Copyright © 2018 by Positive Psychology Program B.V. All rights reserved.

This ebook or any portion thereof may not be reproduced, relabelled, or used in
any commercial manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the
publisher.

Permission is not required for personal or professional use, such as in a coaching- or

classroom setting.

Positive Psychology Program B.V.

Gandhiplein 16
6229HN MAASTRICHT
The Netherlands

[Link]
Contents
Chapter 1 - A weakness versus Strength Perspective............................................................................. 4
Chapter 2 - Defining Strengths...................................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3 - Strength-based Practice........................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 4 - The tools in this book ................................................................................................................ 28

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 2

 ‘...one cannot build on weakness. To achieve results, one has to use all the available
strengths... These strengths are the true opportunities’ (Drucker, 1967, p.60).

This product was created for everyone who aims to increase well-being by adopting
a positive focus. All the tools in this product were designed to identify and build the
best in people by focusing on their personal strengths. We hope this product will help
you to explore and maximize your own potential and the potential of others.

The Positive Psychology Program Team

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

3
CHAPTER 1

A WEAKNESS
VERSUS
STRENGTH
PERSPECTIVE
 The question “What is wrong with people?” has guided the thinking of many
psychologists and dominated countless scientific studies during the 20th century. It is
hard to deny that it is an important question. In our attempts to answer the question,
we have gained an improved understanding of many illnesses and have developed
effective treatments for a wide range of problems. However, as an inevitable
consequence of asking ourselves about distress and disease, we limited our focus in
the research to pathology. The science focused disproportionately on pathology and
repair, and devoted relatively little attention to factors that make life worth living.

A WEAKNESS FOCUS

Focusing on what is wrong with an individual is what we call a weakness focus. We

place direct attention on negative aspects of an individual. In the context of work
and performance, a weakness focus means that we are primarily concerned with
behavior that is causing suboptimal or low performance. For example, during work
evaluation, the employer is only focused on why an employee is not reaching his sales
targets, or why he is not able to communicate well with customers.

In a clinical context, this means that the focus is on behavioral or cognitive patterns
that cause suffering and reduce well-being. For instance, a psychologist is only
focusing on the problems that the client experiences. Using this perspective, he may
discover that the client thinks negatively about the past and has trouble dealing with
these thoughts. The idea behind the weakness focus may seem intuitive: by fixing
the weakness, we aim to increase well-being. As we will see, this view is far from
complete and suffers from some fundamental misconceptions about well-being.

A WEAKNESS FOCUS IN PSYCHOLOGY: THE DISEASE

MODEL

After World War II, psychology became a science largely devoted to curing illness.
As a consequence, a disproportionate amount of studies in psychology focused
on psychopathology and factors that make life dysfunctional. In contrast, little
research in the years that followed World War II focused on the factors that promote
psychological well-being. For instance, an analysis of the ratio of positive to negative
subjects researched in the psychology publications from the end of the 19th century
to the year 2000 revealed a ratio greater than 2:1 in favor of the negative topics

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

5
 (Linley, 2006). This focus on psychopathology and markers of psychological disease
has been referred to as the disease model of human functioning. The model can be
easily explained by using the picture in fig. 1.

Fig. 1 a focus on repairing weakness

-5 0 +5

In this picture, -5, represents suffering from problems, 0 represents no suffering from
these problems anymore and +5 represents a flourishing, fulfilled life. The disease
model is focused on the -5 to 0 part. Interventions that are grounded in this model
have the goal of helping people to move from -5 to 0.

In a clinical context, this could mean that a therapist aims to reduce symptoms
and to prevent relapse. The end goal (0-point) is achieved when the client is no
longer experiencing diagnosable symptoms of psychopathology as described in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

In the context of performance in the business world, this could mean that
an employee takes part in a training program that aims to increase his sales
competencies. Here, the end goal is achieved when the employee is no longer
performing below the desired standard (i.e., he is meeting the required number
of sales). In other words, the focus is on repairing damage in an effort to eliminate
problems.

“A weakness-focus means a focus on what is wrong rather than what is right.”

