Volume 97, Issue 1 p. 190-208
ARTICLE
Open Access

Daily strengths use and work performance: A self-determination perspective

Hannah L. Moore

Corresponding Author

Hannah L. Moore

Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Department of Economics and Business, Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Correspondence

Hannah L. Moore, Department of Economics and Business, Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15953, Amsterdam 1001 NL, The Netherlands.

Email: [email protected]

Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, ​Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author
Arnold B. Bakker

Arnold B. Bakker

Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Contribution: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author
Heleen van Mierlo

Heleen van Mierlo

Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Contribution: Conceptualization, ​Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author
Marianne van Woerkom

Marianne van Woerkom

Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Department of Human Resource Studies, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

Contribution: Conceptualization, ​Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 10 September 2023
Citations: 1

Abstract

Drawing on self-determination theory, this study examines how using personal strengths at work in the morning is associated with different types of performance throughout the workday. Momentary satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence are proposed as mechanisms that differentially link strengths use to four different performance outcomes: task accomplishment, goal attainment, organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour. We collected data from 216 Dutch employees in a large variety of sectors twice a day for one workweek (N = 1470 observations) using a smartphone application. Results of multilevel structural equation modelling showed that momentary satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence at noon mediated the positive relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon task accomplishment and goal attainment. Furthermore, satisfaction of the need for relatedness mediated the positive relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon organizational citizenship behaviour, but not the negative relationship between morning strengths use and counterproductive work behaviour. These findings deepen our understanding of strengths use theory and uncover novel insight on the temporal aspects of strengths use within a working day.

Practitioner points

  • Organizations should recognize the importance of supporting the use of personal strengths at work, because people are more likely to perform better after periods of high strength use.
  • Work episodes in which employees use their personal strengths are associated with immediate satisfaction of all three basic needs, where relatedness satisfaction relates more to helping others, and autonomy and competence satisfaction relate more to self-directed performance.

BACKGROUND

Everyone has a set of personal strengths that makes certain ways of thinking, feeling and behaving inherently energizing and enjoyable. Organizational researchers and practitioners increasingly recognize that when employees use their strengths at work—that is, do what they are good at and enjoy—performance rises (for a review, see Miglianico et al., 2020). Some studies show that using strengths enhances self-directed performance, such as task accomplishment (e.g. Harzer & Ruch, 2014; van Woerkom, Mostert, et al., 2016; van Woerkom, Oerlemans, et al., 2016) and self-set goal attainment (Linley et al., 2010). Others show that strengths use (also) contributes to organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB; Lavy & Littman-Ovadia, 2017; van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015) and reduces counterproductive work behaviour (CWB; Littman-Ovadia et al., 2017). However, these studies exclusively measured how these constructs covaried at one point in time, while it is known that affective and behavioural constructs like strengths use and performance refer to changing experiences that can fluctuate from day to day (Bakker et al., 2019; Beal et al., 2005). Furthermore, though several scholars have pointed towards needs satisfaction as a potential mechanism connecting these constructs, this has never been empirically tested and confirmed in a work setting. With this study, we aim to fill these gaps by measuring strengths use, needs satisfaction and performance during work episodes throughout the day, which provides valuable insight for psychologists, practitioners and employees wishing to research and apply strengths-based techniques in daily practice.

Several scholars (Bakker et al., 2021; Bakker & van Woerkom, 2017; Manganelli et al., 2018) propose that an explanation for the motivational benefits of strengths use can be found in self-determination theory (SDT), which posits that human motivation is a function of the fulfilment of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness (Deci et al., 2017). The need for autonomy describes the feeling of being psychologically free, which includes having choice and initiating one's own actions; the need for competence describes feeling able to accomplish future tasks and deal effectively with the environment and the need for relatedness describes the universal propensity to interact with and be connected to other humans. Some cross-sectional studies show that strengths use relates to general levels of needs satisfaction and positive work outcomes such as work engagement (Jin et al., 2022) and thriving (Mahomed & Rothmann, 2019). Correlations between strengths use and SDT have also been found among college (Linley et al., 2010) and primary school (Quinlan et al., 2019) students. However, studies with student samples are not always applicable to inform organizational practice, and it remains unknown whether these findings translate to the workplace. Furthermore, SDT scholars suggest that the three psychological needs may not all have the same relationships with different kinds of outcomes, but may yield distinct motivational benefits (e.g. van den Broeck et al., 2010). For example, the relatedness need involves having a sense of belonging within a group, and may therefore yield stronger associations with helping others than with performing well for oneself. While the use of personal strengths has been related to different performance outcomes (e.g. Lavy & Littman-Ovadia, 2017; van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015), it is not yet known whether this can be explained through the satisfaction of different psychological needs, and scholars call for empirical clarification of the nature of the relationship between strengths use, basic needs satisfaction and job performance (Bakker et al., 2021). In this study, we investigate to what extent the three basic needs are satisfied by strengths use and, in turn, whether fulfilment of these needs uniquely contribute to different performance outcomes throughout a working day.

This study adds to the current literature in at least three important ways. First, we add to recent support (e.g. Bakker et al., 2021) for the proposition that individuals can actively satisfy their basic needs at work using self-determination strategies (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2017). By expanding previous work linking strengths use and needs satisfaction in different contexts (e.g. Linley et al., 2010), we verify the stability and generalizability of those findings, allowing for the accumulation of knowledge on how these constructs relate in organizational contexts. Second, while earlier studies show that both self- and other-directed performance increases when people use their strengths (e.g. van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015), none have investigated whether these relationships rely on different motivational mechanisms. This is an important paucity because deepening our understanding of the unique explanatory powers of the satisfaction of different needs advances our knowledge of the specific antecedents of different types of performance, which can help to design more targeted interventions. Third, a recent diary study shows that no less than 69% of the variance in strengths use occurs at the daily level (ICC = .31; Bakker et al., 2019, p.10), which means that most variation in the use of strengths occurs within individuals—from day to day. By conducting within-person analyses, we investigate whether the path from strength use to performance, through needs satisfaction, can be temporally established throughout the day and how these constructs fluctuate from 1 day to the next. With this approach, we increase the methodological rigour of research into this psychological process, provide valuable insights for interventions aiming to raise an employee's performance in a specific work episode (Bakker, 2015), and shed light on the daily temporal impact of the use of personal strengths at work.

