Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) Manual

1 Permission for Margo Moreno to reproduce 1 copy within one year of October 9, 2017 Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) Manual (Includes Instru...

Author:  Margo Moreno
265 downloads 1583 Views 652KB Size

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Permission for Margo Moreno to reproduce 1 copy within one year of October 9, 2017

Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) Manual (Includes Instrument and Scoring Key for review only)

By Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. This manual may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher, Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com. Mind Garden is a registered trademark of Mind Garden, Inc.

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Psychological Capital Questionnaire Manual Development, Applications, & Research

Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, James B. Avey

PCQ Manual copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge and thank our close colleagues such as Carolyn M. Youssef-Morgan, a major contributor to all phases of PsyCap from the beginning, Suzanne Peterson and many, many others with whom we have collaborated on most of our PsyCap research projects over the years. We would also like to thank our numerous PsyCap application partners, not only in the U.S. and Canada, but also in Asia, Australia, New Zealand, South America, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa.

PCQ Manual copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….. Positive Organizational Behavior ………………………………………………... Psychological Capital (PsyCap) …………………………………………………. Psychological Capital as a State-Like Construct ………………………………. Benefits of PsyCap ………………………………………………………………... Competitive Advantage of PsyCap……………………………………………… PsyCap’s Role in the Metamorphosis on Robben Island………………………

1 1 2 5 5 7 9

Description, Administration, and Scoring …………………………………………... Description …………………………………………………………………………. Administration ……………………………………………………………………… Scoring ………………………………………………………………………………

10 10 11 11

Interpretation ……………………………………………………………………………...

12

Developing PsyCap ……………………………………………………………………… Benefits of Developing PsyCap ………………………………………………….. Developing the PsyCap “HERO” Within …………………………………………………...

13 13

Test Construction and Development ………………………………………………… Subordinate Construct Development …………………………………………… Superordinate Construct Development ………………………………………….

19 19 19

Assessment of Reliability and Validity ………………………………………………. PCQ Reliability …………………………………………………………………….. PCQ Validity ………………………………………………………………………..

21 21 21

References …………………………………………………………………………………

24

PCQ Sample for Review Only………………………………………………………

31

PCQ Manual copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com

13

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Introduction Today’s business environment requires flexibility, innovation, and speed-to-market, which results in a focus on effectively developing and managing every asset of human capital. “Human capital” is defined as employees’ knowledge, experience, skills and expertise (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004). Through extensive research, Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) found human capital is a key success factor when it is aligned with corporate strategy and is fully engaged within the organization. Besides human capital (“what you know”), other capitals like social capital (“who you know”) and economic capital (“what you have”) are also required for organizations of all types seeking sustainable growth and competitive advantage. In the past, competitive advantage was seen as and determined by which organization had financial means or a strategy beyond what their competitors could imitate. Now, due to the broad availability of information technology, what is most difficult to imitate is a highly motivated and capable workforce. This “leveling of the playing field” in terms of other more traditional resources has reduced their importance to an organization’s competitive advantage, allowing positive organizational models and practices to emerge as valued resources in the workplace worth investing in and developing.

Positive Organizational Behavior Positive organizational behavior (POB), first formulated by Luthans (2002b, p. 59), is “the study and application of positive oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement” (also see Wright, 2003). Specifically, Luthans and colleagues (2002a, 2002b; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007, 2015) set the criteria for including constructs in POB as follows:    

Grounded in theory and research Valid measurement State-like and hence open to development (as opposed to a fixed trait) Positive evidenced based impact on desired work-related employee attitudes, behaviors and performance

Wright (2003, p. 411) asserted that “the mission of [POB] must also include the pursuit of employee happiness, health, and betterment issues as viable goals or ends in themselves.” This allowed psychological well-being to become an important factor in POB research, as well as its application to ‘organizational well-being’. Organizationallybased studies have tested the role of the positively oriented psychological well-being as a moderator of both the relationship between job satisfaction-job performance (Wright, Cropanzano, & Bonett, 2007) and job satisfaction-employee turnover (Wright & Bonett, 2007). In addition, psychological well-being has shown positive relationships with performance at work (Cropanzano & Wright, 1999; Wright, Bonett, & Sweeney, 1993; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000; Wright & Staw, 1999) and successful relationships (Diener & Seligman, 2002). Superior mental (Koivumaa-Honkanen et al., 2004) and physical (Roysamb, Tawls, Reichborn-Kjenneruc, Neale, & Harris, 2003) health and longevity (Danner, Snowdon, & Friesen, 2001) have been found to co-vary with long-term PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

1

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

happiness and positivity levels. A substantial amount of research on positive emotions has shown that individuals and groups of people operate at more optimal levels of cognitive and emotional functioning, when reporting higher levels of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2009) Avey, Luthans, & Youssef (2010) expanded the POB literature by concurrently investigating organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). OCBs are desirable behaviors that are not prescribed or enforced in the job role but are practiced by the individual employee nonetheless (Avey, Luthans, & Youssef, 2010). Whereas, CWBs are “voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms, and in doing so threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both” (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, p. 556; also see Bennett & Robinson, 2000). How then does an organization enhance the probability of having employees exhibit OCBs? POB research has identified several constructs that increase or have a positive relationship with desired outcomes such as psychological well-being, OCBs, and performance, while also decreasing or having a negative relationship with undesired outcomes such as CWBs and turnover intentions. The four constructs identified by this research are hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism and when combined, represent a higher order core construct called “psychological capital” (PsyCap) (Luthans,Luthans et al, 2004; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Luthans, Youssef et al., 2007; Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2015).

Psychological Capital (PsyCap) Defined by Luthans, Youssef et al. (2007, p. 3), PsyCap is “an individual’s positive psychological state of development and is characterized by: (1) having confidence (selfefficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success.” Like human capital, social capital, and economic capital, PsyCap is developed and managed by obtaining rewards (i.e., skills, network connections, investments) from the present while increasing the likelihood of future benefit (i.e., performance), however PsyCap obtains experiential rewards for future benefit. As Csikszentmihalyi explains (as quoted in Kersting, 2003, p. 26), “it’s about the state of the components of your inner life. When you add up the components, experiences and capital, it makes up the value.” Hope, Efficacy, Resilience, and Optimism – or the “HERO Within” ( see Luthans, 2012) – are the resources that make up the value of PsyCap. Hope The construct called “hope,” developed by positive psychologist Rick Snyder (2000), is the first of the four constructs that make up PsyCap. Hope is comprised of two components: agency (willpower) and pathways (Snyder, 2000; Snyder, Rand, & Sigmon, 2002). According to Snyder (2002), hope enables the individual to have the PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

