(44.4%). Table 2 below describes the respondent profile. 

TABLE 2: 

Description of Respondent Profile 

Age Gender Tenure 

29 or younger 2.85 Female 75.63 2 yrs. or less 16.14 

30 - 39 13.29 Male 23.10 3 to 5 yrs. 12.03 

40 -49 30.39 Missing 1.27 6 to 10 yrs. 14.87 

50 and older 51.59 >10 yrs. 55.70 

Missing 1.90 Missing 1.27 

Fifty-seven of the 316 responses had missing data; two of those (both online 

responses) were unusable at any level of analysis. Subsequently eight were removed as 

outliers and influentials. 

In order to minimize the likelihood of measurement error all questions were 

converted to 7-point Likert scales, reverse coding of some items was eliminated, and the data 

were collected in different forms and forums (Babbie, 2007)The response for each item was 

anchored by strongly disagree, neutral, and strongly agree. Sampling error was controlled by 

question structure and question order. Pre-testing of the survey instrument identified possible 

instances of difficulty in question interpretation; question wording and length were modified 

and retested (Babbie, 2007). 

Variables and Measurement 

All the constructs and items used in the study were taken from existing validated 

14

scales (refer to Appendix A). The construct for engagement was adapted from Buckingham 

& Coffman (1999) and Harter, Schmidt & Hayes (2002). Those authors note that this 

thirteen-item construct can be multidimensional and is sensitive to the context in which it’s 

used. The interest in this study is in the influence of individual and relational generative 

traits on employee engagement in the performance of their work and in self-development. All 

thirteen items were included in the initial analysis and were reduced to three for the 

dependent variable engaged performance. The values alignment (Cable & Judge, 1996), 

vision alignment (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986), and peer trust (Dunham & Smith, 1979) 

constructs were selected and adapted for use in this study and are viewed here as the basis for 

derivation of socially constructed belief mechanisms, commitment, cohesion, development 

and acceptance of shared objectives, and collective action. 

The constructs communicative adaptability (Duran, 1983) and gratitude (Emmons, 

McCullough, & Tsang, 2005; Emmons & Shelton, 2005; Emmons, McCullough, & Bono, 

2004) were selected for use as representative of individual generative characteristics. The 

first is a learned personal skill which embodies cognitive, social, and emotional awareness 

and agility; the ability to perceive and interpret interpersonal and situational cues and 

successfully ‘fit’ personal conversational style to the environment and participants. Gratitude 

represents individual character strength and ‘virtuous behavior’ (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). 

Gratitude is used in this study due to its theoretical and practical alignment with the 

principles of appreciative inquiry and positive psychology, and due to its strong positive 

correlation with other character strengths and behaviors which include helping, sharing, 

giving, positive emotional affect, and satisfaction with life (Biswas-Deiner & Dean, 2007). 

The construct used to measure Leadership Trust is that of Procedural Justice; 

15

(Moorman, 1999) which was selected because it captures the notions of inclusion and 

confidence; ‘Am I heard?’, ‘Do they care?’, ‘Can I rely on their processes and judgment?’ 

Together these constructs form a model which is intended to inform our 

understanding of individual and relational factors which influence the formation of employee 

engagement in work performance and self-development. 

Data Analysis 

The data were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 

and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). 

Seven factors emerged through exploratory factor analysis (refer to Appendix C). 

Some of the constructs included in the original conceptualization of the model were trimmed 

as the result of persistent crossloading and lack of convergence within the context of the 

other constructs. Some items comprising the remaining seven constructs were trimmed (those 

with loadings < 0.50) in order to improve the fit of the model. Intercorrelations and 

descriptive statistics among the items are illustrated in Appendix B. Table 3 below provides 

descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the constructs used in the final model. 

TABLE 3: 

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among the Constructs: 

Pearson Correlations 

Mean Std. Dev. CommAdapt Gratitude PeerTrust SharedValues LeaderTrust EngagedPerf EngagedDev 

CommAdapt 5.94 1.016 1 

Gratitude 6.27 .824 .510** 1 

PeerTrust 5.27 1.111 .356** .272** 1 

SharedValues 5.41 1.089 .373** .432** .552** 1 

LeaderTrust 4.46 1.384 .263** .297** .467** .636** 1 

EngagedPerf 5.69 1.044 .263** .399** .467** .527** .449** 1 

EngagedDev 4.78 1.626 .142* .172** .417** .439** .546** .421** 1 

** - Correlations significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) 

* - Correlations significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed) 

16

Adequacy of the model was established with confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS 

(refer to Appendix D) by assessing goodness of fit statistics, and individual construct 

reliabilities as well as the convergent validity of the individual constructs, and the 

discriminate validity among the constructs. Convergent validity of the constructs is assessed 

using the composite reliability scale and average variance extracted. Results from 

examination of the adequacy of the model are presented in Table 4 below. 

Constructs/Items 

TABLE 4: 

Analysis of Convergent and Discriminate Validity: 

Unconstrained 

Loading 

(Standatrized) P-Value 

Composite 

Reliability 

Average 

Variance 

Extracted 

Maximum 

Variance 

Shared 

Average 

Shared 

Variance 

Commuticative Adaptability 0.872 0.631 0.356 0.148 

C2 0.884 < 0.001 

C3 0.818 < 0.001 

C4 0.789 < 0.001 

C5 0.715 < 0.001 

Gratitude 0.856 0.600 0.356 0.173 

G1 0.83 < 0.001 

G2 0.824 < 0.001 

G3 0.623 < 0.001 

G4 0.755 < 0.001 

G6 0.675 < 0.001 

Leadership Trust 0.914 0.679 0.486 0.285 

L1 0.893 < 0.001 

L2 0.812 < 0.001 

L3 0.761 < 0.001 

L4 0.829 < 0.001 

L5 0.817 < 0.001 

Peer Trust 

0.819 0.533 0.368 0.259 

P1 0.711 < 0.001 

P2 0.728 < 0.001 

P3 0.832 < 0.001 

P4 0.631 < 0.001 

Shared Values 0.929 0.653 0.486 0.308 

Val1 0.835 < 0.001 

Val3 0.834 < 0.001 

Vis1 0.719 < 0.001 

Vis2 0.715 < 0.001 

Vis3 0.722 < 0.001 

Vis5 0.898 < 0.001 

Vis6 0.772 < 0.001 

Vis7 0.778 < 0.001 

Vis8 0.757 < 0.001 

Engaged Performance 0.759 0.517 0.377 0.267 

E2 0.577 < 0.001 

E3 0.743 < 0.001 

E4 0.815 < 0.001 

Engaged Development 0.780 0.543 0.440 `.232 

E5 0.715 < 0.001 

E7 0.777 < 0.001 

E12 

Goodness of Fit Statistics 

0.712 < 0.001 

Chi-Sq. (df) 808.1 (437) 

NFI 0.851 

IFI 0.926 

TLI 0.915 

CFI 0.925 

RMSEA I 0.058 

90% CI .052 - .065 

SRMR 0.052 

17

Further analysis the data demonstrated strong and significant method variance (CMV). 

Following Podsakoff (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Lee, 2003) a model using a 

single latent method factor to control for unmeasured effects (refer to Appendix E) is used to 

separate the variance of the responses into three components; trait, method, and random error. 