A self-determination perspective on daily strengths use and work performance

Self-determination theory is a macro-theory of human motivation postulating that human beings are proactive organisms with an inherent tendency to shape and optimize their own life conditions in order to develop and grow towards their fullest potential (Deci et al., 2017; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). According to SDT, this growth is only possible when three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness are satisfied (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The fundamental principle behind SDT in a work context is that performance will increase when a need is satisfied at work because employees will feel that their work is meaningful and aligned with their personal strengths (Gagné & Deci, 2005).

Throughout the evolution of research on personal strengths, scholars in different research communities uphold different strengths definitions. The most commonly used categorization of strengths is the values in action inventory (VIA), which defines strengths as positive traits reflected in thought, feeling and action (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In another group, Gallup defines strengths as talents, or a combination of skills, knowledge and abilities (Clifton & Harter, 2003). While these strengths definitions differ and have both been criticized (Moore, van Mierlo, et al., 2021), overall, researchers tend to agree that strengths are innate to a certain degree (Steger et al., 2007), can be influenced by the social environment (Moore, Bakker, et al., 2021) and can be developed when actively identified and used (van Woerkom et al., 2020). While talents may not necessarily be energizing to the user (e.g. a talented cook may not necessarily enjoy cooking), strengths use coincides with experiences of energy and enjoyment (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). In this study, we follow the definition proposed by the Behavioral Index of Occupational Strengths (BIOS; Moore, van Mierlo, et al., 2021), which describes strengths as patterns of thoughts, feelings and actions, that are energizing when used, and can lead to maximal effectiveness when developed.

Importantly, strengths are based on within-person levels of analysis in all classifications, meaning they manifest in episodes of personal excellence rather than in between-person comparisons (Roberts et al., 2005; van Woerkom et al., 2020). When people have episodes in which they use their strengths more at work, they feel more authentic, connect more with others and perceive their work to be more meaningful (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). Therefore, using strengths is a need-satisfying experience (Mahomed & Rothmann, 2019). Whether personal strengths are used at work depends largely on the situation and tasks at hand (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011). For example, a health-care worker dispositioned with a knack for empathy and communication will have less opportunity to use their strengths on days that consist mostly of administrative tasks, such as filling out medical charts. Throughout days like these, the worker might experience less needs satisfaction than on days involving more patient interaction or meetings with colleagues. A recent diary study among naval cadets shows that daily variation in strengths use explains daily positive affect and work engagement (Bakker et al., 2019), which suggests that fluctuating degrees of strengths use have important consequences for daily job performance.

While research on SDT and performance often average basic needs into a single score representing overall needs satisfaction (e.g. Linley et al., 2010), a meta-analysis suggests that basic needs cannot substitute one another and should therefore be considered separately (van den Broeck et al., 2016). Indeed, diary studies show that the satisfaction of each basic need fluctuates independently from other needs on a daily basis (Howell et al., 2011; Reis et al., 2000) and relates differently to performance (de Gieter et al., 2018). Furthermore, Chiniara and Bentein (2016) showed that satisfaction of the need for competence mainly relates to task performance, whereas satisfaction of the need for relatedness relates more to OCB, and satisfaction of the need for autonomy relates to both types of performance. With the current study, we integrate and extend these findings by examining whether daily covariations of morning strengths use and different types of performance in the afternoon are explained by the momentary satisfaction of different psychological needs, measured at noon.

Strengths use and needs satisfaction: links with task accomplishment and goal attainment

Performance can be defined as employee actions and behaviours relevant to the goals of the organization (Campbell, 1990; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). Most SDT and strengths studies focus on task performance (e.g. de Gieter et al., 2018; Harzer & Ruch, 2014), which refers to the quantity and quality with which employees accomplish the core tasks stated in their job descriptions. However, work responsibilities are not always so straight-forward as accomplishing prescribed tasks. A second element of work performance is the degree to which employees achieve self-set goals at work (Koopmans et al., 2011). Task accomplishment and goal attainment reflect two different performance behaviours, both aimed at realizing one's own work responsibilities. Several studies have identified strengths use (Miglianico et al., 2020) and needs satisfaction (Manganelli et al., 2018) as important antecedents of these behaviours.

Diary research indicates that employees perform better on days when they experience more satisfaction of the need for autonomy (de Gieter et al., 2018). When employees feel autonomous, they experience ownership of their work and feel that their work is an expression of the self. This sense of volition and responsibility can be achieved even when the task comes from an outside source (e.g. prescribed by a job description or employer), provided that the task content is perceived as meaningful to the employee (Ryan & Deci, 2006). When employees use their strengths at work, they are acting out of their own interests and values, which allows them to identify more with their work (Dubreuil et al., 2014). When tasks align with personal strengths, they are perceived as more ‘self-concordant’ (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), which induces feelings of following one's own direction and preference (Linley et al., 2010). We expect that a sense of autonomy relates to task accomplishment throughout the day because it is easier to invest effort into work that is perceived as meaningful and aligned with personal goals. In contrast, when employees feel limited in their opportunities to use their strengths during a work episode, they feel less autonomous, reducing the likelihood that they achieve their work-related tasks and goals later that day.

