Positive organizational scholarship (POS) points us to a positive reality. In this paper, I briefly explain the definition, topics, benefits, and criticisms of POS.
Definitions. Positive Psychology emerged in 1998 during APA’s convention, the theme of which was prevention research contrasted with focus on problem and response research (Seligman, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). A concise definition of positive psychology explains it as the “focus on strengths, solutions, and what makes life worth living” (Donaldson & Ko, 2010, p. 177). As positive psychology research grew, it converged with other fields of study.
Different from positive psychology, though, POS was not created to counterbalance illness-based studies; instead, POS sought to fill holes in organizational research regarding topics of virtues, relationships, and synergy (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012). Jane Dutton, Kim Cameron, and Robert Quinn came together to kickstart POS in 2003 (Cameron, & Spreitzer, 2012). POS “examines positive phenomena within organizations as well as positive organizational contexts themselves” (Quinn, Dutton, & Cameron, 2003, p.5). POS chases the heliotropic effect (Cameron, & Spreitzer, 2012; Cameron, 2015), which is that people are innately drawn to what is life-giving and positive, and positive deviance rather than negative deviance (Cameron, 2015). To summarize, POS goes more in-depth than only financial profit. More so, POS analyzes how to best nurture the hearts and minds of people.
Topics. Topics of POS span a multitude of feelings, abstractions, and actions that are positive. Subjects include “strength, resilience, vitality, trust, organizational virtuousness, positive deviance, extraordinariness, and meaning” (Donaldson & Ko, 2010, p. 179) of organizations, its people, and effects beyond the organization.
Additionally, ideal relationships serve as an epicenter of POS. For example, Stephens, Heaphy, and Dutton (2012) discussed how high-quality connections (HQC) help people flourish together. HQC energize people, create a feeling of being loved, and establish a reciprocal participation and vulnerability (Stephens, Heaphy, & Dutton, 2012, p. 386).
However, POS also deals with self-leadership. To illustrate, Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant (2005) found that individuals have some control over their level of thriving at work. Thriving does not rest solely on the shoulders of leaders. Dutton and Spreitzer (2014) also stated ways an individual can thrive such as job crafting, and they suggested that finding meaning in work is vital to thrive (p. 47).
Benefits. Positivity is its own reward. Nonetheless, the POS approach offers many more benefits. Across many types of organizations, the search for meaning, employee well-being, and personal and group thriving has shown an increase in profit, organizational functionality, and the retention, health, and happiness of the employees (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012; Cameron, 2015; Quinn, Dutton, & Cameron, 2003; Rath, & Harter, 2010; TED, 2018). Even insofar as economic benefits, POS represents an untapped resource waiting to ignite new gains. Hence, using POS strategies is not an either/or proposition. That being the case, leaders should incorporate POS.
Criticisms. POS receives criticism for its bias toward the positive. Yet, Quinn (2015b) addressed this by agreeing that POS is indeed inherently biased, but, he pointed out, all science biasedly leans toward homeostasis. As it turns out, if the goal is equilibrium, science often results in limitations and restrictiveness. Cameron and Spreitzer (2012), too, proudly confessed POS’s bias toward vitality-bestowing elements. Cameron (2015) also defended the science of positive psychology when he articulated the difference between wishful thinking and scientific results.
Another erroneous criticism contends that POS neglects problems that organizations must urgently fix. Quite to the contrary to this argument, POS points out that positivity is essential to addressing negative phenomena (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012; Quinn, 2016). In turn, negative occurrences also lead to positive solutions (Cameron, Mora, Leutscher, & Calarco, 2011).
Conclusion
POS recently emerged to traverse the unknown potential of virtues and positive leadership. As POS forges ahead, I see no downside to research investment nor its influence on organizations once adopted by leaders. You and I should creatively and courageously push to get the upward spiral spinning.
References
Cameron, K. (2015). Taking stock: Strengths and limitations in positive leadership [Video file]. Stephan M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. Retrieved from https://rossmedia.bus.umich.edu/rossmedia/Play/e9cd4cd14a884625abbe2f089ef10e5d1d
Cameron, K., & Spreitzer, G. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship: New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, K., Mora, C., Leutscher, T., & Calarco, M. (2011). Effects of positive practices on organizational effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 47, 266-308.
Donaldson, S.I., & Ko, I. (2010). Positive organizational psychology, behavior, and scholarship: A review of the emerging literature and evidence base. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(3), 177-191.
Dutton, J. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2014). How to be a positive leader. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Quinn, R. E. (2015a). The Positive organization: Breaking free from conventional cultures, constraints, and beliefs. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Quinn, R. E. (2015b, November 20). What is a positive lens? [Video file]. Michigan Ross School of Business. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOdqGwzJNek&feature=emb_logo
Quinn, R. E. (2016). Building a future where all can thrive: Turning an abusive organization positive. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 62, 25-29.
Quinn, R. E., Dutton, J. E., & Cameron, K. S. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (Vol. 1st ed). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.acu.edu:2059/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=nlebk&AN=260674&site=eds-live&scope=site
Rath, T., & Harter, J. (2010). The economics of well-being. New York: Gallup Press. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/services/177050/economics-wellbeing.aspx
Salanova, M., Bakker, A. B., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral of personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(1), 1–22. https://ezproxy.acu.edu:2083/10.1007/s10902-005-8854-8
Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16, 537–549.
Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E., & Dutton, J. E. (2012). High-quality connections. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. (pp. 385–399). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.acu.edu:2059/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=psyh&AN=2011-19765-030&site=eds-live&scope=site
TED. (2018, July 18).Kim Cameron: The university of the heliotropic effect[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=YLTyFMnVZgs&feature=emb_logo
Jordan Tate 