2

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

agency to set and pursue meaningful goals and facilitates generating multiple pathways to reach those goals in the case that one or more pathways become blocked. Hope constitutes the “will” to succeed and the ability to identify, clarify, and pursue the “way” to success. Snyder et al. (1996) published a state-hope scale which was conceptually convergent yet distinct from other positive psychological constructs (Snyder, 2000). Moreover, the hope construct scale has been empirically demonstrated by many studies to have discriminant validity to similar positive constructs (Bryant & Cvengros, 2004; Carifio & Rhodes, 2002; Magaletta & Oliver, 1999; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Hope has positive relationships with many desired organizational outcomes including success (Adams et al., 2002), financial performance, employee retention, job satisfaction, and work unit performance (Peterson & Luthans, 2003), supervisory-rated performance and merit salary increases (Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005), job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Larson & Luthans, 2006), and organizational commitment and work happiness (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Luthans and Youssef (2004) found that hope had a significant impact on business unit financial performance, employees’ job satisfaction, and their retention. Outside of the work environment, hope has been clearly linked to academic and athletic success (Snyder, 2000, 2002). Efficacy Much of the work on the self-efficacy construct has been centered on the research of Bandura (1997). Self-efficacy was defined in the workplace by Stajkovic and Luthans (1998b, p. 66) as, “the employee’s conviction or confidence about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources or courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context.” Efficacy was found to have a strong positive relationship with work-related performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a; Sadri & Robertson, 1993; also see Bandura, 2000; Bandura & Locke, 2003) and work engagement (Salanova, Llorens, & Schaufeli, 2011). Research by Luthans and Youssef (2004) in U.S. and cross-cultural workplace settings supports the relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and perceived organizational effectiveness. Resilience Resilience theory and research is largely drawn from clinical psychology’s work with adolescent children that have succeeded despite great adversity (Masten, 2001; Masten & Reed, 2002). Masten (2001) characterized resilience as positive coping and adaptation in the face of risk or adversity (also see Masten & Reed, 2002). Resilience is the “positive psychological capacity to rebound, to ‘bounce back’ from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure; or even positive change, progress and increased responsibility (Luthans, 2002a, p. 702). It allows individual and environmental protective mechanisms to operate through enhancing the assets and/or reducing the risk factors within individuals and/or their environment. Resilient people tend to have a resolute

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

3

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

acceptance of reality, a deep belief and strongly held values that life is meaningful, and an uncanny ability to improvise and adapt to change (Coutu, 2002). There are at least three adaptive responses included in resilience (Strümpfer & Kellerman, 2005): 1.

An ability to cope or function positively, despite inordinate demands;

2.

Self-repair and recovery from periods when the individual was functioning poorly, or from episodes of illness, injury, or disaster;

3. Readiness to anticipate and deal with demands that may be inevitable, for example, those in the jobs of first responders, that is, soldiers, firefighters, police, and members of rescue services. Resilience has been found to have a significant positive relationship with job satisfaction (Larson & Luthans, 2006). Youssef and Luthans (2007) also found a positive relationship between employees’ level of resilience and attitudes of satisfaction, commitment, and happiness. When employees are undergoing change within the workplace, rated performance (Luthans et al., 2005), health, happiness, and performance (Maddi, 1987) have positive relationships with resilience. Optimism Optimism is associated with having a positive outcome, outlook or attribution, including positive emotions and motivation, while maintaining a realistic outlook (Luthans, 2002a). In positive psychology, optimism is explained by two major complementary theories. First, Seligman (1998) explained optimism by using an attribution framework whereby optimists are defined as those who make internal, stable, and global attributions of positive events and external, unstable, and specific attributions of negative events. On the other hand, Carver and Scheier (2002) used an expectancy perspective whereby optimists are defined as those who expect that a desirable outcome will result from their increased effort, and will continue to put forth effort even in the face of adversity. Seligman (1998) later suggested that optimism can be developed by introducing the term “learned optimism.” Carver and Scheier (2002) agreed with Seligman that change in optimism could occur through developmental interventions. Optimism has been shown to have significant and positive relationships with performance (Seligman, 1998; Luthans et al., 2005) and job satisfaction, work happiness and performance (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Optimism for the future and confidence in one’s ability to succeed motivates employees to take charge of their own desires (Seligman, 1998), and to self-select into challenging endeavors (Bandura, 1997), engage the necessary efforts and resources, and persevere in the face of obstacles (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a, 1998b).

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

4

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Psychological Capital as a State-Like Construct In contrast to other positively oriented organizational trait-like constructs such as the “Big Five” personality dimensions (Barrick & Mount, 1991), character strengths and virtues (CSVs) (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), or core self-evaluations (CSEs) (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Van Vianen, & DePater, 2004), PsyCap is state-like and is something that one can develop. Luthans, et al. (2007, p. 544) developed a continuum to clarify what “state-like” means: 1. “Positive States” – momentary and very changeable; represents our feelings. Examples could include pleasure or positive moods. 2. “State-Like” – relatively malleable and open to development; the constructs could include not only hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism, but a case has been made for positive constructs such as wisdom, well-being, gratitude, forgiveness, and courage as having state-like properties as well. 3. “Trait-Like” – relatively stable and difficult to change; represents personality factors and strengths. Examples could include the Big Five personality dimensions, core self-evaluations, and character strengths and virtues. 4. “Positive Traits” – very stable, fixed, and difficult to change. Examples could include intelligence, talents, and positive heritable characteristics. Support for this stability continuum of positive constructs is found in research and analysis done by Chamberlain & Zita (1992); Cropanzano & Wright (1999) and Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007. While PsyCap demonstrates stability over time, the components are not expected to be as stable as “trait-like” constructs or as momentary as “positive states” and can be considered state-like and open to change and development (Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007). PsyCap as a whole has been found to be developable through an experimental online training program (Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008), as well as the components of hope (Snyder, 2000; Snyder, Rand, & Sigmon, 2002), efficacy (Bandura, 1997), resilience (Werner & Smith, 1982, 1992; Bonanno, 2005; Garmenzy, 1974; Luthans, Vogelsang & Lester, 2006), and optimism (Seligman, 1998).

Benefits of PsyCap As a second-order construct, PsyCap is significantly and strongly related to employee attitudes and behaviors generally considered desirable by human resource management and, most importantly, performance measured in a variety of ways (see the meta-analysis of 51 studies conducted by Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011). Avey, Luthans, Smith, and Palmer (2010) provided additional evidence that PsyCap may be a positive resource used to enhance psychological well-being (also see Luthans, Youssef, Sweetman & Harms, 2013) In addition, other research has shown that PsyCap was negatively related to intentions to quit and may have an impact on combating or reducing levels of stress (Avey, Luthans, & Youssef, 2010; Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009). Other research indicates PsyCap may help in facilitating positive PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

5

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

organizational change (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008), and can mediate the relationship between supportive organizational climate and employee performance (Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008). Avey, Luthans and Youssef (2010) found evidence suggesting that those higher in PsyCap were more likely to engage in highly desirable extra-role behaviors that are beneficial in organizations. In addition, this research found that those higher in PsyCap engage in fewer counterproductive work behaviors, which are undesirable in organizations (Avey, Luthans, & Youssef, 2010). Avey et al. (2011) also found evidence that PsyCap was positively related to desirable attitudes and behaviors while reporting a negative relationship with undesirable attitudes and behaviors. Figure 1 summarizes all these relationships. The Avey et al. (2011) meta-analysis concluded that PsyCap on average increased positive outcomes by 28%, while decreasing negative outcomes by 24%. PsyCap can also be beneficial beyond the individual. Emerging research in the field has demonstrated positive associations between collective PsyCap and team performance (Clapp-Smith, Vogelsang, & Avey, 2009; Peterson & Zhang, 2011). Figure 1: Evidenced-Based Relationships Between PsyCap and Employee Work Outcomes, Avey et al. (2011) Desirable Attitudes Satisfaction Commitment Well-being