Hypothesis 1.Morning strengths use is related to afternoon (a) task accomplishment and (b) goal attainment through momentary satisfaction of the need for autonomy.

A meta-analysis of almost 5000 studies shows that satisfaction of the need for competence is the most crucial of the three needs in predicting (the quality and quantity of) work performance (Cerasoli et al., 2016). A diary study confirms that on days when the need for competence is satisfied, people perform better than usual (de Gieter et al., 2018). Competence is a combination of challenge and skill. When tasks are challenging and attainable, workers feel capable and effective, and are more willing to invest effort in their work (Cerasoli et al., 2016). Strengths use can satisfy the need for competence by eliciting positive self-feedback and a sense of mastery. Mastery experiences increase the belief in one's ability to meet work demands (van Woerkom, Mostert, et al., 2016; van Woerkom, Oerlemans, et al., 2016), reduce the likelihood of giving up in difficult circumstances and make one more likely to persevere at achieving self-set goals (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018; Bandura, 1977). Moreover, when people use their strengths at work, they are more likely to receive strengths-based feedback from colleagues. According to Cable et al. (2015), this positive input from the environment can activate a best-self-concept: a narrative of the self that focuses on the qualities displayed when one is at one's best (Roberts et al., 2005). This best-self-concept can shape how future tasks are approached by evoking anticipations of success, which increase performance (Cable et al., 2015).

Hypothesis 2.Morning strengths use is related to afternoon (a) task accomplishment and (b) goal attainment through momentary satisfaction of the need for competence.

Note that we do not predict that satisfaction of the need for relatedness explains the link between strengths use on the one hand, and task accomplishment and goal attainment on the other hand. We expect that when the three needs are analysed within the same model, relatedness will play a more significant role in predicting other-directed types of performance, as discussed in the next section.

Strengths use and needs satisfaction: links with OCB and CWB

Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) describes performance that goes beyond one's core tasks but is still relevant to the goals of the organization (Organ, 1988), such as voluntarily helping colleagues (OCB-Individual) or promoting the organization to outsiders (OCB-Organization). Contrarily, counterproductive work behaviour (CWB) describes behaviour that harms the goals of the organization, such as being unfriendly to colleagues or bashing the organization (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). These behaviours are vital to performance because they contribute to organizational effectiveness and innovativeness (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Studies show that strengths use promotes OCB (Belleville et al., 2020; van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015) and prevents CWB (Littman-Ovadia et al., 2017), because using strengths elicits especially high positive emotions.

When employees use their strengths, they perceive their behaviour as self-initiated, which gives them a sense of autonomy (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). Autonomous employees will perceive more opportunity to reach out into other domains of work because of the freedom of choice they experience in their work-related activities (Cerasoli et al., 2016). Contrarily, when employees feel less autonomous, they feel more restricted in their work, which could lead them to feel unable and unwilling to invest extra time and effort into activities that are not required. This feeling of restriction could also lower the threshold for engaging in CWB, as individuals may view their work in more negative light and show negative attitudes (van den Broeck et al., 2014). Moreover, SDT posits that individuals who satisfy their need for autonomy will strive to maintain and strengthen the social context that provided those positive feelings, which will stimulate extra effort for the organization (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Therefore, when employees use their strengths more in the morning, the subsequent satisfaction of the need for autonomy should manifest itself in more pro-organizational and fewer counter-organizational behaviours later that day.

Hypothesis 3.Morning strengths use is (a) positively related to afternoon OCB and (b) negatively related to afternoon CWB through momentary satisfaction of the need for autonomy.

Humans have a natural tendency to want to belong to something larger than themselves (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and to be valued and respected by important others (Cerasoli et al., 2016). Using personal strengths can allow individuals to feel a valued part of the group, while still maintaining their uniqueness, which are important antecedents of OCB (Farmer et al., 2015). When people use their strengths in a social setting, others see those capabilities and respond in a positive manner, which can increase a sense of belonging and thriving (Moore, Bakker, et al., 2021; van Woerkom et al., 2020). Indeed, one experimental study showed that when a classroom participated in a strengths intervention, students' feelings of class cohesion and relatedness increased compared to the control group (Quinlan et al., 2015). When individuals feel more related to others in the organization, they are more likely to invest effort into activities that help the organization, and less likely to take actions that hurt the organization, as those would indirectly hurt themselves.

Hypothesis 4.Morning strengths use is (a) positively related to afternoon OCB and (b) negatively related to afternoon CWB through momentary satisfaction of the need for relatedness.

In this study, we examine the use of strengths in the morning as a predictor of different types of performance in the afternoon, through momentary needs satisfaction measured at noon. Temporal separation of the steps in our model was achieved in two ways. First, we measured strengths use and needs satisfaction at noon and our outcomes in a separate survey at the end of the workday. Second, we followed a suggestion by Podsakoff et al. (2003) and sought to achieve further ‘psychological’ separation between strengths use and needs satisfaction by phrasing the questions of the predictor and mediator to refer to different temporal contexts. Specifically, we instructed participants to report their strengths use throughout the morning, while asking them to report their momentary needs satisfaction, directing their attention to how they felt at the precise moment of completing the survey at noon.