The presence of significant method variance is attributed to the method of measurement 

rather than the constructs themselves, and reflected in the correlations among the items and 

among the constructs. Further, that bias complicates interpretation of the data, and increases 

the likelihood of misleading conclusions (Type I error). The hypothesized model was 

constrained for common method variance (refer to Figure 2 below). 

d7 

d8 

d9 

d10 

d11 

d12 

d13 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

d22 

1 

d23 

1 

d24 

1 

d25 

1 

d14 

1 

d15 

1 

d16 

1 

d17 

d18 

d19 

d20 

d21 

1 

1 

1 

1 

ZVAL1 

ZVAL3 

ZVIS1 

ZVIS3 

FIGURE 2: 

Hypothesized Model Constrained for Method Bias 

ZVIS5 

ZVIS6 

ZVIS7 

ZP1 

ZP2 

ZP3 

ZP4 

ZC2 

ZC3 

ZC4 

ZC5 

ZG1 

ZG2 

ZG4 

ZG6 

SharedValues 

PeerTrust 

CommAdapt 

LeadershipTrust 

Gratitude 

Hypothesized Model 

ZL1 

1 

d26 

ZL2 

1 

Common 

Method 

Variance 

ZL3 

1 

d27 d28 

EngagedPerf 

EngagedDev 

ZL4 

1 

d29 

ZL5 

1 

d30 

ZE2 

ZE3 

ZE4 

ZE5 

ZE7 

ZE12 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

d1 

d2 

d3 

d4 

d5 

d6 

18

Estimated Coefficients and Nomological Relationships in the 

Hypothesized Model 

Dependent Variable 

Hypothesized 

Independent Variable 

Model 

Coefficient 

t-Value R 2 

Leadership Trust (LT) .392 

Shared Values -> LT .554*** 6.236 

Peer Trust -> LT .239** 3.255 

Communicative Adaptability - 

> LT 

.008 .091 

Gratitude -> LT .083 .871 

Engaged Performance (EP) .241 

Shared Values -> EP .013 .115 

Peer Trust -> EP .009 .130 

Communicative Adaptability - -.316*** -3.338 

> EP 

Gratitude -> EP -.082 -.844 

Leadership Trust -> EP .243 1.827 

Engaged Development (ED) .458 

Shared Values -> ED -.147 -1.334 

Peer Trust -> ED .095 1.425 

Communicative Adaptability - -.249** 2.860 

> ED 

Gratitude ->ED -.241* -2.491 

Leadership Trust -> ED .540*** 4.050 


Chi-sq. (df) 683.9 (379) 

NFI .865 

IFI .935 

TLI .924 

CFI .934 

SMSR .070 

RMSEA .057 

90% CI .050 - .063 

Note: Correlation significance: *** = 0.001; ** = 0.01; * = 0.05. 

The previous analysis of adequacy, goodness of fit, convergent validity, and 

discriminate validity were rerun using results from the constrained model. Results of that 

analysis are presented in Table 5. 

19

Constructs/Items 

TABLE 5: 

Factor Loadings and Measurement Properties Derived from 

CMV-Constrained CFA Model 

Average Maximum Average 

Loading Variance Variance Shared 

(Standardized) P-Value Reliability Extracted Shared Variance 

Commuticative Adaptability 0.744 0.427 0.308 0.109 

C2 0.627 < 0.001 

C3 0.557 < 0.001 

C4 0.409 < 0.001 

C5 0.459 < 0.001 

Gratitude 0.650 0.321 0.309 0.118 

G1 0.593 < 0.001 

G2 0.399 < 0.001 

G4 0.412 < 0.001 

G6 0.401 < 0.001 

Leadership Trust 0.885 0.606 0.276 0.130 

L1 0.766 < 0.001 

L2 0.702 < 0.001 

L3 0.613 < 0.001 

L4 0.67 < 0.001 

L5 0.73 < 0.001 

Peer Trust 

0.710 0.387 0.216 0.088 

P1 0.54 < 0.001 

P2 0.517 < 0.001 

P3 0.671 < 0.001 

P4 0.401 < 0.001 

Shared Values 0.878 0.517 0.276 0.087 

Val1 0.616 < 0.001 

Val3 0.698 < 0.001 

Vis1 0.376 < 0.001 

Vis3 0.518 < 0.001 

Vis5 0.715 < 0.001 

Vis6 0.677 < 0.001 

Vis7 0.535 < 0.001 

Engaged Performance 0.572 0.322 0.308 0.101 

E2 0.298 < 0.001 

E3 0.505 < 0.001 

E4 0.58 < 0.001 

Engaged Development 0.711 0.452 0.309 0.167 

E5 0.648 < 0.001 

E7 0.618 < 0.001 

E12 0.564 < 0.001 


Chi-Sq. (df) 726.0 (398) 

NFI .857 

IFI .927 

TLI .916 

CFI .926 

RMSEA .060 

90% CI .053 - .066 

SRMR .086 

The bias-corrected model produced construct reliability, AVE, MVS, and ASV results which 

were consistently lower than those produced by the unconstrained model. Composite scale 

reliability for five of the constructs range from .710 to .875, exceeding the recommended 

20

cutoff value (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The exceptions are gratitude (.650) and engaged 

performance (.572). Average variance extracted ranges from .321 to .606 and fell below the 

recommended threshold of .50 (reference) for all but two of the constructs, however in all 

instances average variance extracted is greater than maximum variance shared and average 

shared variance. 

The constrained CFA model achieved acceptable goodness of measures (CFI > 0.90; 

SRMR < 0.90; RMSEA < .060), indicating that the model provided a good representation of 

the variance-covariance nature of the measures. All seven constructs which comprise the 

final model demonstrate adequate convergent and discriminate validity. Overall, the results 

of CFA specify that the modeled constructs appear to have adequate explanatory properties 

for analysis and interpretation using Structured Equation Modeling (SEM). Table 6 

compares the reliability of each construct from the source article, prior to CMV correction, 

and after CMV correction. 

TABLE 6: 

Construct Reliability Comparison 

Construct Reliability Measures 

Construct: Source With CMB Corrected 

Communicative Adaptability .82 .872 .774 

Gratitude .82 .856 .650 

Leadership Trust .94 .914 .885 

Peer Trust .83 .819 .710 

Shares Values .86-.91 .929 .878 

Engaged Performance .83-.91* .759 .572 

Engaged Development .83-.91* .780 .711 

* Based on original 13 item scale 

The presence of the embedded common method variance anomaly required the 

correction mechanism to be carried forward throughout the remainder of the analysis. 

21

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 

A structural model constrained for method bias was specified in AMOS to test the 

hypothesized model and assess its overall fit. SEM is the preferred technique for analyzing 

models with latent variables and possible measurement error, and is an effective means of 

testing simultaneous equations. The hypothesized model achieved reasonable overall fit 

indices. 

Mediation Analysis 

Mediation analysis, guided by Mathieu & Taylor (2006), was conducted to test the 

influence of Leadership Trust on the relationships between the independent variables and 

engaged performance and engaged development; hypotheses 9 through 16. Results of testing 

are presented in Table 7. Only H16: Trust in leadership has a mediating effect on the 

relationship between gratitude and engaged development, was supported by the indication of 

partial mediation. All others, H8 through H15 were not supported. 