(+)

Desirable Behaviors Citizenship behaviors Employee Performance

Psychological Capital Hope Efficacy Resilience Optimism

(–)

Undesirable Attitudes Cynicism for change Stress, anxiety Turnover intentions Undesirable Behavior Deviance

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

6

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Competitive Advantage of PsyCap Other capitals developed by organizations for competitive advantage are still influential, but now PsyCap can be viewed as an additional critical resource that can be invested in and further developed. Figure 2 breaks down the four capitals that are influential within today’s organizations. As noted above, as technology has become cheaper and more accessible to organizations of varying age and size, traditional capitals such as finances and data and equipment have become less influential in terms of building one’s ‘moat’ for competitive advantage. Instead, what the individual leader brings to the table has a more significant impact on which organization has the advantage. As a result, focusing on how individual leaders influence followers and peers based on their character, wisdom, values, legacy building, and the ability to balance stakeholder interests and the organization’s long term goals, becomes more important (Youssef & Luthans, 2012). Technical expertise, managerial savvy and short term transactional competence are becoming less coveted. Figure 2: Expanding capital for competitive advantage (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004)

 

Traditional economic capital

Human capital

Social capital

Positive psychological capital

What you have

What you know

Who you know

Who you are

Finances Tangible assets (plant, equipment, patents, data)

    

Experience Education Skills Knowledge Ideas

   

Relationships Network of contacts Friends Family

   

Hope Efficacy Resilience Optimism

To gain competitive advantage, organizations can now focus on developing an additional and difficult resource to replicate for competitive advantage by increasing employees’ PsyCap. More importantly, an organization can also adapt its PsyCap states to its own challenges and situation, making it unique and organization-specific (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). What we mean here is that the organization can create a unique state of optimism particularly suited to the demands of the organization’s industry, clients and indeed employee workforce. While considering how to develop and adapt PsyCap, it is important to think about how an individual fits with the organization and how they fit with their job. Personorganization fit is the degree of congruence between an individual and an organization’s goals, needs, capabilities and resources, values, norms, and behaviors (Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996). Person-job fit represents how the person’s traits, needs, knowledge, skills, and abilities are compatible with the demands of the job (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990). Just as in human capital where a person must have the knowledge and skills to do their job, a person’s PsyCap must also meet the demands of the job and be

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

7

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

complementary to the organization to obtain the most advantage of having the individual working within the organization. Luthans and Youssef (2004) provide an example in the following passage of why different levels of PsyCap are beneficial depending on the nature of the job and the specific needs of the organization: “…self-efficacy is a domain-specific psychological capacity. New employees who may have been self-efficacious in their previous jobs will not necessarily be confident in their new jobs, unless proactive developmental efforts are extended on the part of themselves and their managers and peers to enhance their self-efficacy in their new job. Moreover, organizations that operate in turbulent or uncertain industries are likely to benefit more from using risk- and process-focused strategies to buffer the impact of change on their employees’ resilience than those operating in stable industries.”

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

8

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

PsyCap’s Role in the Metamorphosis on Robben Island As an interesting aside, a recent article by Cascio and Luthans (2014) shows the power that PsyCap may have had in some of the most important events in history. In a retrospective analysis of prisoners in the notorious South African prison, Robben Island, Cascio and Luthans (2014) argue that PsyCap was the key to enabling prisoners to make remarkable transformations to prison life and their guards. Prisoners such as Nelson Mandela and Jacob Zuma (president of South Africa 2009 to the publication of this manual) were able to survive, resist, and effectuate change by drawing on their individual and collective PsyCap. Through primary and secondary sources, Cascio and Luthans (2014) were able to identify specific features of hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism in the behaviors of the black political prisoners on Robben Island. The role of hope was identified in many of Mandela’s writings and court statements about a desire to live for and achieve his goals of a democratic and equal society (Cascio & Luthans, 2014). The hope the prisoners had was also considered realistic because of support for their cause from the international community (Cascio & Luthans, 2014). Despite enduring abusive treatment on Robben Island, prisoners had the confidence to disrupt the institution by holding meetings and offering education to other prisoners and guards (Cascio & Luthans, 2014). This display of efficacy demonstrates how yet another dimension of PsyCap contributed to these transformative actions. Cascio and Luthans (2014) argue that resilience was the most significant PsyCap HERO component for the prisoners at Robben Island. Although several sources described a desire for death over continued abuse in prison, they found an inner resilience to push past the pain and continue fighting for their cause (Cascio & Luthans, 2014). The researchers point out that the resilience shown by these prisoners is not an uncommon feature – the prisoners were regular individuals who were put in an environment where high resilience made a great difference. Finally, the authors discuss how optimism was identified in the behavior of the prisoners on Robben Island. The prisoners set goals and educated themselves and, amazingly, their guards,in preparation for a future which was not guaranteed. This view of imprisonment and the unequal state of society as a temporary setback are clear features of the prisoners’ high optimism. Cascio and Luthans (2014) also discuss the prisoners’ use of goals, code of conduct, education role, and equality and leadership and how these behaviors relate to the importance of PsyCap. The researchers concluded by urging organizations to prioritize developing PsyCap in order to promote productivity, satisfaction, and positive organizational change.

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

9

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Description, Administration, and Scoring Description The Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) contains 24 items that measure an individual’s PsyCap. A 12-item short form is also available in the self form only. The PCQ is comprised of four dimensions that result in measurement of the current state of an individual’s PsyCap. The four dimensions are Hope, Efficacy, Resilience, and Optimism. Hope: The Will and the Way Hope is based on the theory-building and research of Rick Snyder. Hope is defined as "a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1) agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals)" (Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991, p. 287). The agency (or will power) and pathways (or way power) components of hope make it particularly relevant to the emphasis in today's workplace on self-motivation, autonomy, and contingency actions. Efficacy: Confidence to Succeed Efficacy is founded on the work of Albert Bandura and his social cognitive theory. Applied to the workplace, efficacy can be defined as "an individual's conviction (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context" (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Self-efficacious people tend to (a) set high goals for themselves and self-select into difficult tasks, (b) welcome and thrive on challenge, (c) invest the necessary effort to accomplish their goals, (d) be highly self-motivated, and (e) persevere when faced with obstacles (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). Resilience: Bouncing Back and Beyond Resilience is defined as "the developable capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, and failure or even positive events, progress, and increased responsibility" (Luthans, 2002a, p. 702). Characteristics of resilience include: a) the capacity to make realistic plans and take steps to carry them out; b) a positive view of yourself and confidence in your strengths and abilities; c) skills in communication and problem solving; and d) the capacity to manage strong feelings and impulses. All of these are factors that can be developed. Optimism: Realistic and Flexible According to Seligman (1998), optimism is an attribution style that explains positive events in terms of personal, permanent and pervasive causes, and negative events as external, temporary and situation-specific. Particularly relevant to the workplace is realistic flexible optimism, which equips organizational leaders and employees with the ability to use optimistic explanatory styles, as well as the capacity to adapt those styles realistically to the situations at hand. PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

10

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Administration Individuals completing the PCQ evaluate themselves or an associate by selecting how much they agree with each item. A six-point scale for rating agreement is used. The anchors used to assess the PCQ items are presented as follows: Rating Scale for PCQ Items

1

2

3

4

5

6

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

The PCQ can be easily administered to individuals or groups. Since the assessment is self-explanatory, the primary issue in its administration is the maintenance of privacy and anonymity. The PCQ can be purchased and distributed in print or online via www.mindgarden.com.