Scholars have stressed that organizational research often lacks careful consideration of the time in which the focal behaviours, experiences or thoughts occur, their duration, and the duration of their effects on the predicted outcomes (Mitchell & James, 2001; Ohly et al., 2010). The temporal features of strengths use are an area of research that is still mostly undiscovered. Some research on proactive behaviour at work shows that positive mood acts as a self-regulatory resource that stimulates subsequent interaction with the environment, leading to more proactive behaviour on the same and the following workday (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009). Because strengths use provides energy and positive mood (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018), we expect the positive experience gained from a period of high strengths use to be detectable later the same day. Though we do not assume that distal (morning) strengths use is more predictive of afternoon performance than proximal (afternoon) strengths use, we expect that the variance in afternoon performance will still be partly explained by morning strengths use—even after controlling for afternoon strengths use—just as positive mood can predict same-day and next-day proactivity (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009). Furthermore, to test whether satisfaction of each basic need uniquely explain how morning strengths use relates to different types of afternoon performance, we run the model with our hypothesized paths and compare it to a model with all possible paths, which allows us to examine whether specific discrepancies exist in these needs satisfaction processes.

METHODS

Procedure

We performed this diary study in the Netherlands by inviting Dutch employees to complete a brief survey twice a day for 5 days (Monday to Friday), prompted on their smartphone through the application Expimetrics (now called ExpiWell). Informed consent for usage of the survey data for research purposes was obtained from all participants. The first notification appeared at 12 PM, alerting participants they had 2 h to complete the lunchtime survey, which measured their strengths use in the morning and basic needs satisfaction in that moment. They received a reminder after 1 h. The second notification was sent at 5 PM, indicating they had 3 h to complete the after-work survey about their afternoon performance, and received another reminder after an hour and a half.

Since many people are unaware of what their work-related strengths are (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011) and often confuse them with task-specific skills and abilities (van Woerkom et al., 2020), we deemed it important to give respondents a sense of the types of their highest-ranking work-related strengths. The day before the diary study commenced, respondents completed a general questionnaire about their demographics and a strength identification exercise using the behavioural index of organizational strengths (BIOS; Moore, van Mierlo, et al., 2021). This exercise asked participants to indicate to what extent each of 22 strength categories was characteristic of them, on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 100 (completely). We focus on within-person fluctuations in this study, and therefore trusted that this strengths identification exercise would not confound the results.

Participants

In total, 317 people voluntarily enrolled through recruitment posts on social media, an online positive psychology magazine, and through the networks of the authors and some of their students. However, 101 participants completed no more than 1 day of daily survey(s), eliminating the possibility to analyse within-person differences. To uncover any differences between the 216 remaining participants and those that could not be included, we performed Chi-square tests for the categorical variables and F-tests for the continuous variables between completion days, of which none were significant. Appendix S1: Table A provides an overview of the demographic and focal variable counts and means per amount of days surveys were completed. Appendix S1: Table B shows that independent sample t-tests also revealed no differences in demographic or focal variables between the group who completed 1 day or less and the group included in the analyses. Of the included 216 participants, 23.1% (N = 50) filled out two full days; 26.9% (N = 58) filled out three full days, 36.6% (N = 79) filled out four full days, and 13.4% (N = 29) participated for five full days, amounting to 1470 data points. Our method of handling the missing observations is described below, in the section ‘Strategy of Analysis’. Furthermore, 11 participants (5%) did not fill out the general questionnaire containing the demographical data and strengths identification, but were still included in the analyses involving only within-person variables. Of the participants who filled out the general questionnaire, 47.7% were female and 47.2% male, and their age ranged from 17 to 65 (M = 31.90, SD = 11.83). Participants worked between 20 and 50 h per week (M = 36.97, SD = 4.64). Most had master's (46.3%, N = 100), bachelor's (31.0%, N = 67) or high school degrees (16.7%, N = 36). Many different job sectors were represented, the most frequent being health care and social services (19.0%, N = 41), other types of service provision (14.4%, N = 31), finance (11.1%, N = 24), IT and data processing (11.1%, N = 24), education (8.3%, N = 18), trade and retail (7.9%, N = 17) and science and technology (6.5%, N = 14).

Daily measures

For all scales, the Dutch questionnaire was either acquired from the original authors or translated by the first author, who is fully bilingual, and back-translated. Response scales ranged from one (completely disagree) to seven (completely agree), unless stated otherwise.

Morning and afternoon strengths use

In the daily questionnaire, participants were asked their degrees of strengths use using a five-item strengths use scale (van Woerkom, Mostert, et al., 2016), with reference to the present morning. They indicated to what extent they agreed with items such as ‘this morning, I used my strengths at work’ and ‘this morning, I organized my work in such a way that it was in line with my strengths’. The daily reliability coefficients ranged from α = .87 to .92. The same questions were asked at the end of each workday referring to degrees of strengths use in the afternoon (‘this afternoon, …’) with daily α's again ranging from .87 to .92.

Momentary needs satisfaction

To measure momentary basic needs satisfaction, we adapted nine items from the work-related basic needs satisfaction scale (van den Broeck et al., 2010), by adding ‘at this moment’ at the beginning of each item. We omitted the reverse-coded items, because research shows that reversed item bias can cause problems with misinterpretations and factor loadings (Weijters et al., 2013). For autonomy, an example item was ‘at this moment, I feel free to do my job the way I think it could best be done’ (daily α = .61 to .75); for competence, ‘at this moment, I have the feeling that I can even accomplish the most difficult tasks at work’ (daily α = .71 to .77); and for relatedness, ‘at this moment, I feel part of a group at work’ (daily α = .72 to .76).

Afternoon task accomplishment and Self-Set goal attainment

Task accomplishment was measured in the afternoon by having participants respond to four items from the in-role performance measure by Williams and Anderson (1991). The four items with the highest factor loadings based on the referenced study were included, such as ‘this afternoon, I adequately completed my assigned duties’ and ‘this afternoon, I met the formal requirements of my job’ (daily α = .80 to .88). To measure goal attainment, we asked participants to describe the most important personal goal they wished to achieve that day. Then, we asked them to indicate to what degree, on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 100 (to a great extent), they were successful in achieving that goal in the afternoon. This method of retrospective questioning was inspired by clinical research (e.g. García-Gil et al., 2016).