TABLE 7: 

Mediation Tests: Mathieu & Taylor (2006) 

Hypothesis Mediation Path 

Hypothesized 

Effect p‐Value Indication 

H9 SV‐>LT‐>EPerf Partial 

βyx NS 

βyx →βmx NS Conclude Null 

H10 SV‐>LT‐>EDev Partial 

βmx →βym NS 

βyx *** Conclude Indirect 

H11 PT‐>LT‐>EPerf Partial 

βmx →βym NS 

βyx NS Conclude Null 

H12 PT‐>LT‐>EDev Partial 

βyx NS 

βyx →βmx *** Conclude Indierct 

H13 CA‐>LT‐>EPerf Partial 

βmx →βym ** 

βyx NS Conclude Direct 

H14 CA‐>LT‐>EDev Partial 

βyx ** 

βyx →βmx NS Conclude Direct 

H15 Grat‐>LT‐>EPerf Partial 

βyx NS 

βyx →βmx NS Conclude Null 

H16 Grat‐>LT‐>EDev Partial 

βmx →βym ** 

βyx ** Conclude Partial 

22

The re-specified model produced overall goodness of fit indices which were virtually 

identical (SRMR = .070, NFI = .864, IFI = .935, TLI = .925, CFI = .934, and RMSEA 

= .056) to those of the hypothesized model. 

Moderation Analysis 

Moderation testing revealed that tenure did not significantly influence the 

relationships of the antecedent variables on either engaged performance or engaged 

development; H17 is disconfirmed. However the moderating effect of gender was significant, 

indicating invariance between female and male respondents, and required further analysis; 

H18 is supported. 

The effects of gender were examined by running separate SEM analysis for each 

group (Byrne & Stewart, 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results of hypothesis testing are 

presented in Table 8. 

TABLE 8: 

Hypothesis Test Results 

Hypothesis: 

Result 

Female Male 

H1: SV=>EP direct and positive Supported Disconfirmed 

H2: SV=>ED direct and positive Disconfirmed Supported 

H3: PT=> EP direct and positive Disconfirmed Supported 

H4: PT=>ED direct and positive Supported Disconfirmed 

H5: CA=>EP direct and positive Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H6: CA=>ED direct and positive Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H7: G=>EP direct and positive Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H8: G=>ED direct and positive Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H9: SV=>LT=>EP partial mediation Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H10: SV=>LT=>ED partial mediation Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H11: PT=>LT=>EP partial mediation Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H12: PT=>LT=>ED partial mediation Supported Disconfirmed 

H13: CA=>LY=>EP partial mediation Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H14: CA=>LT=>ED partial mediation Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H15:G=>LT=>EP partial mediation Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H16: G=.LT=>ED partial mediation Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H17: Tenure moderates EP Disconfirmed Disconfirmed 

H18: Gender modetates ED Supported Supported 

SV = Shared Values; PT = Peer Trust; ; CA = Commumicative Adaptability 

G = Gratitude; LT = leadership Trust; EP = Enaed Performance; 

ED = Enaged Development 

23

Hypotheses 1 through 8 were tested for both the female and male groups. Models 

were run sequentially with an unconstrained model until all parameters, except structural 

weights, were had been constrained. Leaving the structural weights unconstrained attributed 

any differences between the groups to the groups themselves and not to the method bias. The 

comparison across groups resulted in significant differences in the mechanisms by which 

female and male participants engage in performance and development. The models are 

illustrated in Appendices F and G. The model for females produced acceptable fit indices; the 

model for males did not. 

The models indicate that in the female group communications adaptability has a 

significant but negative effect on both engaged performance (-0.58) and engaged 

development (-0.36), while gratitude had no significant effect on either. Among the male 

group gratitude had significant but negative effect on engaged development (-0.24) and no 

significant effect on engaged performance, while communicative adaptability had no 

significant effect on either dependent variable. These findings refute hypotheses 5 through 8 

in both groups. Further, the findings fail to support the notion that individual generative traits 

enhance engagement in either performance or self-development. 

However, the findings indicate significant and positive effects of peer trust on 

leadership trust (female 0.37, male 0.50), leadership trust on engaged development (0.38, 

0.33), and leadership trust on shared values (0.52, 0.55) for both groups. The effect of 

leadership trust on shared values had not been hypothesized and was entirely unanticipated. 

Further, among females the direct effects of shared values on engaged performance and peer 

trust on engaged development were hypothesized as H1 and H4 in the original model, were 

significant and positive, and therefore are supported by the findings for the female group. H2 

24

and H3 were not supported for the female group. In addition, leadership trust partially 

mediates the relationship between peer trust and engaged development (direct effect = 0.17, 

indirect effect = (0.37) x (0.38) = 0.141, total effect = 0.311). That partial mediation accounts 

for 45.3% [0.141/ (0.311)] of the total effect and therefore supports H12 within the female 

group; no other mediation hypotheses are supported (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). 

Among males direct effect of peer trust on engaged performance was hypothesized in the 

original model as H3, was positive and significant, and therefore is supported by the findings 

for the male group. H1, H2, and H4 were not supported for the male group. Shared values 

also partially mediate the relationship between leadership trust and engaged development 

among the male sample accounting for 30.2% of the total effect. Also, the analysis revealed 

that engaged development has a positive and significant effect on engaged performance 

(0.58) in the male group; another finding not hypothesized in the original model and 

completely unanticipated. No mediated relationships exist in the model; none of the 

hypotheses, H9 through H16 are supported for the male group. Estimated coefficients and 

nomological relationships for the final female (refer to Appendix F) and final male (refer to 

Appendix G) are presented in Table 9 below. 

25

TABLE 9: 

Estimated Coefficients and Nomological Relationships for the Female and Male Models 

Estimated Coefficients and Nomological Relationships for the Female and Male Models 

Female Model Male model 

Dependent Variable 

Independent Variable 

Estimated 

Coefficient t-Value R 

s 

2 

Estimated 

Coefficient t-Value R 

s 

2 

Leadership Trust (LT) .184 .108 

Peer Trust -> LT .372*** 4.724 .474 1.891 

Shared Values (SV) .347 .241 

Leadership Trust -> SV .523*** 6.754 .416*** 3.341 

Engaged Performance (EP) .377 .409 

Shared Values -> EP .271** 2.972 

Peer Trust -> EP .432* 2.023 

Communicative Adaptability -> EP -.585*** -3.481 

Engaged Development -> EP .459* 2.424 

Engaged Development (ED) .441 .469 

Shared Values -> ED 

Peer Trust -> ED .172** 2.609 

Communicative Adaptability -> ED -.354** -2.742 

Gratitude ->ED -.284* -2.198 

Leadership Trust -> ED .383*** 4.576 .405*** 3.181 

Goodness of Fit Statistics Female Male 

Chi-sq. (df) 639.2 (394) 697.6 (396) 

NFI .832 .636 

IFI .928 .802 

TLI .920 .776 

CFI .927 .796 

SMSR .098 .140 

RMSEA .058 .109 

90% CI .050 - .066 .096 - .122 

DISCUSSION 

The literature in positive psychology focuses on the role of character strengths and 

virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2003; Peterson & Park, 2004; Seligman, 2005), individual 

generative characteristics, in improving personal perspective and social environments. 

Persons of good character and positive perspective are happier, more adaptive, and more 

productive. The literature in appreciative inquiry stresses the importance of the generative 

nature of relationships, the ‘webs of connectedness’ (Cooperrider & Sekerka, 2003; 

Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000b; Fredrickson, 2005; Gergen & Thatchenkery, 2004), as the 

26

asis for personal and organizational learning and performance. Persons who are better, more 

effectively and efficiently, connected to others learn faster and perform at higher levels. 

Organizations which have well-developed and active networks of connection among their 

members are more adaptive and higher performing (Hansen et al., 2005; Mohrman, Tenkasi, 

& Mohrman, 2003; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). This study draws on constructs from both 

areas of inquiry and examines their influence on individual engagement (Csikszentmihalyi, 

1990; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 2006; Kahn, 1990, 1992) in performance and 

development. 