Scoring Each of the four PCQ scale scores is calculated by taking the mean (average) of all items in the scale. The overall PsyCap score is calculated by taking the mean of all the items in the PCQ. It should be carefully noted that some items are Reverse scored (i.e., for these items a “1” is scored as a “6” and a “6” is scored as a “1”; a 2 is a 5 and a 5 is a 2; and a 3 is a 4 and a 4 is a 3). Reversed items are marked with “R”. Efficacy: items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Hope: items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Resilience: items 13R, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Optimism: items 19, 20R, 21, 22, 23R, 24

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

11

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Interpretation Interpreting PCQ Scores Each of the four dimensions of PsyCap scales has an interpretation based on the construct measured. For example, the Hope dimension is a measure of the extent to which an individual uses agency and pathways to complete their goals. The higher the score, the more hope an individual uses. Hope A person who is high in hope is one who proactively generates multiple pathways in a given situation to accomplish goals. When executing a pathway, hopeful individuals show the capacity to initiate predetermined alternate pathways to continue toward goal accomplishment (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, and Peterson, 2010). Those with high hope are motivated by this sense of having the capacity to develop ways to achieve their goals and get what they want (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). Efficacy People who have high efficacy tend to choose challenging tasks and endeavors and are motivated to put in the effort necessary to successfully accomplish their goals (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). Highly efficacious people tend to persevere when they are faced with obstacles. A person with low self-efficacy will tend to experience more fatigue, illness, anxiety, depression, and stress than a person with high self-efficacy (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004). Resilience Resilient individuals have the ability to recover well after adversity, conflict, or failure and are able to persevere through increased responsibility and progress. On the other hand, individuals with lower resilience become unable to move forward after adversity and tend to have trouble rising to positive changes like increased responsibility. Optimism A person with high optimism is able to take personal credit for the positive events in their life. They can distance personal fault from negative events, thereby avoiding depression, guilt, self-blame, rumination and despair. Seligman (1998) explains that optimistic people attribute positive events to be personal, permanent, and pervasive, while attributing negative events to be external, temporary, and situation-specific.

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

12

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Developing PsyCap Benefits of Developing PsyCap Many human-oriented organizational initiatives are not recognized because it is difficult to quantify their importance and impact. However, Luthans, Avey, et al. (2006) demonstrated that PsyCap development can yield a very high (over 200%) return on investment. See Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio (2007) for utility equations to assess the return on PsyCap investment. If human resources training and development efforts emphasize the positive resources of hope, efficacy, resilience, and of optimism under the core construct of PsyCap, they may help employees combat stress, enhance performance and reduce turnover (Luthans, 2012). Moreover, Story (2011) argues that global leaders who develop PsyCap can more readily be an agent in developing a global mindset, self-authored identity, and intercultural sensitivity. A PsyCap Intervention (PCI) training model (see Figure 3) was developed by Luthans, Avey et al. (2006) and later research suggests that PsyCap development has a significant positive impact on employees’ rated work-performance (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010). Furthermore, PsyCap development can be quick and cost few resources. Luthans, Avey, and Patera (2008) found that PsyCap can be developed through a short, highly focused web-based intervention. Over a span of 10 days, this intervention included two 45-minute online training sessions structured around developing hope, efficacy, resilience and optimism (Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008). This study provides evidence that PsyCap development can be inexpensive and practical in addition to providing the many PsyCap benefits.

Developing the PsyCap “HERO Within” In recent years, researchers and intervention designers have found ways to develop hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism – or the PsyCap “HERO Within”. Besides developing the state-hope scale (Snyder et al., 1996), research by Snyder (2000) provided guidelines to developing hope for PsyCap. Bandura (1997) demonstrated several strategies to increase efficacy (also see Bandura, 2000). Developmental interventions for resilience were discussed by Masten and Reed (2002) and Seligman (1998) offers evidence to support optimism development in his book, Learned Optimism. The following pages include PsyCap “HERO Within” development strategies and guidelines from various published studies. For more information on development strategies, consider purchasing the Trainers Guide for Developing Psychological Capital by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. The training guide is available for purchase at www.mindgarden.com. It is also important to consider not only collecting self-ratings of PsyCap, but also multirater evaluations. We know from the research cited above, that even self-ratings of PsyCap can predict a variety of positive performance outcomes. Yet, adding in other PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

13

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

raters’ evaluations could augment those predictions of performance, particularly where the target of the ratings is a leader. The augmentation in prediction would come about by accounting for more variance in how the leader transmits positivity to others, which in turn would be expected to increase follower and peer levels of positivity (Eberly, Johnson, Hernandez, & Avolio, 2011). Also, by using multiple raters, individuals can learn how others perceive their levels of PsyCap, which can enhance their level of self-awareness as to how they exhibit each of the PsyCap components. For those in a leadership role, we know that the degree to which the leader exhibits a more positive attitude, the higher the likelihood that positivity would be reflected in others (Bass, 2008). Consequently, by receiving multi-rater feedback, individuals are more likely to learn how they are portraying to colleagues their sense of confidence and hope, efficacy, resiliency and optimism. As portrayed in the discussion of Robben Island, we can see how the ‘transmission’ of such positive states can impact not only the people imprisoned, but the guards and the world watching these individuals not just survive, but thrive. We expect that the multi-rater survey will become a valuable tool for not only selfdevelopment, but also for coaches working with individuals to enhance how they come across to others in terms of each of their PsyCap states. For example, raters may find that their leader tends to ruminate after losing a competition, which can draw down the resiliency of others, as well as their hope, optimism and efficacy. Such feedback to the leader and training interventions could reduce the amount of ‘recovery’ time a leader takes to bounce back from a loss. We can also envision multi-rater surveys being used to assess the readiness of organizations to change (Avolio & Hannah, 2008). By readiness, we mean here the level of positivity to figure out not only why a dramatic change in business focus is needed, but also the level of inquiry and positivity to figure out the pathway that needs to be pursued .We can envision a large sample of an organization’s workforce completing the multi-rater PsyCap survey to determine how ready an organization is for an acquisition, merger, strategic change and/or transformation. Since most change efforts fail at a 70% level, knowing the level of PsyCap going into the change will provide a competitive advantage for the organization, in our view.