Afternoon OCB and CWB

Organizational citizenship behaviour was measured with another facet of the Williams and Anderson (1991) scale, consisting of two components: OCB-I(individual), referring to helping colleagues, and OCB-O(organization), referring to behaviour beneficial to the organization. Sample items include ‘this afternoon, I showed personal interest in my colleagues’ (OCB-I) and ‘this afternoon, I stayed at work longer than is expected of me’ (OCB-O). The total reliability of the scale was moderate (daily α = .69 to .73), yet treating this scale as two separate constructs diminished its reliability (OCB-I: α = .58–.73; OCB-O: α = .51–.70). Because we had no theoretical reason to distinguish between the subscales, we used the complete OCB scale in the analyses. CWB was measured with six items translated from Yang and Diefendorff (2009), such as ‘this afternoon, I was rude to someone at work’ (CWB-I) and ‘this afternoon, I took a longer break than usual’ (CWB-O). The combined CWB measure showed daily reliability coefficients ranging from .73 to .82. For the OCB and CWB scales, participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (to a great extent).

Strategy of analysis

This diary study included five repeated measurements (Level 1; N = 1470 occasions) nested within individuals (Level 2; N = 216 participants). We conducted multilevel structural equation modelling using Mplus version 7 to analyse our data. To test within-person main effects and indirect effects on our four outcomes we estimated a parallel multilevel mediation model that assessed to what extent within-person fluctuations of strengths use in the morning coincide with fluctuations in momentary needs satisfaction and afternoon performance outcomes, including afternoon strengths use as a covariate. Furthermore, we compared the results from this model to one in which all possible paths were indicated. We tested the significance of the indirect relationships between morning strengths use and the performance indicators via autonomy, relatedness and competence, by obtaining the 95% confidence intervals from the simulation distributions, which indicate significant indirect effects when they lie above or below zero. Following Ohly et al.' (2010) method of centring, morning and afternoon strengths use were centred at the respective individual mean (i.e. person-mean centred).

Missing data

In longitudinal studies, it is nearly inevitable that missing data will occur (Ohly et al., 2010). One technique of dealing with missing data that has shown good performance is full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML), which produces unbiased results under the condition that the data are missing (completely) at random. The dropout analyses (see Appendix S1) revealed no indication of systematic dropout, so we used FIML estimation to handle the missing data as implemented in the software package MPlus version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and construct validity

Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics, intraclass coefficients and zero-order correlations among the main study variables. To support the use of multilevel modelling, we examined whether there was sufficient variability at the within levels of analysis by calculating the intraclass correlations with the intercept-only model (Model 1 in Table 2). The results showed that 65% of the variance in morning strengths use, 78% in momentary autonomy satisfaction, 56% in momentary relatedness satisfaction, 78% in momentary competence satisfaction, 60% in daily task accomplishment, 80% in daily goal attainment, 61% in daily OCB and 39% in daily CWB were explained by within-person differences, justifying our within-person approach.

TABLE 1. Means, SDs, intraclass coefficients and intercorrelations among the study variables.
M SD 1-ICC (%) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Morning
1. Strengths use 5.11 .78 65 - .46** .45** .31** .59** .31** .30** .25** −.08
Noon
2. Autonomy 5.42 .76 78 .63** - .41** .34** .34** .19** .21** .13* −.04
3. Competence 5.42 .70 78 .56** .68** - .33** .33** .20** .23** .13* −.06
4. Relatedness 5.33 .86 56 .35** .59** .54** - .21** .13** .15** .14** −.06*
Afternoon
5. Strengths use 5.13 .76 60 .76** .61** .52** .37** - .38** .40** .30** −.12*
6. Task acc. 5.69 .64 60 .44** .49** .52** .26** .56** - .36** .17** −.12**
7. Goal att. 74.95 13.61 80 .29** .40** .38** .23** .32** .41** - .20** −.10*
8. OCB 4.11 .90 61 .23** .16* .15* .35** .28** .07 .10 - .03
9. CWB 2.21 .92 39 −.10 −.12 −.24** −.05 −.14* −.42** −.14* .19** -
  • Note. Person-level data (Level 2; N = 216) below the diagonal and day-level data (Level 1; N = 1470) above the diagonal. Correlations between person-level and day-level variables were calculated using the aggregate of the day-level.1-ICC is the percentage of the variance explained by within-person differences. ** p < .001; * p < .05.
  • Abbreviations: CWB, counterproductive work behaviour; ICC, intraclass correlation; OCB, organizational citizenship behaviour.
TABLE 2. Multilevel parameter estimates for the hypothesized model with performance outcomes.
Models Dependent variables
TASK GOAL OCB CWB
γ 95% CI γ 95% CI γ 95% CI γ 95% CI
Model 1: Null model
Intercept 8.99** 5.52** 4.60** 2.40**
Model 2: Direct effects with control
Intercept 4.59** 1.79** 2.52** 2.43**
X: Strengths use [AM] −.07 [−.16, .01] −.07 [−.15, .02] .02 [−.05, .09] .03 [−.03, .09]
Strengths use [PM] .28** [.19, .37] .28** [.19, .36] .19** [.13, .25] −.10* [−.15, −.04]
Autonomy .20** [.09, .30] .17* [.05, .28] −.07 [−.17, .04] −.06 [−.17, .06]
Competence .21** [.10, .32] .15* [.05, .25] - - - -
Relatedness - - - - .25** [.16, .35] −.02 [−.11, .07]
R2 (within) .22** .16** .10** .01
b 95% CI b 95% CI b 95% CI b 95% CI
Model 3: Indirect effects with control
Intercept 4.70** 1.81** 2.50** 2.43**
X→Autonomy→ .05* [.02, .09] .06* [.01, .10] −.03 [−.07, .02] −.02 [−.06, .02]
X→Competence→ .06* [.02, .10] .06* [.02, .10] - - - -
X→Relatedness→ - - - - .06* [.02, .11] −.01 [−.03, .02]
R2 (within) .19** .14** .11** .01
−2 Log L SCF Δ −2 Log L df
Model fit information
Model 1 −8588.518 1.956 - 16
Model 2 −7377.566 1.469 1210.95** 60
Model 3 −10,920.940 1.50 −2332.42** 84
  • Notes. N = 1470 observations from 216 employees. *p < .05, ** p < .001.
  • Abbreviations: AM, morning; b, unstandardized; CWB, afternoon counterproductive work behaviour; df, degrees of freedom; GOAL, afternoon goal attainment; Log L, loglikelihood; OCB, afternoon organizational citizenship behaviour; PM, afternoon; SCF, scaling correction factor; TASK, afternoon task accomplishment; γ, standardized.