The results of this inquiry identify several interesting findings. The proposition that 

individual character strengths and virtues positively influence performance and development 

was not supported. In fact, where significant effect existed it was negative. All the related 

hypotheses (H5 through H8) were disconfirmed. The cause of this surprising outcome is 

unclear, but perhaps is attributable, in part, to the use of self-report data and inherent 

difficulties associated with accurate self-assessment. 

Equally interesting was the emergence of the causal link between leadership trust and 

shared values. Not originally hypothesized, this effect and its strength (0.52 female, 0.55 

male) and significance in both female and male samples supports the literature on leadership 

and organizational culture (Amis et al., 2002; McEvily et al., 2003; Shein, 2004). As 

organizational culture is a subject of ongoing interaction and exchange among members, 

leadership trust and associated behaviors are an essential part of that conversation. 

The role of trust in leadership as mediator of the causal relationships between 

independent and dependent variables was far less prevalent than hypothesized. The only two 

instances of partial mediation were revealed in the findings. The first of these is in the peer 

27

trust => leadership trust => engaged development relationships for the female sample only. 

The second is the in the leadership trust => shared values => engaged development 

relationships for the male sample only. These causal relationships emphasize the importance 

of the direct connection between leadership trust and engaged development for groups, and 

significant difference in the ways in which engaged development is achieved by each group. 

Within the female group the direct path is between peer trust and engaged development; 

leadership trust partially mediates that relationship via the weaker although significant 

indirect path. In contrast, within the male group the stronger direct path is between leadership 

trust and engaged development; shared values mediate via the weaker although significant 

indirect path. The implications are that members of the female group place greater emphasis 

on the practices and behavior of coworkers as antecedent to self-development. They invest in 

themselves as a result of connection with, and to their benefit within the context of, their 

immediate work group and those with whom they share it. In contrast, males place greater 

emphasis on the practices and behaviors of leadership as antecedent to self-development. 

They invest in themselves as a result of connection with, and to their benefit within the 

context of, the broader organization and those who guide it. 

A final point of interest is the difference in the antecedent relationships to engaged 

performance. Here again the mechanisms are distinct. The only relational characteristic 

which has significant effect on engaged performance in the female group is shared values. 

The implication is that members of the female group engage in the performance of their work 

as a result of being compelled by, or in service to, a shared and unifying purpose. Again, this 

dynamic contrasts with that of the male respondents. There the antecedents are engaged 

development and the relational characteristic of peer trust. The implications are two. Male 

28

espondents engage themselves in the performance of their work because they’ve made the 

self-investment to do so – preparation and performance are strongly linked. The other 

implication is that they derive motivation to engage in performance of their work because 

they trust that their peers are doing the same - they want to meet the standard of their work 

group. 

LIMITATIONS 

The findings of this study should be viewed within the context of its limitations. Data 

for the study was gathered from a single organization over a brief period of time. While the 

data was collected by different means and in different forums, the survey instrument, 

particularly the communicative adaptability and gratitude constructs, relied heavily on the 

respondent’s ability to accurately self-assess and reply to questions which tend to provoke a 

certain level of personal discomfort and invite socially desirable responses. The subject 

organization is a very survey-savvy culture in which, in the normal case, respondent 

confidentiality is seldom taken for granted. The most substantial limitation to this study is the 

presence of significant method bias. While appropriate techniques were applied to correct for 

the bias, they resulted in weaker construct reliabilities, particularly for gratitude and engaged 

performance. 

Construct reliabilities and AVE results were acceptable in the unconstrained model. 

However after controlling for common method bias all construct reliability, AVE, MVS, and 

ASV results were lower. Construct reliability for gratitude and engaged performance fell 

below the accepted threshold of 0.7. AVE results for five of the constructs fell below the 

accepted 0.5 threshold. While the results are derived from the bias constrained model, the 

findings of this study should be interpreted with these outcomes in mind. 

29

The sample used in CFA and SEM was relatively small consisting of a total of 251 

cases. Analysis was further impacted during SEM due to the asymmetrical female-male (186 

female; 65 male) composition of the sample. Therefore, as with any study, the results should 

be interpreted with caution, and understanding of the limitations of the data. 

IMPLICATIONS 

This study suggests that generative relational characteristics have positive effects on 

organization member’s willingness to engage themselves in the performance of their work 

and in self-development. The results have clear implications for organization leaders and 

consultants concerned with organizational performance and learning. Effective AI-based 

interventions, particularly in small groups, are designed to address first the identification and 

articulation of fundamental shared values and beliefs of the organization members. 

Consistently enacted those values guide day-to-day behaviors, and are woven into the fabric 

of individual and collective practice. Organizational leadership need to be mindful of the 

power of their influence and lead by example; by adhering personally to those values, and by 

not settling for less from themselves or others. 

The techniques of enacting shared values can be taught. Building trustworthiness and 

trust, using appropriate conversational modes and styles, and developing social networks are 

learned and essential skills which are appropriate to address in subsequent phases of an 

intervention. Shared values and their enactment, trust in leadership, and trust in peers have 

both direct and indirect effects on engagement in both performance and learning. 

The results of this study also suggest that individual generative characteristics, 

character strengths and virtues, have negative direct effects on engaged performance and 

engaged development. This finding is counterintuitive and more than somewhat difficult to 

30

accept. It is hoped and intended that this will serve as a call to further empirical research in 

this area. Arguments in the extant literature are far too compelling, and the potential benefits 

far too great to do otherwise. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Organizations and their members at all levels are increasingly expected to perform, 

adapt, and to do ‘more with less’. As they strive to become more productive, innovative, and 

agile their interests and objectives will be well-served by understanding that they have at- 

hand greater capacity for performance and learning than perhaps they had realized. 

Identifying, articulating, and ‘living’ shared values provides foundation for building trust at 

all levels. In that environment organization members have the psychological safety to bring 

their whole self, their real self, to their work and to the practice and development of their 

knowledge, skills and performance. They are freer to engage. 

This study suggests that ‘who you are’, individual characteristics whether 

dispositional or learned, is far less important than ‘how you are’, cognitive-behavioral 

relational characteristics. Further, it provides empirical support to the qualitative research 

and testimonial evidence which are commonly offered in support of appreciative inquiry. 

Shared values matter. Trust, the pervasive expectation of values-based generalized trust, 

matters. Relationship matters. Further exploration of these concepts and their interaction will 

further our understanding of individual and collective performance, organizational learning, 

and change. 

31

APPENDIX A: 

Survey Instrument Items and Sources 

Trust – Peers in D. Fields, p. 38; Dunham & Smith (1979); Co-worker dimension (only):5 items, Likert 5 

(converted to Likert 7 for this paper), Cronbach = 0.83. 

1.) The employees I work with are the best group I could ask for. 

2.) My attitude toward my job is favorably influenced by the people I work with. 

3.) The example my fellow employees set encourages me to work hard. 

4.) The way in which my coworkers handle their jobs contributes greatly to the success of our organization. 

Removed from analysis: 

5.) In this organization there is very little interpersonal friction. 

Values Alignment – in D. Fields, p227; Cable & Judge (1996); 3 item instrument, Likert 5 (converted to Likert 

7 for this paper); Cronbach = 0.87. 

1.) My values ‘match’ or fit this organization and those of the current employees. 

3.) The values and ‘personality’ of this organization reflect my own. 


2.) My values match those of the current employees of this organization. 