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

14

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Figure 3: Positive Psychological Capital Intervention. Luthans, Avey, Avolio, and Peterson (2010) Focus on Developmental Dimensions

Proximal Outcomes (Psychological Capacities)

Distal Outcomes

Goals and Pathways Implementing Obstacle Planning

Hope

Building Efficacy/Confidence Optimism Developing Positive Expectancy

Experiencing Success and Modeling Others

Sustainable Veritable Performance Impact Efficacy

Persuasion and Arousal

Building Assets/Avoiding Risks Resilience How to Affect the Influence Process

Note: This intervention is intended to affect each state as well as the overall level of psychological capital for performance impact. Source: Adapted from Luthans, Avey et al., 2006 and also found in Luthans et al., 2007

Developing Hope Snyder (2000) and Luthans and Jensen (2002) provide guidelines specifically for building hope in PsyCap. First, it is important to set clear organizational and personal goals that are both specific and challenging. The inclusion of numbers, percentages and target dates of completion are useful for specific goal planning. The goal should be difficult, but not impossible. If the goal-maker’s level of hope is low, start off with an easy goal in order to achieve some degree of hope before attempting a challenge. Once the goal is set, Snyder (2000) recommends using a “stepping method” to break the goals down into sub-steps to make the goals more manageable. This method also allows the goal-maker to experience small successes as they make progress on their goals. PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

15

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Sometimes the original plan to complete the goal fails. In order to prepare for this possibility, the goal-maker should develop at least one alternative pathway to complete their goal. These alternate pathways should be thought out with just as much detail as the original plan During the process of attaining the goal, the goal-maker should remember several things. First, they should remember to take the time to acknowledge their enjoyment in the process of working towards the goal, rather than focusing solely on the final completion. They should be prepared for obstacles and problems and should maintain a willingness to persist despite these difficulties — this is when the alternate pathways will come in handy. Finally, the goal-maker must be able to recognize when persistence toward the goal is not feasible, regardless of the different pathways. In these cases, it may be necessary to alter the original goal and restart the goal-making process. Developing Efficacy Four widely recognized sources of efficacy development were identified by Bandura (1997). 1. When an individual accomplishes a challenging task, he/she is generally more confident in his/her abilities to accomplish that task again. Termed “mastery experiences”, these accomplishments boost efficacy regarding a specific task. It is important to note that mastery experiences must be challenging, yet achievable and be planned as concrete, specific, and proximal goals. “Mental rehearsal” is another strategy that is closely tied with mastery experience. Mental rehearsal is when an individual visualizes important upcoming events in order to anticipate possible obstacles and plan alternate pathways to overcome the obstacles. This enhanced preparedness provides a similar confidence boost to having already completed a challenging task, like in mastery experiences. 2. Efficacy can also be developed when individuals vicariously learn by observing (i.e., modeling) relevant others accomplish a task. The impact of modeling depends on how similar the individual sees him- or herself with regard to the role model. The more similar, the more effective the efficacy development process. 3.

A third strategy to develop efficacy is “social persuasion.” This strategy involves the participation of a respected and competent individual who persuades someone with lower efficacy that they “have what it takes.” The effectiveness of this method is dependent on the degree of credibility the persuader has with the recipient. Mastery experiences, mental rehearsal, and modeling are more effective strategies.

4. Finally, efficacy is influenced by psychological, physiological, or emotional arousal, and wellness. Consider these factors when planning to develop efficacy. PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

16

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Developing Resilience Research on developing resilience has centered around increasing assets and minimizing risk factors (Masten, 2001). Assets, often referred to as “resources,” take the form of promotions and mentorship programs in the workplace. Risk factors, on the other hand, are characteristics that predict negative outcomes. In the workplace, risk factors may take form as an abusive supervisor or the loss of a big customer account. The three main types of strategies to build resilience are risk-focused strategies, assetfocused strategies, and process-focused strategies. Risk-focused strategies concentrate on reducing the risks and stressors in order to decrease the likelihood of negative outcomes. Asset-focused strategies emphasize and enhance the resources that have been shown to increase the probability of positive outcomes. Process-focused strategies involve creating a power structure to promote using assets to facilitate management over emerging risk factors. An interactive, activity-based training program by Reivich and Shatte (2002) provided the following guidelines to develop resilience:  Avoid negative thinking traps when things go wrong.  Test the accuracy of beliefs about problems and how to find solutions that work.  Remain calm and focused when overwhelmed by emotion or stress. Developing Optimism There are a number of easy ways to build one’s optimism. These include focusing on one’s intentions and how those intentions shape the perspective of an individual facing each day’s challenges and opportunities. Having positive intentions can impact one’s self-fulfilling prophecy for success (Eden, 1984) There are also some game applications that encourage people to focus on happy images each morning to help shape their level of optimism for the day, which may reduce levels of depression. There are also other apps that can be used to keep in mind one’s personal best. This has been applied extensively to competitive sports where athletes visualize success to boost their optimism for achieving a target goal. One can also use other simple techniques such as ‘zooming out’ from a problem to see all of the advantages one has to address a particular challenge. Considering what the ‘silver lining’ is in difficult circumstances, can also enhance optimism, and likely the other PsyCap components. Having a sense of purpose, to keep striving to achieve can also impact levels of optimism, which again may explain how the prisoners at Robben Island not only survived, but ended up thriving in prison and beyond. Many indeed have lived long and productive lives, beyond the cohorts they grew up with who were not imprisoned.

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

17

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Specific guidelines for building optimism for PsyCap have been offered by Schulman (1999):  Identify self-defeating beliefs when faced with a challenge.  Evaluate the accuracy of the beliefs.  Replace dysfunctional beliefs with constructive and accurate beliefs.

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

18

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Test Construction and Development Subordinate Construct Development: PsyCap “HERO Within” Members of the Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007) research team selected and adapted the scales to make up the PCQ. The selection criteria were that the scale had to demonstrate reliability and construct validity in the published literature, have relevance in the workplace, and be capable of measuring the state-like constructs making up PsyCap. The four subordinate scales adapted to the PCQ were (a) hope (Snyder et al., 1996); (b) self-efficacy (Parker, 1998); (c) resilience (Wagnild & Young, 1993); and (d) optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985). Each of these four selected scales have considerable psychometric support across multiple samples in prior research and have been verified in workplace studies by themselves or in combination (Jensen & Luthans, 2006; Larson & Luthans, 2006; Luthans et al., 2005; Peterson & Luthans, 2003; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Six items from each standard measure were selected based on content and face validity. Wording was then adapted to fit the needs of the workplace setting and, in some cases, to be state-like. Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007) agreed on 24 items and put the response choices into a 6-point Likert-type rating scale.

Superordinate Construct Development: PsyCap Luthans et al. (2007) investigated whether PsyCap could be a higher-order, corepositive factor indicated by the “HERO Within” constructs. A confirmatory factor analysis supported the high-order factor structure for the overall PsyCap measure (Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007). In addition, Luthans, Avolio, et al. (2007) found the overall PsyCap increased the multiple correlation value above and beyond its individual components in predicting important attitude and performance outcomes. The data in Table 1 supports PsyCap as a higher-order positive psychological factor through a comparison of a priori PsyCap factor structure (Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007). Avey, Luthans, and Youssef (2010) empirically demonstrated that PsyCap predicted unique variance in a number of attitudes and behaviors beyond their sample’s demographics, core self-evaluations, personality traits, and person-organization or person-job fit. Luthans et al. (2008) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to further examine the psychometric properties of the PCQ and found adequate indices for the four-factor structure with each dimension’s six items loading significantly on their respective dimension. The usefulness analysis by Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007) indicated that the overall PsyCap was more consistently related to performance and satisfaction than each of the “HERO Within” constructs alone. This means that using PsyCap as a single aggregate construct is more beneficial to attain desired outcomes than using hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism individually. Other empirical evidence from the Luthans et al. (2005) study on Chinese factory workers showed that each worker’s levels of hope, resilience, and optimism related at about the same level to performance outcomes however their combination had a higher relationship with rated performance than any one of them individually. PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