Before performing multilevel path modelling to test the hypotheses, we conducted a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) using all raw item scores to examine the construct validity of the eight within-person measures, namely morning strengths use, the momentary satisfaction of basic needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness) and four afternoon performance outcomes (task accomplishment, goal attainment, OCB and CWB). Because goal attainment was measured by a single item, we fixed its factor loading to its latent factor at one and its error variance at zero. However, the eight-factor model was too complex and would not converge, even after creating several item parcels for some constructs (e.g. OCB-I and OCB-O). Therefore, we followed previous examples (e.g. Fay & Hüttges, 2017) and performed the MCFA separately for the four morning measures (strengths use, autonomy, competence and relatedness) and for the four afternoon measures (task accomplishment, goal attainment, OCB and CWB). As can be seen in Appendix S2, the morning four-factor model fit the data reasonably well (χ2(142) = 430.75, p < .001, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .05) and significantly better than all possible alternative models. The afternoon four-factor model fit the data moderately (χ2(228) = 623.99, p < .001, CFI = .86, RMSEA = .05), but none of the alternative models fit the data significantly better than the four-factor model. There was only one alternative three-factor model, where task accomplishment and goal attainment loaded onto the same factor, which fitted the data equally well as the four-factor model (χ2(232) = 627.24, p < .001, CFI = .86, RMSEA = .05). Therefore, the two four-factor models showed adequate construct validity.

Hypothesis testing

Figure 1 shows the complete hypothesized model and path coefficients of the SEM results. Appendix S3 shows the comparison model in which all possible paths are drawn. As can be seen in Table 2, we compared five different models for testing our hypotheses. Model 1 includes the intercepts as the only predictors. Model 2 includes the predictor morning strengths use and the covariate afternoon strengths use. In Model 3, we added satisfaction of the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness as mediators. As can be seen in the Table in Appendix S4, excluding the control variable afternoon strengths use produced the same pattern of results.

Details are in the caption following the image
Standardized parameter estimates from multilevel SEM with hypothesized paths. Notes. CWB, counterproductive work behaviour; OCB, organizational citizenship behaviour. These estimates result from the hypothesized model including the covariate afternoon strengths use. For the sake of parsimony, the covariate is omitted from the figure (its coefficients are reported in Table 2). Correlations among variables are also omitted and can be seen in Table 1. N = 216 individuals/1470 observations. * p < .05; ** p < .001; ns p > .01.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that the indirect relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon task accomplishment and goal attainment is mediated by momentary satisfaction of the need for autonomy, while controlling for afternoon strengths use. Results of the multilevel structural equation models showed that the positive relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon task accomplishment was mediated by momentary autonomy satisfaction (b = .05, SE = .02, p = .001, 95% CI [.02, .09]). We also found a positive indirect relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon goal attainment through momentary autonomy satisfaction (b = .06, SE = .02, p = .011, 95% CI [.01, .10]). Together, these findings support Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that the indirect relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon task accomplishment and goal attainment is mediated by momentary satisfaction of the need for competence, while controlling for afternoon strengths use. The relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon task accomplishment was mediated by satisfaction of the need for competence (b = .06, SE = .02, p = .002, 95% CI [.02, .10]). Likewise, the relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon goal attainment was mediated by satisfaction of the need for competence (b = 05, SE = .02, p = .008, 95% CI [.01, .09]). Together, these findings support Hypothesis 2.

To test our premise that the role of needs satisfaction depends on the specific need under consideration, we ran a comparative model to examine whether the relationships of morning strengths use with afternoon task accomplishment and goal attainment were also mediated by satisfaction of the need for relatedness over and above afternoon strengths use. We found that relatedness satisfaction did not mediate the path from morning strengths use to afternoon task accomplishment (b = −.01, SE = .01, p = .591, 95% CI [−.02, .01]) or goal attainment (b = −.002, SE = .01, p = .881, 95% CI [−.02, .02]). This finding suggests that when testing these unique parallel paths simultaneously, momentary satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence, but not relatedness, explain the associations of morning strengths use with afternoon task accomplishment and goal attainment.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that the relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon (a) OCB and (b) CWB would be mediated by momentary satisfaction of the need for autonomy. Results showed that the path from morning strengths use to afternoon OCB through momentary autonomy satisfaction was not significant (b = −.03, SE = .02, p = .219, 95% CI [−.07, .02]), providing no support for Hypothesis 3a. Hypothesis 3b was also not supported, as the negative relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon CWB was not mediated by momentary satisfaction of the need for autonomy (b = −.02, SE = .02, p = .318, 95% CI [−.06, .02]).