Vision Alignment – in D. Fields, p54; O’Reilly & Chatman, (1986); Identification items (only), 8 items, 

Likert7, Cronbach = 0.86 to 0.91. 

1.) What this organization stands for is important to me. 

3.) If the values of this organization were different, I would not be as attached to this organization. 

5.) The reason I prefer this organization to others is because of what it stands for – its values. 

6.) My attachment to this organizations is primarily based on the similarity of my values and those represented 

by the organization 

7.) I’m proud to tell others that I am a part of this organization. 

Removed form analysis: 

2.) I ‘talk up’ this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. 

4.) Since joining this organization, my personal values and those of the organization have become more similar. 

8.) I feel a sense of ‘ownership’ for this organization rather than being just an employee. 

Communicative Adaptability - Duran & Zakahi (1984, 1987, 1990), Social Experience items (only), 5 items, 

Likert 5 (converted to Likert 7 for this paper), Cronbach = 0.82. 

1.) I like to be active in different social groups. 

2.) I enjoy socializing with diverse groups of people. 

4.) I find it easy to get along with new people. 

5.) I ‘mix’ well at social functions. 


3.) I enjoy meeting new people. 

Gratitude – in Lopez & Snyder, p.336; McCullough, et. al. (2002), 6 items, Likert 7, Cronbach = 0.82 

1.) I have so much in life to be thankful for. 

2.) If I had to list everything I felt grateful for, it would be a very long list. 

4.) When I look at the world, I don’t see much to be grateful for. (Reverse scored). 

6.) I feel grateful to someone or for something every day. 


3.) As I get older I find myself more able to appreciate the people, events, and situations that have been part of 

my life history. 

5.) I’m grateful to a wide variety of people. 

Trust – Leadership – in D. Fields, p 175; Moorman (1999), Procedural justice items (only), 9 items, Likert 7, 

Cronbach = 0.94. 

32

1.) Leadership in this organization collects necessary accurate information before making decisions. 

2.) Leadership in this organization provides opportunities to appeal or challenge its decisions. 

3.) Leadership in this organization has all sides which will be affected by a decision represented when making 

the decisions. 

4.) Leadership in this organization generates standards so decisions can be made with consistency. 

5.) Leadership in this organization hears the concerns of all those affected by the decision. 

Engagement – in Buckingham & Coffman (1999) and Harter, Schmidt & Hayes (2002); 13 items; Likert 5 

(converted to Likert 7 for this paper); Cronbach = 0.83 to 0.91. 

Engaged Performance 

2.) I know what is expected of me at work. 

3.) I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right. 

4.) At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best everyday. 

Engaged Development 

5.) In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work. 

7.) There is someone at work who encourages my development. 

12.) In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress. 


1.) How satisfied are you with [organization name] as a place to work? 

6.) My manager, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person. 

8.) At work, my opinions seem to count. 

9.) The mission/purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important. 

10.) My fellow employees are committed to doing quality work. 

11.) I have a best friend at work. 

13.) This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow. 

Constructs removed from the model: 

Job Interdependence – in D. Fields, p. 103; Pierce & Gregersen (1991), 5 items; Likert 5 (converted to Likert 

7 for this paper); Cronbach = 0.76. 

1.) I work closely with others in doing my work. 

2.) I frequently must coordinate my efforts with others 

3.) My own performance is dependent on receiving accurate information from others. 

4.) The way I perform my job has a significant impact on others. 

5.) My work requires me to consult with others frequently. 

Task Independence – in D. Fields, p. 113; Spreitzer (1995), Self-determination: 3 items, Likert 7; Cronbach = 

0.79; Impact: 3 items, Likert 7; Cronbach = 0.85. 

Self-determination items: 

1.) I have significant autonomy in determining how to do my job. 

2.) I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work. 

3.) I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job. 

Impact items: 

4.) I have a large impact on what happens in my department. 

5.) I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department. 

6.) I have significant influence over what happens in my department. 

Trust – Manager – in D. Fields, p 106; Oldham & Cummings (1996), Supportive: 8 items, Likert 7, Cronbach 

= 0.86; Non-controlling: 4 items, Likert 7, Cronbach =0.67. 

Supportive: 

1.) My manager helps me solve work related problems. 

2.) My manager encourages me to develop my skills. 

3.) My manager keeps me informed about how employees think and feels about things. 

33

4.) My manager encourages employees to participate in important decisions. 

5.) My manager praises good work. 

6.) My manager encourages employees to speak up when they disagree with a decision. 

7.) My manager explains her/his actions. 

8.) My manager rewards me for good performance. 

Non-controlling: 

9.) My manager trusts me to keep her/him informed. 

10.) My manager trusts me to determine what will be done and how. 

11.) My manager always gives me a chance to make important decisions on my own. 

12.) My manager leaves it up to me to decide how to go about doing my job. 

34

C2 1 

APPENDIX B: 

Item Correlations and Descriptive Statistics: 

Pearson Correlations 

C2 C3 C4 C5 E2 E3 E4 E5 E7 E12 G1 G2 G4 G6 

C3 .717(**) 1 

C4 .636(**) .651(**) 1 

C5 .645(**) .547(**) .564(**) 1 

E2 .176(**) .173(**) .225(**) .182(**) 1 

E4 .176(**) .191(**) .268(**) .165(**) .473(**) .613(**) 1 

E5 0.051 0.007 0.056 0.082 .177(**) .354(**) .271(**) 1 

E7 0.115 0.059 .183(**) .130(*) .184(**) .317(**) .373(**) .553(**) 1 

E12 .143(*) .152(*) .154(*) 0.116 .155(*) .357(**) .323(**) .539(**) .540(**) 1 

G1 .337(**) .413(**) .472(**) .348(**) .385(**) .302(**) .262(**) 0.067 .143(*) 0.096 1 

G2 .458(**) .459(**) .568(**) .407(**) .254(**) .249(**) .205(**) 0.069 .162(*) .158(*) .687(**) 1 

G4 .210(**) .305(**) .352(**) .256(**) .393(**) .249(**) .289(**) 0.115 .134(*) .166(**) .634(**) .477(**) 1 

G6 .296(**) .329(**) .327(**) .203(**) .269(**) .273(**) .210(**) 0.076 0.12 .132(*) .589(**) .565(**) .492(**) 1 

L1 .246(**) .181(**) .191(**) .231(**) .209(**) .353(**) .349(**) .325(**) .474(**) .379(**) .243(**) .235(**) .245(**) .138(*) 

L2 .178(**) .167(**) .212(**) 0.098 .208(**) .356(**) .383(**) .392(**) .480(**) .360(**) .194(**) .216(**) .261(**) .128(*) 

L3 .273(**) .234(**) .256(**) .229(**) .226(**) .338(**) .364(**) .298(**) .420(**) .353(**) .234(**) .204(**) .248(**) .137(*) 

L4 .244(**) .220(**) .205(**) .214(**) .278(**) .382(**) .388(**) .366(**) .405(**) .388(**) .249(**) .260(**) .260(**) .212(**) 

L5 .130(*) .128(*) .137(*) 0.097 .134(*) .307(**) .362(**) .384(**) .517(**) .407(**) .214(**) .159(*) .223(**) .169(**) 

P1 .222(**) .212(**) .255(**) .157(*) .285(**) .362(**) .354(**) .263(**) .307(**) .244(**) .161(*) .191(**) .125(*) 0.101 

P2 .292(**) .227(**) .304(**) .275(**) .170(**) .333(**) .361(**) .206(**) .254(**) .343(**) .173(**) .242(**) 0.123 .155(*) 