19

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Table 1: Comparison of A Priori PsyCap Factor Structure. Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007) Study 1 (Combined student sample) Models

2

Factors

Χ

df

422.7

234

472

235

ΔΧ

2

Study 2 (Combined employee sample) 2

RMSEA

CFI

SRMR

Χ

df

.046

.934

.051

448.2

234

49.2*

.051

.917

.052

555.2

235

ΔΧ

2

RMSEA

CFI

SRMR

.048

.924

.056

106.9*

.059

.885

.060

Baseline Model 1

4 factors as indicators of PsyCap (Hope, Efficacy, Optimism, Resilience)

Model 2

3 factors as indicators of PsyCap (Hope and Resilience merged; Efficacy; Optimism)

Model 3

3 factors as indicators of PsyCap (Hope and Optimism merged; Efficacy, Resilience)

473.9

235

51.1*

.051

.917

.053

603.3

235

155.1*

.063

.867

.059

Model 4

3 factors as indicators of PsyCap (Optimism and Resilience merged; Efficacy; Hope)

475.5

235

52.7*

.051

.916

.053

620.2

235

171.9*

.065

.861

.063

Model 5

1 factor as an indicator of PsyCap (all 24 items)

754.1

238

331.4*

.075

.820

.068

876.7

238

428.4*

.083

.768

.072

*Significant at p < .01. 2

2

Note: Abbreviations are as follows: Chi-Square (Χ ), degrees of freedom (df), change in Chi-Square (Δ Χ ), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI: Bentler, 1990), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) 2

2

2

The change in Chi-Square (Δ Χ ) reports the difference between the Χ for Model 1 and the Χ for the respective models.

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

20

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Assessment of Reliability and Validity PCQ Reliability Luthans et al. (2007) calculated the reliability estimates for the total PsyCap and each adapted measure from four sample populations. The optimism scale in the second sample (.69) and the resilience scale in the third sample (.66) did not reach generally acceptable levels of internal consistency, but the reliability of the overall PsyCap measure in all samples was consistently above conventional standards (Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007). The Cronbach alphas were as follows: hope (.72, .75, .80, .76); efficacy (.75, .84, .85, .75); resilience (.71, .71, .66, .72); optimism (.74, .69, .76, .79); and overall PsyCap (.88, .89, .89, .89). In their review, Dawkins, Martin, Scott, and Sanderson (2013) found all studies except one reported reliability alphas above the minimal acceptable .70 level (Leary, 2008). They also reported that the internal consistency reliability for optimism and resilience tended to be consistently lower than those for self-efficacy and hope (Dawkins et al., 2013). A main difference between the nature of the optimism and resilience scales versus the self-efficacy and hope scales is the inclusion of reverse-scored items. Reverse-scored items can reduce scale reliability (Schmitt & Stults, 1985). Avey et al. (2011) found that self-ratings of performance showed about the same relationship with PsyCap as did ratings from supervisors/managers, thus same source bias may not be as big of an issue for PsyCap compared to other constructs. There is evidence that the impact of PsyCap is greater in some demographic samples than others. Avey et al. (2011) found that PsyCap’s impact was stronger for studies based in the US in comparison to studies outside the US as well as in samples based in the service industry in comparison to samples in manufacturing. However, until larger global samples are collected, these differences should be viewed with caution, and could be due to sample-specific biases.

PCQ Validity Discriminant/Convergent Validity Each of the four positive constructs has been shown to have empirically based discriminant validity in previous studies (Bryant & Cvengros, 2004; Carifio & Rhodes, 2002; Magaletta & Oliver, 1999; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007) found that PsyCap was not related to age or education demographics and was also not related to the personality dimensions of Agreeableness or Openness. PsyCap had a strong positive relationship with core self-evaluations (.60) and a moderate relationship with Extraversion (.36) and Conscientiousness (.39) (Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007). For correlations from Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007), see Table 2. Although the regression model without the PsyCap composite was significant (R2 = .13, p < .001), the change in R2 was also significant (ΔR2 = .04, p < .001), demonstrating that PsyCap predicted unique variance in job satisfaction beyond the two personality traits and core self-evaluations. In the final regression model the beta weight for the PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

21

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

PsyCap was the largest in the model, indicating that PsyCap was once again the greatest contributor to predicting affective organizational commitment. Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, and Zhang (2011) reported significant positive relationships between PsyCap and core self-evaluation across three time periods (r = .16, .25, .49). Although this and findings from Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007) of a positive relationship with core self-evaluation are strong, proponents argue that some convergence is to be expected because of some conceptual overlap of the two measures. According to Dawkins et al. (2013), confirmatory factor analysis has demonstrated discriminant validity between PsyCap and perceived employability (Chen & Lim, 2012); creativity and authentic leadership (Rego et al., 2012); and authentic leadership and positive work climate (Woolley, Caza, & Levy, 2011). Criterion Validity Results of research by Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007) showed that PsyCap had a slightly stronger relationship to job satisfaction, yet not significant (p < .10), than core selfevaluations, but that PsyCap was significantly stronger (p < .001) than Conscientiousness and Extraversion. In addition, this research indicated that PsyCap was more strongly related to affective organizational commitment (p < .001) than core self-evaluations, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion (Luthans, Avolio et al., 2007).

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

22

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Table 2: Contribution to Nomological Network (Study 1, Sample 2). Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1. PsyCap

1.0

2. Hope

.82

1.0

3. Resilience

.75

.58

1.0

4. Optimism

.57

.29

.27

1.0

5. Self-Efficacy

.79

.49

.43

.26

1.0

6. Satisfaction

.39

.34

.27

.22

.30

1.0

7. Self-rated performance

.25

.23

.23

.07

.22

.18

1.0

8. Core self-evaluation

.60

.57

.44

.20

.48

.32

.18

1.0

9. Conscientious

.39

.41

.35

.14

.22

.15

.20

.38

1.0

10. Extraversion

.36

.22

.20

.21

.41

.24

.05

.24

.10

1.0

11. Agreeableness

.06

.04

.10

.01

.08

-.03

.14

-.10

.05

,09

1.0

12. Neuroticism

-.12

-.10

-.07

-.03

-.01

-.02

-.01

-.15

.03

-.19

.27

1.0

13. Openness

-.10

-.11

-.02

-.02

-.08

.01

-.00

-.05

-.14

-.12

.06

.17

1.0

14. Age

.01

.03

.09

.01

-.08

.07

.04

.04

-.06

-.02

-.08

.01

.08

1.0

15. Education

.08

.08

.02

.12

.04

.05

.08

-.01

.04

.04

-.01

-.02

-.05

.25

15

1.0

Note: All correlations greater than .10 significant at p < .05 (2-tailed) N = 404.