Hypothesis 4 proposed that the relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon (a) OCB and (b) CWB would be mediated by momentary satisfaction of the need for relatedness. Hypothesis 4a was supported, as momentary relatedness satisfaction mediated the positive relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon OCB (b = .06, SE = .02, p = .003, 95% CI [.02, .11]). However, there was no indirect relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon CWB through momentary relatedness satisfaction, as predicted by Hypothesis 4b (b = −.005, SE = .01, p = .689, 95% CI [−.03, .02]).

Again, to further test the proposed differential roles of the three needs in predicting different performance outcomes, we ran a comparative model including afternoon strengths use as a covariate, to examine whether the relationships we predicted in Hypotheses 3 and 4 were also mediated by satisfaction of the need for competence. We found that competence satisfaction did not mediate the path from morning strengths use to afternoon OCB (b = −.01, SE = .03, p = .669, 95% CI [−.06, .04]). However, unexpectedly, satisfaction of the need for competence did mediate the negative relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon CWB (b = −.09, SE = .03, p = .001, 95% CI [−.14, −.04]). However, with attention for Type-I error rate inflation due to the amount of paths tested in this model, this unexpected finding must be interpreted with caution.

DISCUSSION

Several scholars propose SDT as an explanatory framework in the relationship between strengths use and performance (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2017; Linley et al., 2010; Manganelli et al., 2018). However, little was actually known about how the three basic psychological needs relate to different performance outcomes and how long these effects may last. In this study, we measured parallel processes following episodes of strengths use and found that people can indeed proactively satisfy their three basic needs by using their personal strengths at work. Moreover, we discovered that the motivational mechanisms that enhance different performance outcomes are not the same; the three basic psychological needs satisfied by using strengths have different relationships with various indicators of performance. Furthermore, we investigated how this process unfolds throughout a working day and found that after using personal strengths in the morning, workers experience an immediate increase in psychological needs satisfaction, subsequently boosting their performance in the afternoon. This study is the first to show that episodes of strengths use can cross over to future episodes of work performance, thus revealing new temporal insights into strengths use theory and expanding self-determination research.

Theoretical contributions

The first theoretical contribution of this study is the discovery that employees can proactively satisfy their basic needs by using their personal strengths at work. Much of the SDT research to date has focused on situational elements of the workplace context that support or thwart satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs (Deci et al., 2017). In this study, we focus on the active role of the individual by showing that employees can use their strengths as a self-determination strategy to satisfy their basic needs at work and increase their job performance, thereby providing support for the model proposed by Bakker and van Woerkom (2017). Our findings expand recent research showing that individuals can use other self-determination strategies, such as playful work design, to proactively satisfy their basic needs (Bakker et al., 2021), uncovering strengths use as alternative self-determination strategy. Moreover, we show that the benefits of using personal strengths as a self-determination strategy can cross over from one work episode to the next.

Second, we discovered specific discrepancies in how satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness explain the relationship between strengths use and self-or-other-directed performance. We found that satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence uniquely explain the relationship between strengths use and self-directed performance, whereas satisfaction of the need for relatedness explains how strengths use enhances other-directed performance. While scholars have suggested that different needs may yield distinct motivational benefits (van den Broeck et al., 2010), these differences have never been revealed in relation to the use of strengths and performance. Our findings suggest that when employees use their strengths, multiple mechanisms are activated that motivate performance in different ways. In this study, these parallel processes were analysed simultaneously, implying that all needs may relate to all performance types individually, but when measured collectively, specific discrepancies appear.

Our study also revealed some unexpected findings. While morning strengths use did positively relate to momentary need for autonomy satisfaction, autonomy satisfaction did not mediate the relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon OCB or CWB. This finding goes against what has been found in previous cross-sectional research (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016), which could indicate that this relationship manifests itself differently at different levels of analysis. At a between-person level, it is possible that employees who experience more overall autonomy in their work have more motivation to engage in OCB and less inclination to behave negatively to the environment. Concurrently, at a within-person level, an upwards fluctuation of autonomy satisfaction in a certain part of the day could be paired with a stronger urge to set one's own priorities, and those priorities may not necessarily help coworkers or the organization, and could even work against them. Moreover, the studies showing a positive relationship between autonomy and OCB were focused on leadership styles as the source of the experienced autonomy (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016; Zhang & Chen, 2013). Self-determination theory predicts that an individual whose needs are satisfied due to a certain source will be incentivized to secure and enhance the source of those positive feelings (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When the need for autonomy is satisfied through self-initiated action such as strengths use, one might be more geared towards self-directed performance to protect the source of the experienced autonomy, that is, the self. However, when measuring autonomy on the between-person level, one may be capturing autonomy experienced more generally as being facilitated or granted by the organization as a whole, which explains the relationships to OCB and CWB. Future research should inspect the sources of experienced autonomy more closely and whether they explain these divergent outcomes.

An additional unexpected finding was found when testing a full comparison model with all possible paths: Need for competence satisfaction mediated the negative relationship between morning strengths use and afternoon CWB. Though we did not hypothesize this path, it is possible that when people feel their need for competence is not met, they are more likely to engage in CWB as a reactive behaviour to deal with their discomfort. For example, if someone does not know how they should approach their work that afternoon, they could take an extra-long break to avoid dealing with it. There is some indication in previous research on the between-person level that need for competence frustration positively correlates with CWB (van den Broeck et al., 2014). However, because the absence of needs satisfaction is conceptually different from need frustration (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013), it would be valuable to test in future research whether people who work for organizations that, for example, focus on deficit correction rather than on strengths use, experience more frustration of the need for competence and whether this relates to higher levels of CWB.