P3 .250(**) .180(**) .278(**) .200(**) .194(**) .324(**) .383(**) .390(**) .404(**) .353(**) .161(*) .248(**) .156(*) .169(**) 

P4 .282(**) .175(**) .325(**) .285(**) .239(**) .224(**) .394(**) .207(**) .203(**) .138(*) .225(**) .260(**) .201(**) .159(*) 

VAL1 .321(**) .249(**) .269(**) .334(**) .294(**) .331(**) .382(**) .310(**) .369(**) .335(**) .335(**) .301(**) .361(**) .263(**) 

VAL3 .298(**) .205(**) .251(**) .172(**) .299(**) .380(**) .408(**) .340(**) .413(**) .281(**) .265(**) .272(**) .257(**) .288(**) 

VIS1 .441(**) .417(**) .420(**) .292(**) .346(**) .347(**) .379(**) .245(**) .269(**) .269(**) .471(**) .430(**) .409(**) .292(**) 

VIS3 .266(**) .233(**) .219(**) .218(**) .255(**) .360(**) .334(**) .201(**) .325(**) .274(**) .306(**) .254(**) .320(**) .260(**) 

VIS5 .272(**) .248(**) .222(**) .223(**) .324(**) .387(**) .417(**) .286(**) .413(**) .288(**) .315(**) .299(**) .326(**) .256(**) 

VIS6 .315(**) .246(**) .225(**) .176(**) .212(**) .349(**) .366(**) .291(**) .331(**) .280(**) .257(**) .234(**) .260(**) .266(**) 

VIS7 .281(**) .321(**) .245(**) .169(**) .340(**) .488(**) .507(**) .303(**) .319(**) .332(**) .311(**) .304(**) .317(**) .232(**) 

N=251 

** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two tailed) 

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two tailed) 

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 P1 P2 P3 P4 VAL1 VAL3 VIS1 VIS3 VIS5 VIS6 VIS7 

L1 1 

L2 .715(**) 1 

L3 .697(**) .649(**) 1 

L4 .772(**) .630(**) .610(**) 1 

L5 .722(**) .715(**) .598(**) .671(**) 1 

P1 .345(**) .300(**) .304(**) .312(**) .248(**) 1 

P2 .342(**) .283(**) .350(**) .282(**) .297(**) .468(**) 1 

P3 .455(**) .376(**) .369(**) .438(**) .429(**) .623(**) .615(**) 1 

P4 .259(**) .202(**) .190(**) .309(**) .304(**) .426(**) .504(**) .506(**) 1 

VAL1 .562(**) .482(**) .479(**) .583(**) .509(**) .376(**) .394(**) .368(**) .359(**) 1 

VAL3 .513(**) .492(**) .497(**) .590(**) .471(**) .413(**) .371(**) .402(**) .366(**) .733(**) 1 

VIS1 .387(**) .390(**) .327(**) .354(**) .358(**) .300(**) .326(**) .296(**) .346(**) .599(**) .579(**) 1 

VIS3 .425(**) .411(**) .386(**) .407(**) .466(**) .453(**) .470(**) .473(**) .334(**) .627(**) .571(**) .470(**) 1 

VIS5 .515(**) .525(**) .453(**) .533(**) .519(**) .391(**) .347(**) .393(**) .301(**) .747(**) .766(**) .649(**) .677(**) 1 

VIS6 .413(**) .411(**) .361(**) .443(**) .477(**) .362(**) .353(**) .374(**) .350(**) .670(**) .788(**) .548(**) .634(**) .719(**) 1 

VIS7 .445(**) .471(**) .362(**) .494(**) .448(**) .382(**) .329(**) .384(**) .313(**) .602(**) .652(**) .610(**) .539(**) .718(**) .644(**) 1 

35

APPENDIX C: 

Exploratory Factor Analysis 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

C2 .114 .939 -.138 

C3 .813 

C4 -.119 .667 .179 .101 

C5 .705 

E2 .209 .552 

E3 .121 .652 

E4 .101 .813 

E5 .802 

E7 .156 .626 

E12 .681 

G1 .918 

G2 .216 .687 

G4 .692 .111 

G6 -.109 .679 

L1 .995 

L2 .741 

L3 .764 .126 

L4 .768 

L5 .726 -.115 .114 

P1 .102 .647 .110 

P2 .688 

P3 .862 .119 

P4 .578 

VAL1 .727 .185 

VAL3 .863 

VIS1 .582 .205 .162 

VIS3 .621 .301 

VIS5 .885 

VIS6 .949 -.110 

VIS7 .652 .276 

Maximum Likelihood Extraction; Promax Rotation; 7 iterations 

7 

36

d2 1 

d3 1 

d4 

d5 

d6 1 

d7 1 

d9 1 

1 

d8 

d10 

d11 

d12 

d13 

d14 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

ZC2 

ZC3 

ZC4 

ZC5 

ZG1 

ZG2 

ZG4 

ZG6 

ZL1 

ZL2 

ZL3 

ZL4 

ZL5 

ZP1 

1 

d15 

APPENDIX D: 

Final CFA Measurement Model 

AMOS Output Graphic 

1 

CommAdapt 

1 

Gratitude 

1 

LeaderTrust 

ZP2 

1 

d16 

CFA Model 

ZP3 

1 

d17 

ZP4 

1 

d18 

Goodness of Fit Statistics; 

Chi-square (df) = 686.8 (377) 

SRMR = .050 

NFI =.864 

IFI = .934 

TLI = .923 

CFI = .933 

RMSEA = .057 

1 

PeerTrust 

1 

Values 

1 

EngagePerf 

1 

EngageDev 

ZE2 

ZE3 

ZE4 

ZE5 

ZE7 

ZE12 

1 

d27 

1 

d28 

1 

d29 

1 

1 

1 

d30 

d31 

d32 

1 

ZVAL1 d20 

1 

ZVAL3 d21 

1 

ZVIS1 d22 

1 

ZVIS3 d23 

1 

ZVIS5 d24 

1 

ZVIS6 d25 

1 

ZVIS7 d26 

37

1 

d1 

1 

d2 

d3 

d4 

1 

d5 

d6 1 

1 

1 

d7 1 

d8 

d9 

1 

d10 1 

1 

d11 1 

1 

d12 

d13 1 

ZC2 

ZC3 

ZC4 

ZC5 

ZG1 

ZG2 

ZG4 

ZG6 

ZL1 

ZL2 

ZL3 

ZL4 

ZL5 

Gooodness of Fit Statistics 

APPENDIX E: 

Analysis of Method Bias 

AMOS output Graphic 

Chi-square (df) SRMS NFI IFI TLI CFI RMSEA 90% CI 

Unconstrained 637.1 (354) .038 .874 .940 .925 .939 .057 .049-.064 

Constrained 726.0 (383) .086 .857 .927 .916 .926 .060 .053-.066 

Beta m = .563 

ZP1 

1 

d14 

1 

CommAdapt r4 

r9 

1 

r10 

Gratitude 

r11 

r12 

r13 

1 


1 

PeerTrust 

ZP2 ZP3 

1 1 

d15 

r2 

r3 

r5 

r6 

r7 

r8 

r1 

r14 r15 r16 r17 

d16 

Method Bias 

(Constrained) 