WEAKNESSES IN THE CONTEXT OF ENGAGEMENT

Consider a manager who struggles to communicate his ideas to his employees.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 6

 He is having a difficult time finding the right words and often offends people
unintentionally. In this example, “communication” may be labeled as one of the
manager’s weaknesses. In a similar vein, a student who misses deadlines and is
always rushing at the last minute to complete tasks may be identified as having
“procrastination” as a weakness. An appropriate definition of weaknesses in the
performance context is offered by Linley and colleagues (2010):

“Weaknesses are the things at which you both perform poorly and find de-energizing
or draining. When weaknesses are used, they lead to feelings of negativity,
disengagement, and lack of motivation.” (p. 68 Linley et al., 2010)

Consequences of operating from weaknesses in the context of engagement:

„„ Draining
„„ Bad performance
„„ Low levels of motivation
„„ Resistance
„„ Negative emotions

Examples of negative emotions that typically follow from using weaknesses:

„„ Boredom
„„ Frustration
„„ Guilt
„„ Stress

WEAKNESSES IN THE CONTEXT OF RESILIENCE

Notice that weaknesses, as we have discussed, are not necessarily clinical deficits.
In the context of hardship, the nature of the weakness is often more severe. For
instance, a client may cope with excessive negative thinking or experience high levels
of anxiety. In this context, weakness consists of patterns of behaving and thinking
that are seriously affecting well-being. Examples include negative thinking about the
past, suppressing difficult emotions, acting aggressively in the eye of frustration, etc.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

7
 Consequences of operating from weaknesses in the context of resilience:

„„ Causes severe impairment of human functioning

„„ Causes serious disturbance of inner balance
„„ Results in strong negative emotions

Examples of negative emotions that typically follow from this kind of weakness:

„„ Fear
„„ Anxiety
„„ Anger

In general, the negative emotions that follow from self-destructive thinking and
behaviour are more severe and intense compared to the emotions that follow from
ineffective performance. Notice that, although the nature of the self-destructive
weakness may be different compared to the more performance-related types of
weakness, the essence remains the same: A weakness prevents us from flourishing. It
prevents us from living a life that is in line with our values and desires.

MISCONCEPTIONS RESULTING FROM THE DISEASE

MODEL

Although the disease model has been the dominant view for many researchers
and practitioners, there are some important misconceptions that have often been
neglected or overlooked. The awareness of these misconceptions has contributed
to the development of positive psychology as we know it today. In this section, we
discuss some essential misconceptions that are based on the focus of the disease
model.

Underlying the weakness focus of the disease model is the belief that fixing what
is wrong will automatically establish well-being. However, as counterintuitive as
it may sound, happiness and unhappiness are not on the same continuum. Positive
affect is not the opposite of negative affect (Cacioppo & Berntson 1999). Getting
rid of anger, fear, and depression will not automatically cause peace, love, and joy.
In a similar way, strategies to reduce fear, anger, or depression are not identical to

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 8

 strategies to maximize peace, joy, or meaning. Indeed, many scholars have argued
that health is not merely the absence of illness or something negative, but instead is
the presence of something positive. This view is illustrated in the definition of mental
health by the World Health Organization (2005): “a state of well being in which the
individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life,
can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her
community” (p. 18).

In support of this view, a growing body of research shows that the absence of
mental illness does not imply the presence of mental health. In a similar vein, the
absence of mental health does not imply the presence of mental illness. In a study
by Keyes (2005), the emotional, psychological, and social well-being of more than
3,000 Americans between the ages of 25 and 75 was measured. In addition, using a
diagnostic interview, the presence of the following four psychological disorders was
assessed: mood disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and alcohol
dependence. Several models for explaining the relationship between the measures
of well-being and psychopathology were tested. The so-called “two continua
model” appeared to be best in explaining the findings. In this model, well-being and
psychopathology are two different, but related constructs. Although a higher score
on subjective well-being correlates with less psychological complaints and vice versa,
this relationship is far from perfect. In other words, there are people who suffer from
a disorder, but still experience a relatively high level of subjective well-being, and
there are people who report low levels of subjective well-being but experience little
psychopathological symptoms. This model has been replicated in other studies using
different measures and populations, for instance, in American adolescents between
12 and 18 years (Keyes, 2006), South African adults (Keyes et al., 2008), and Dutch
adults (Lamers et al., 2011).