Limitations and future research

A first limitation of the current study pertains to the use of self-report measures. Even though we reduced the likelihood of common method variance by separating our predictor and outcome variables in time (Podsakoff et al., 2003), future research could use other-reports or objective measures of performance to provide more unbiased evidence for the examined relationships. In this study, we included employees from many different job sectors, which makes it difficult to find an objective measure of performance that would apply to all the different jobs. In general, task accomplishment, self-set goal attainment, OCB and CWB are difficult to measure objectively from day to day, but even more so with employees from very different sectors, organizations and job types. Nevertheless, certain jobs have employee performance outcomes that can be quantified day by day (such as sales), and future domain-specific research could test part of our model within a single job type using objective outcome measures, which would add empirical rigour to the currently tested propositions.

Second, the predictor and mediator were measured at the same time in the current study. Though we sought to solve this by directing the attention of the participants to the morning for the predictor, and to the current moment (at noon) for the mediators, it would add more empirical rigour to the study to introduce a time lag between the predictor and the mediators, as well as the mediators and the outcomes (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Besides the practical limitations in the current study, we found it difficult to calibrate what the appropriate time lag would be between strengths use and needs satisfaction, such that the relationship is not contaminated by intrusion of other intervening factors. Future research should investigate the appropriate temporal time lag between the predictors and outcomes of needs satisfaction, such that they can be optimally calibrated in future studies.

Third, even though we temporally or psychologically separated our constructs, causal inferences can only be made with experiments, and thus the current mediation effects must still be interpreted with caution. For example, we did not include information on participants' performance in the morning. It could be that the experience of high performance in the morning leads to satisfaction of basic needs, which in turn leads to more strengths use in the afternoon. It would be interesting to include morning measurements of performance into future diary studies to examine whether the relationships between strengths use, needs satisfaction and different types of performance are reciprocal and which direction is the strongest. Furthermore, there was a significant dropout in our study due to the voluntary nature of participation and the burden placed on participants, as is common in diary research (Ohly et al., 2010). Nevertheless, our extensive dropout analyses in Appendix S1 show no differences in demographics or focal variable means between participants on different levels of responsiveness, offering no indication of systematic dropout.

Finally, scholars have suggested that there are other mechanisms at play in the relationship between strengths use and performance, such as positive affect (broaden-and-build theory; Fredrickson, 2001) and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). We posit that these mechanisms are mutually inclusive and future research should look into how they operate simultaneously and affect different performance outcomes. Moreover, we did not include any between-person variables on Level 2. It is possible that the associations between strengths use, needs satisfaction and different types of performance do not manifest themselves equally strong for each individual. For example, personality could be a determining factor. One diary study found that the combination of low neuroticism and high extraversion boosts daily positive outcomes of strengths use (Bakker et al., 2019). Perhaps people who are more extraverted will also gain more social benefits from using their strengths, whereas people who are more conscientious will use their strengths more for self-directed performance. Another diary study found that the degree to which relatedness increases well-being is dependent on need strength (van Hooff & De Pater, 2019). Although SDT acknowledges that individuals may differ in terms of the strength of each need, it is the extent to which needs are satisfied, rather than their strength, that determines performance (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Nevertheless, future diary research could include cross-level moderators such as need strength and personality to examine individual differences in how strengths use, needs satisfaction and different types of performance relate on a daily basis. On a final note, we did not specify between the types of strengths used in this study. Future research could focus on the specific strengths used in each work episode and whether they are associated with different performance outcomes.

Practical implications

Our findings provide organizations with practical insights regarding employee performance. Each afternoon, employee performance is predicted by degrees of strengths use in the morning as well as degrees of strengths use in the afternoon. Organizations should therefore recognize the importance of daily use of personal strengths at work and take appropriate action, for example, by introducing (daily) practices that encourage the identification and application of workers' personal strengths. They could urge employees to use the BIOS (Moore, van Mierlo, et al., 2021) to identify their own work-related strengths and coach them with thinking of ways they can use these strengths more at work. Furthermore, our findings emphasize that different types of performance rely on different cognitive states. It is therefore crucial for organizations that employees have the opportunity to satisfy all three basic needs, because they each go hand in hand with at least one type of performance. Our study shows that encouraging the use of personal strengths plays an important role in satisfaction of basic needs, and therefore contributes to performance in the broad sense of the word. Previous research shows that strengths interventions can increase strengths use at work (for a review, see Ghielen et al., 2017). We therefore recommend that organizations implement strengths-based interventions to ensure that employees are encouraged to use their strengths on a daily basis, thereby satisfying their basic needs and boosting performance in many ways.

CONCLUSION

With this study, we empirically tested the proposition that self-determination theory can explain different performance outcomes of strengths use at work. We focused on five typical workdays of a diverse pool of employees from various job sectors and found that strengths use in the morning predicts different performance outcomes in the afternoon through the satisfaction of three basic needs, measured at noon. Satisfaction of the need for autonomy and competence explain how using strengths helps workers accomplish their tasks and attain their goals. Using strengths also immediately contributes to satisfaction of the need for relatedness, which explains how people are also more likely to perform better in ways that help others after periods of high strengths use. Taken together, these findings show that on a daily basis, employees can satisfy psychological needs by using their strengths, and this has important consequences for their daily performance.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Hannah L. Moore: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; software; supervision; validation; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Arnold B. Bakker: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; methodology; supervision; writing – review and editing. Heleen van Mierlo: Conceptualization; investigation; methodology; supervision; writing – review and editing. Marianne van Woerkom: Conceptualization; investigation; methodology; supervision; writing – review and editing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None declared.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.