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

23

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

References Adams, V. H., Snyder, C. R., Rand, K. L., King, E. A., Sigman, D. R., & Pulvers, K. M. (2002). Hope in the workplace. In R. Giacolone & C. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Workplace spirituality and organization performance (367-377). New York: Sharpe. Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48(5), 677-693. Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of positive psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(2), 430-452. Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 127-152. Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organization change? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48-70. Avolio, B.J., & Hannah, S.T. (2008). Developmental readiness: Accelerating leadership development. Consulting Psychology Journal, 60, 331-347. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E.A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 120-136). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big-Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. Bass, B.M. (2008). The Handbook of Leadership (3rd edition). NY: Free Press. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360. Bonanno, G. A. (2005). Clarifying and extending the construct of adult resilience. American Psychologist, 60, 265-267. Bryant, F. B., & Cvengros, J. A. (2004). Distinguishing hope and optimism. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 273-302. Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 648-657. Carifio, J., & Rhodes, L. (2002). Construct validities and the empirical relationships between optimism, hope, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Work, 19, 125-136. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. S. (2002). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231-243). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

24

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Cascio, W. F., & Luthans, F. (2014). Reflections on the metamorphosis at Robben Island: The role of institutional work and positive psychological capital. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(1), 51-67. Chamberlain, K., & Zita, S. (1992). Stability and change in subjective well-being over short periods. Social Indicators Research, 20, 101-117. Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of personorganization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349. Chen, D. J. Q., & Lim, V. K. G. (2012). Strength in adversity: The influence of psychological capital on job search. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33I, 811-839. Clapp-Smith, R., Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). The role of psychological capital in global mindset development. In M. Javidan, R. M. Steers, & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Advances in international management: The global mindset (pp. 105-130). New York: Elsevier. Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelsang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 227-240. Coutu, D. L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 46-55. Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (1999). A five-year study of change in the relationship between well-being and job performance. Consulting Psychology Journal, 51, 252-265. Danner, D. D., Snowdon, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. (2001). Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychological, 80, 804-813. Dawkins, S., Martin, A., Scott, J., Sanderson, K. (2013). Building on the positives: A psychometric review and critical analysis of the construct of Psychological Capital. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(3), 348-370. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 8184. Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing Pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 9, 64-73. Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678-686. Garmenzy, N. (1974). The study of competence in children at risk for severe psychopathology. In E. J. Anthony & C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child in his family: Vol. 3. Children at psychiatric risk (pp. 77-97). New York: Wiley. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279. Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Relationship between entrepreneurs’ psychological capital and their authentic leadership. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 254-273. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits – self-esteem, generalized self efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job-satisfaction and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92. PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

25

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & DePater, I. E. (2004). Emotional stability, coreevaluations, and job outcomes. Human Performance, 17, 325-346. Kersting, K. (2003). Turning happiness into economic power. Monitor on Psychology, 34(11), 26. Koivumaa-Honkanen, H., Koskenvuo, M., Honkanen, R. J., Viinamaki, H., Heikkilae, K., & Kaprio, J. (2004). Life dissatisfaction and subsequent work disability in an 11-year follow-up study. Psychological Medicine, 34, 221-228. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. Larson, M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work attitudes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 44-61. Leary, M. R. (2008). Introduction to behavioral research methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695-706. Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academic of Management Executive, 16, 57-72. Luthans, F. ( 2012). Psychological capital: Implications for HRD, retrospective analysis and future directions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 1-8. Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S., & Combs, G. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 387-393. Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 41-67. Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. L. (2008). Experimental analysis of a web-based intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 209-221. Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541-572. Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., & Li, W. (2005). The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationships with performance. Management and Organization Review, 1, 247-269. Luthans, F., Luthans, K., & Luthans, B. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Going beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47, 45-50. Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate-employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 219-238. Luthans, F., Vogelsang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2006). Developing the psychological capital of resilience. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 25-44. PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

26

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 143-160. Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital. New York: Oxford University Press. Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2015). Psychological capital and beyond. New York:: Oxford University Press. Maddi, S. R. (1987). Hardiness training at Illinois Bell Telephone. In P. Opatz (Ed.), Health promotion evaluation (pp. 101-115). Stevens Point, WI: National Wellness Institute. Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will and ways: Their relations with self-efficacy, optimism and well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 539-551. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227-239. Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74-88). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Nelson, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2007). Positive organizational behavior: Accentuating the positive at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Parker, S. (1998). Enhancing role-breadth self- efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835-852. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Peterson, S. J., & Luthans, F. (2003). The positive impact of development of hopeful leaders. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24, 26-31. Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Psychological capital and employee performance: A latent growth modeling approach. Personnel Psychology, 64, 427-450. Peterson, S. J., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Examining the relationships between top management team psychological characteristics, transformational leadership, and business unit performance. In M. A. Carpenter (Ed.), Handbook of top management research (pp. 127-149). New York, NY: Edward Elgar Publishing. Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. (2012). Authentic leadership promoting employees’ psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research, 65, 429437. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572. Roysamb, E., Tawls, K., Reichborn-Kjenneruc, T., Neale, M. C., & Harris, J. R. (2003). Happiness and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1136-1146. Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and work-related behavior: A review and meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42, 139-153.

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

27

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). “Yes I can, I feel good, and I just do it!” On gains cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 255-285. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247. Schmitt, N., & Stults, D. M. (1985). Factors defined by negatively keyed items: The result of careless respondents? Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 367-373. Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism. New York: Pocket Books. Snyder, C. R. (2000). Handbook of hope. San Diego: Academic Press. Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249276. Snyder, C. R., Irving, L., & Anderson, J. (1991). Hope and health: Measuring the will and the ways. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 285-305). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Snyder, C. R., Rand, K. L., & Sigmon, D. R. (2002). Hope theory. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 257-276). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S., Ybasco, F., Borders, T., Babyak, M., & Higgins, R. (1996). Development and validation of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 321-335. Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. (1998a). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261. Stajkovic, A. & Luthans, F. (1998b). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 62-74. Story, J. (2011). A developmental approach to global leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 375-389. Strümpfer, D. J., & Kellerman, A. M. (2005). Quiet heroism: Resilience and thriving. Johannesburg, South Africa: A. M. Kellerman & Associates. Turner, N., Barling, J., & Zaharatos, A. (2002). Positive psychology at work. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 715-728). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Management, 1(2), 165-178. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilience in children. New York: McGraw-Hill. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Woolley, L., Caza, A., & Levy, L. (2011). Authentic leadership and follower development: Psychological capital, positive work climate and gender. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 438-448.

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

28

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 437-442. Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). Job satisfaction and psychological well-being as nonadditive predictors of workplace turnover. Journal of Management, 33, 141-160. Wright, T. A., Bonett, D. G., & Sweeney, D. A. (1993). Mental health and work performance: Results of a longitudinal field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizations Psychology, 66, 277-284. Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 84-94. Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive well-being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 93-104. Wright, T. A., & Staw, B. M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: Two longitudinal tests of the happy-productive worker thesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 123. Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33, 774-800. Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2012). Positive global leadership. Journal of World Business, 47, 539-547.

PCQ Manual Copyright © 2014 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

29

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

It is a violation of copyright to reproduce a Mind Garden instrument marked “Sample” or “For Review Only” Most Mind Garden manuals contain a copy of the instrument marked “Sample “or “For Review Only” to communicate that it should not be used or reproduced. It is for review only. When you are ready to begin using the instrument in your research, you will need to purchase a License to Reproduce/Administer. This allows you to make use of the instrument either via paper & pencil (Reproduce) or electronically (Administer).