ZP4 

1 

d17 

1 

METHOD 

r28 

r29 

r30 

r25 

1 

EngagePerf 

r26 

r27 

r18 

r19 

r201 

r21 

EngageDev 

r22 

r23 

r24 

1 

SharedValues 

1 

ZE2 d28 

ZE3 

ZE4 

1 

ZE5 d25 

ZE7 

ZE12 

1 

ZVAL1 d18 

ZVAL3 

ZVIS1 

ZVIS3 

ZVIS5 

ZVIS6 

ZVIS7 

1 

1 

1 

d26 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

d29 

1 

d30 

d27 

d19 

1 

d20 

d21 

d22 

d23 

d24 

38

-.09 

APPENDIX F: 

Female Engagement 

SEM_Female (only) 

(Constrained for Method Bias) 

.22 

1 

d1 ZC2 

.31 

d2 ZC3 

ZC4 

ZC5 

ZG1 

ZG2 

ZG4 

ZG6 

1 

.51 

1.00 

.36 

1 

d3 

.50 

1 

d4 

.18 

1 

d5 

.28 

d6 1 

.58 

d7 1 

.28 

.82 

.54 CommAdapt 

.63 

1.00 

.41 

.72 

.72 Gratitude 

.46 

1 

d8 

.24 

1 

d9 ZL1 

.34 

d10 ZL2 

ZL3 

ZL4 

ZL5 

1 

.43 

d11 1 

.28 

d12 1 

.28 

d13 1 

1.00 .51 

METHOD 

.51 

.51 

.51 

.73 

1 

.51 

ZE2 d28 

.47 

.51 

.28 

.95 

1 

ZE3 d29 

.51 

EngagePerf 1.00 

.30 

1 

.51 

ZE4 d30 

.51 

.52 

.51 

1 

1.00 ZE5 d25 

.76 

.51 

.46 

.51 

1.05 1 

EngageDev 

.98 

ZE7 d26 

.38 

1 

.51 

ZE12 d27 

.34 

1 

1.00 

ZVAL1 d18 

.90 

.30 

.93 

1.00 

1 

.76 

ZVAL3 d19 


.59 

SharedValues 

.42 

.88 

1 

.73 ZVIS1 d20 

.96 

.49 

1.16 

1 

ZVIS3 d21 

.88 

.83 

.16 

.86 

1 

ZVIS5 d22 

PeerTrust 

.62 .39 

.40 

1.00 

1 

ZP1 

ZVIS6 d23 

ZP4 

.31 

1 

.53 ZP2 ZP3 1 .67 

1 

1 

d14 .60 

1 

ZVIS7 d24 

.02 d17 

d15 d16 

.51 .51 

.22 .51 

.51 

-.58 f1 

1 

.51 

.51 

-.35 

.51 

.51 

.51 

.51 

.51 

.27 .51 

.51 

1 

.51 

.24.51 

.51 .38 

.51 

f2 

f3 

1 

.17 

.52 

1 

.32 

.37 

f4 

.51 

.14 

.10 

Goodness of Fit 

Chi-sq. (df) 639.2 (394) 

SRMR .098 

NFI .832 

IFI .928 

TLI .920 

CFI .927 

RMSEA .058 

90% CI .050-.066 

39

1 

d1 

d2 1 

d3 

d4 

1 

d5 

d6 1 

1 

1 

d7 1 

d8 

d9 

1 

d10 1 

1 

d11 1 

1 

d12 

d13 1 

ZC2 

ZC3 

ZC4 

ZC5 

ZG1 

ZG2 

ZG4 

ZG6 

ZL1 

ZL2 

ZL3 

ZL4 

ZL5 

ZP1 

1 

d14 

APPENDIX G: 

Male Engagement 

SEM_Male (only) 

(Constrained for Method Bias) 

r1 

1 r2 

r3 

CommAdapt r4 

1 

1 

r9 

r10 

Gratitude 

r11 

r12 

r13 


1 

PeerTrust 

ZP2 ZP3 

1 1 

d15 

r5 

r6 

r7 

r8 

r14 

r15 r16 

f3 

1 

d16 

ZP4 

1 

d17 

Gooodness of Fit 

Chi-sq. (df) 697.6 (396) 

SRMR .140 

NFI .636 

IFI .802 

TLI .776 

CFI .796 

RMSEA .109 

90% CI .096 - .122 

1 

METHOD 

r17 

f1 

1 

EngagePerf 

r18 

r19 

r20 1 

r21 

EngageDev 

r22 

1 r23 

r24 

f2 

SharedValues 

1 

f4 

r28 

r29 

r30 

r25 

r26 

r27 

1 

1 

1 

ZE2 d28 

1 

ZE3 d29 

1 

ZE4 d30 

1 

ZE5 d25 

1 

ZE7 d26 

1 

ZE12 d27 

1 

ZVAL1 d18 

1 

ZVAL3 d19 

ZVIS1 

ZVIS3 

ZVIS5 

ZVIS6 

ZVIS7 

1 

d20 

1 

d21 

1 

1 

1 

d22 

d23 

d24 

40

REFERENCES 

Adams, M. G., Schiller, M., & Cooperrider, D. 2004. with our questions we make the world. 

In D. Cooperrider & M. Avital (Eds.), Constructive discourse and human 

organization: 105-124. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. 

Amis, J., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Values and organizational change. The Journal 

of Applied Behavioral Science, 38(4): 436. 

Argyris, C. 1982. Reasoning, learning, and action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Arthur, J. B. 1994. The effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance 

and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 670-687. 

Babbie, E. 2007. The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson- 

Wadsworth. 

Barrett, F. 1995. Creating appreciative learning cultures. Organizational Dynamics, 24(2): 

36-49. 

Barrett, F., Thomas, G. F., & Hocevar, S. P. 1995. The central role of discourse in large-scale 

change: A social construction perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral 

Science, 31(3): 353-372. 

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the 

sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor Books. 

Biswas-Diener, R. D., & Dean, B. 2007. Positive psychology coaching. Hoboken, NJ: John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Bohm, D. 1996. On dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge Classics. 

Boyatzis, R. M., & McKee, A. 2005. Resonant leadership. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business 

School Press. 

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. 1999. First, break all the rules. New York, NY: Simon & 

Schuster. 

Bushe, G. R. 1995. Advances in appreciative inquiry as an organization development 

intervention. Organization Development Journal, 13(3). 

Bushe, G. R., & Coetzer, G. 1995. Appreciative inquiry as a team development intervention: 

A controlled experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(1): 13-30. 

41

Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. 2005. When is appreciative inquiry transformational? A metacase 

analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(2): 161. 

Byrne, B. M., & Stewart, S. 2006. The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance 

of second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation 

Modeling, 13(2): 287-321. 

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. 1996. Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and 

organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 67(3): 

294-311. 

Cameron, K. S. 2003. Organizational virtuousness and performance. In K. S. Cameron, J. 

Dutton & R. A. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a 

new discipline: 33-47. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishing. 

Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. 2003. Investing in strengths. In K. S. Cameron, J. Dutton & R. 

A. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 122-137. San Francisco, CA: 

Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. 

Clifton, D. O., & Hodges, T. D. 2004. Strength-based development in practice. In P. A. 

Linley, S. Joseph, & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice. 

Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Cooperrider, D. 2000. Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis for organizing. 

In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen, D. Whitney & T. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative 

inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change. 

Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing. 

Cooperrider, D., & Srivastva, S. 2000a. Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In D. 

Cooperrider & J. Peter F. Sorensen & T. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry: 

Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change: 35-97. 


Cooperrider, D., & Whitney, D. 2000b. A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry. 

In D. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen, D. Whitney & T. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative 

inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change: 3-28. 