License To Reproduce/Administer – Your Options Option 1

Use our Transform Online Survey Scoring and Reporting System Let Mind Garden do the survey creation, data collection, scoring and reporting for you. Our Transform system allows you to enter your participants’ names and email addresses – up to the purchased number – and it will administer the instrument, providing data and/or a report, depending upon what you purchase. Demographics and other survey instruments can be added to your survey on a fee basis. Conduct a survey with report output and receive the interpretative PCQ Personal Report or PCQ Group Report.

-ORConduct a survey with data output and receive a csv data file including raw data and raw scale scores. Option 2

Conduct a paper and pencil survey. You will receive one copy with a license to reproduce the instrument (up to the number purchased). Order a PDF, electronic delivery (no additional shipping costs). Shortly after ordering, you will receive login and retrieval instructions.

-OROrder paper by mail (FedEx delivery costs apply).

Use an outside online survey company. You will receive one copy with a license to administer the instrument (up to the number purchased). Option 3

Order a PDF, re-type and format your own survey, then calculate your own scores. Visit this link for Mind Garden requirements on use of outside online survey website: http://www.mindgarden,.com/how.htm#instrumentweb

Psychological Capital Questionnaire Copyright © 2007 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

30

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) Self-Rater Form Name: __________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ Instructions: Below are statements that describe how you may think about yourself right now. Use the following scale to indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Strongly Disagree 1

Disagree 2

Somewhat Disagree 3

Somewhat Agree 4

Agree 5

Strongly Agree 6

1.

I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution.

1 2 3 4 5 6

2.

I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management. I feel confident contributing to discussions about the organization’s strategy. I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area.

1 2 3 4 5 6

I feel confident contacting people outside the organization (e.g., suppliers, customers) to discuss problems. I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

8.

If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it. At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my work goals.

9.

There are lots of ways around any problem.

1 2 3 4 5 6

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

10. Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6

11. I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals.

1 2 3 4 5 6

12. At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6

13. When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it, moving on. 14. I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6

15. I can be “on my own,” so to speak, at work if I have to.

1 2 3 4 5 6

16. I usually take stressful things at work in stride.

1 2 3 4 5 6

17. I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve experienced difficulty before.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Psychological Capital Questionnaire Copyright © 2007 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

31

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Psychological Capital (PsyCap) Questionnaire (PCQ) Self-Rater Form 18. I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job.

1 2 3 4 5 6

19. When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best.

1 2 3 4 5 6

20. If something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will.

1 2 3 4 5 6

21. I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job.

1 2 3 4 5 6

22. I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work. 23. In this job, things never work out the way I want them to.

1 2 3 4 5 6

24. I approach this job as if “every cloud has a silver lining.”

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Psychological Capital Questionnaire Copyright © 2007 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

32

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) Rater Form Name of the Person or Position being Rated: ___________________________________ Date: ______________ Instructions: Below are statements that describe how you may think about the person listed above right now. Use the following scale to indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Strongly Disagree 1

Disagree 2

Somewhat Disagree 3

Somewhat Agree 4

Agree 5

Strongly Agree 6

This person feels confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution. This person feels confident in representing his/her work area in meetings with management. This person feels confident contributing to discussions about the organization’s strategy. This person feels confident helping to set targets/goals in his/her work area. This person feels confident contacting people outside the organization (e.g., suppliers, customers) to discuss problems. This person feels confident presenting information to a group of colleagues. If this person should find him/herself in a jam at work, he/she could think of many ways to get out of it. At the present time, this person is energetically pursuing his/her work goals. This person feels there are lots of ways around any problem.

1 2 3 4 5 6

10. Right now this person sees him/herself as being pretty successful at work. 11. This person can think of many ways to reach his/her current work goals. 12. At this time, this person is meeting the work goals that he/she has set for him/herself. 13. When this person has a setback at work, he/she has trouble recovering from it, moving on. 14. This person usually manages difficulties one way or another at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Psychological Capital Questionnaire Copyright © 2007 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

33

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) Rater Form 15. This person can be “on his/her own,” so to speak, at work if he/she has to. 16. This person usually takes stressful things at work in stride.

1 2 3 4 5 6

17. This person can get through difficult times at work because he/she has experienced difficulty before. 18. This person feels he/she can handle many things at a time at this job.

1 2 3 4 5 6

19. When things are uncertain for this person at work, he/she usually expects the best. 20. This person feels if something can go wrong for him/her work-wise, it will. 21. This person always looks on the bright side of things regarding his/her job. 22. This person is optimistic about what will happen to him/her in the future as it pertains to work. 23. This person feels in this job, things never work out the way he/she wants them to. 24. This person approaches this job as if “every cloud has a silver lining.”

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Psychological Capital Questionnaire Copyright © 2007 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

34

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) Scoring Key Psychological Capital (PsyCap) Questionnaire (PCQ) Scales: Each of the four PCQ subscale scores is calculated by taking the mean (average) of all items in the scale. The overall PsyCap score is calculated by taking the mean of all items in the PCQ. It should be carefully noted that some items are Reversed scored (i.e., for these items a “1” is scored as a “6” and a “6” is scored as a “1”; a 2 is a 5 and a 5 is a 2; and a 3 is a 4 and a 4 is a 3). These items are marked with “R”. Efficacy: items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Hope: items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Resilience: items 13R, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Optimism: items 19, 20R, 21, 22, 23R, 24

Psychological Capital Questionnaire Copyright © 2007 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

35

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-12) Self-Rater Short Form Name: __________________________________________________________ Date: ____________ Instructions: Below are statements that describe how you may think about yourself right now. Use the following scale to indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Strongly Disagree 1

Disagree 2

Somewhat Disagree 3

Somewhat Agree 4

Agree 5

Strongly Agree 6

I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management. I feel confident contributing to discussions about the organization’s strategy. I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

5.

If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it. Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work.

6.

I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7.

At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6

8.

I can be “on my own,” so to speak, at work if I have to.

1 2 3 4 5 6

9.

I usually take stressful things at work in stride.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. 2. 3. 4.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

10. I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve experienced difficulty before. 11. I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job.

1 2 3 4 5 6

12. I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Psychological Capital Questionnaire Copyright © 2007 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

36

For use by Margo Moreno only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on October 9, 2017

Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-12) Self-Rater Short Form Scoring Key Psychological Capital (PsyCap) Questionnaire (PCQ) Scales: Each of the four PCQ subscale scores is calculated by taking the mean (average) of all items in the scale. The overall PsyCap score is calculated by taking the mean of all items in the PCQ. It should be carefully noted that some items are Reversed scored (i.e., for these items a “1” is scored as a “6” and a “6” is scored as a “1”; a 2 is a 5 and a 5 is a 2; and a 3 is a 4 and a 4 is a 3). These items are marked with “R”. Efficacy: items 1-3 Hope: items 4-7 Resilience: items 8-10 Optimism: items 11-12

Psychological Capital Questionnaire Copyright © 2007 by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

37

Life Enjoy

" Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced! "

Get in touch

Social

© Copyright 2013 - 2019 DOKUMENTIS.COM - All rights reserved.