Cooperrider, D., Sorensen, P. F., Yaeger, T. F., & Whitney, D. (Eds.). 2001. Appreciative 

inquiry: An emerging direction for organizational development. Champaign, IL: 

Stipes Publishing. 

42

Cooperrider, D., & Sekerka, L. E. 2003. Toward a theory of positive organizational change. 

In K. S. Cameron, J. Dutton & R. A. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational 

scholarship: 225-240. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. 

Cooperrider, D., & Avital, M. (Eds.). 2004. Constructive discourses in human organization: 

Advances in appreciative inquiry, Vol. 1. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. 

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: 

Harper-Collins. 

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. 2006. A life worth living: Contributions to 

positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford university Press. 

Dunham, R. B., & Smith, F. J. 1979. Organizational surveys: An internal assessment of 

organizational health. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. 

Duran, R. L. 1983. Communicative adaptability: A measure of social competence. 

Communications Quarterly, 31(4): 320-326. 

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. 2003. The power of high-quality connections. In K. S. 

Cameron & J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 

Foundations of a new discipline: 263-278. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler 

Publishing. 

Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. 

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): 350-383. 

Emmons, R. A. 2003. Acts of gratitude in organizations. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton & R. E. 

Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 81-93. San Francisco, CA: 

Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. 

Emmons, R. A., McCullough, M. E., & Bono, G. 2004. Gratitude in practice and the practice 

of gratitude. In P. A. Linley, S. Joseph, & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Positive 

psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Emmons, R. A., & Shelton, C. 2005a. Gratitude and the science of positive psychology. In C. 

R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez, (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology. New York: 

Oxford Press. 

Emmons, R. A., McCullough, M., & Tsang, J. 2005b. The assessment of gratitude. In S. J. 

Lopez & C. R. Snyder, (Eds.), Positive psychology assessment. Washington, D.C.: 

American Psychological Association. 

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved 

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 19: 39-50. 

43

Fredrickson, B. L. 2003. Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In K. S. 

Cameron & J. E. Dutton & R. A. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 

Foundations of a new discipline: 163-175. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler 

Publishing. 

Fredrickson, B. L. 2005. Positive emotions. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez, (Eds.), Handbook 

of positive psychology. New York: Oxford Press. 

Friedlander, F. 1983. Patterns of individual and organizational learning. In S. Srivastva (Ed.), 

The executive mind: 192-220. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 

Fry, R., Barrett, F., Seiling, J., & Whitney, D. 2002. Appreciative inquiry and 

organizational transformation: Reports from the field. Westport, CT: Quorum 

Books. 

Gergen, K. J., & Thatchenkery, T. J. 2004. Organization science as social construction: 

Postmodern potentials. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(2): 228-249. 

Gittell, J. H. 2003. A theory of relational coordination. In K. S. Cameron & J. E. Dutton & R. 

A. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new 

discipline: 279-295. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. 

Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books. 

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. 2002. Primal leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard 

Business School Press. 

Golembiewski, R. T. 2001. Three perspectives on appreciative inquiry. In D. Cooperrider, P. 

F. Sorensen, T. Yaeger & D. Whitney (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry: An emerging 

direction for organizational development: 389-396. Champaign, IL: Stipes 

Publishing. 

Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing 

information across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82- 

111. 

Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L., & Lovas, B. 2005. Knowledge sharing in organizations: 

Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 776- 

793. 

Harter, J. K., F.L. Schmidt, & Hayes, T. L.. 2002. Business-unit level relationships between 

employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A metaanalysis. 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 268-279. 

44

Head, T. C. 1997. Why does appreciative inquiry work?: Speculation and a call for 

empirical research. Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN. 

Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. 1999. The effects of human resource management systems on 

economic performance: An international comparison of U. S. and Japanese plants. 

Management Science, 45(5): 704-721. 

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at 

work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4): 692-724. 

Kahn, W. A. 1992. To be full there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45: 

692-724. 

Kahn, W. A., Cross, R., & Parker, A. 2003. Layers of diagnosis for planned relational change 

in organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3): 259-280. 

Kotter, J. P. 1996. Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. 2005. Handbook of positive psychology. New York, NY: 

Oxford University Press. 

Luechauer, D. L. 2000. Applying appreciative inquiry instead of problem-solving techniques 

to facilitate change. Management Development Forum, 2(1). 

Maister, D. H., Green, C. H., & Galford, R. M. 2000. The trusted advisor. New York, NY: 

The Free Press. 

Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R.. 2006. Clarifying conditions and decision points for 

mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational 

Behavior, 27: 1031-1056. 

McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. 2003. Trust as an organizing principle. 

Organizational Science, 14(1), (January-February 2003): 91-103. 

Mohrman, S. A., Tenkasi, R. V., & Mohrman, A. M. 2003. The role of networks in 

fundamental organizational change: A grounded analysis. The Journal of Applied 

Behavioral Science, 39(3): 301. 

Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational 

citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6): 845-855. 

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational 

advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242-256. 

45

O'Reilly, C., III, & Chatman, J. 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological 

attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial 

behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 492-499. 

Ouchi, W. G., & Johnson, J. B. 1978. Types of organizational control and their relationship 

to emotional well being. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23. 

Peterson, C., & Park, N. 2004. Classification and measurement of character strengths: 

implications for practice. In P. A. Linley, S. Joseph, & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), 

Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Peterson, C. M., & Seligman, M. E. 2003. Positive organizational studies: Lessons from 

positive psychology. In K. S. Cameron & J. E. Dutton & R. A. Quinn (Eds.), Positive 

organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline: 14-27. San Francisco, 

CA: Berrett-Koehler. 

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. 2004. Character strengths and virtues. New York, NY: 

Oxford University Press. 

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J. Y. 2003. The 

mismeasurement of man(agement) and its implications for leadership research. The 

Leadership Quarterly, 14: 615-656. 

Prowley, E. H., Fry, R., Barrett, F., & Bright, D. S. 2004. Dialogic democracy meets 

command and control: Transformation through the appreciative inquiry summit. 

Academy of Management Executive, 18(3): 67-80. 

Seligman, M. E. 1990. Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. New 

York, NY: Vintage books. 

Seligman, M. E. 2002. Authentic happiness. New York, NY: Free Press. 

Seligman, M. E. 2005. Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In C. 

R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez, (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology. New York: 

Oxford Press. 

Shein, E. H. 2004. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Shrout P. E. & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: 

New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4): 422-445. 

Srivastva, S. & Cooperrider, D. (Eds.). 1990. Appreciative management and leadership: 

The power of positive thought and action in organizations. San Francisco CA: 

Jossey-Bass, Inc. 

46

Thatchenkery, T. J. 2004. Paradox and organizational change: The transformative of 

hermeneutic appreciation. In D. Cooperrider & M. Avital (Eds.), Constructive 

discourse in human organization: 77-101. Oxford UK: Elsevier. 

Watkins, J. M., & Mohr, B. J. 2001. Appreciative inquiry: Change at the speed of 

imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. 

Weick. 2003. Positive organizing and organizational tragedy. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton 

& R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 66-80. San Francisco, 

CA: Berrett-Koehler. 

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, 

UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Whitney, D. & Trosten-Bloom, a. A. 2003. The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical 

guide to positive change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishing, Inc. 

Wrzesniewski, A. 2003. Finding positive meaning in work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, 

& R. E. Quinn, (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 296-308. San Francisco, 

CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. 

47

GENERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS AS ANTECEDENTS OF ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?