EFFECTIVE COPING IS REFLECTED BY A REDUCTION IN

NEGATIVE STATES

Typically, psychological interventions aim at reducing aversive states, like negative

emotions or stress. This aim is in line with the disease model and is based on the
assumption that a reduction in aversive states reflects both effective coping and
more well-being (or fewer problems). Interestingly, previous findings have repeatedly
shown that effective coping does not necessarily mean a reduction in aversive states,
like stress or negative emotions. An elegant illustration of this principle is found in
the literature on dieting. For instance, research has revealed that it is not the absence
of stress that is related to successful weight maintenance, but rather the ability to

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

9
 effectively deal with stress (see for instance Gormally, Rardin & Black, 1980). Similar
findings have been obtained in the domain of work. Many studies have addressed the
negative consequences of stress at work (see, for instance, Fletcher & Payne, 1980).
Interestingly, research has also shown that it is not the experience of stress that is
responsible for its acclaimed negative effect on health, but the way employees deal
with perceived stress. For some individuals, stress can lead to positive consequences.
In this case, stress is referred to as eustress. It is defined as a positive response to
a stressor, as indicated by the presence of positive psychological states (Nelson &
Simmons, 2004).

Research on eustress shows that when a stressor is being evaluated as positive

in terms of its potential implications for well-being, a different psychological and
physiological response follows than that of a negative assessment. In this case, stress
can result in an improvement of well-being rather than a decline (Nelson & Simmons,
2006). Past studies have indicated support for a direct link between eustress and
health (cf. Edwards & Cooper, 1988; Simmons & Nelson, 2007). These findings
suggest that the way people deal with and perceive difficult experiences (like stress
in the examples above), rather than their occurrence, is a valuable indication of
successful coping.

Further support for the idea that it is not merely a reduction in negative states
that reflects effective coping comes from the literature on post-traumatic growth.
Post-traumatic growth is the development of a positive outlook following trauma
(Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996, 2004). Positive changes may include a different way of
relating to others, awareness of personal strength, spiritual changes, and increased
appreciation for life (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Post-traumatic growth can be
perceived as an effective way of coping with adversity. It can emerge following
a diversity of traumatic events, including war and terror (Helgeson, Reynolds, &
Tomich, 2006). Growth following adversity, however, is not the absence of post-
traumatic stress reactions, but the presence of positive states.

In sum, the above-described findings suggest that it is important to focus on building

people’s strengths so that they can cope with difficult experiences, rather than solely
focusing on reducing negative experiences. Rather than only trying to eliminate
negative experiences (moving from -5 to 0), it seems important to also employ coping
skills that promote well-being, despite the negative experiences (moving towards
+5). In support of this notion, past research has found that irrespective of the level of
stress, personal resources are associated with psychological well-being (Cohen et al.,
1982; Holahan & Moos, 1986; Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982; Nelson & Cohen, 1983).

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 10

 CORRECTING WEAKNESS CREATES OPTIMAL PERFOR-
MANCE

According to Clifton and Nelson (1996), the behaviour and mindset of many
teachers, employers, parents, and leaders are guided by the implicit belief that
optimal performance results from fixing weaknesses. Indeed, in order to promote
professional development, employees are typically exposed to training programs
that focus on correcting their weakness. In a similar vein, evaluation interviews
often focus on areas that need improvement and aspects of work that employees are
typically struggling with. A similar pattern can be found at many schools. Typically,
the number of mistakes/errors are highlighted when work is corrected and when
report cards are brought home, the lower grades often attract more attention.
According to Clifton and Nelson (1996), fixing or correcting weakness will not result
in an optimally functioning person or organization. In their view, fixing weakness will
at best help the individual or organization to become normal or average. It seems
hard to deny that they have a point here. When I consider one of my own weakness,
statistics, I must agree that all the training programs that I participated in made me
at best average. Over the years, I have developed sufficient skills to deal with most
statistical tasks, but when I compare myself to some of my mathematically gifted
colleagues, I am not even close, despite all of my hours of training. Research findings
show that the opportunity to do what one does best each day, that is, using strengths,
is a core predictor of workplace engagement (Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2002), which,
in turn, has been repeatedly shown to be an important predictor of performance
(see, for instance, Bakker & Matthijs, 2010; Salanova et al, 2005). These findings
indirectly support Clifton and Nelson’s claim that boosting a strength’s use, rather
than improving weaknesses, will contribute to optimal performance.

WEAKNESSES DESERVE MORE ATTENTION BECAUSE

STRENGTHS WILL TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES

Another misconception that contributes to an excessive focus on weakness

involves the belief that strengths do not need much attention because they will
take care of themselves and develop naturally. Just like skills, strengths can be
trained and developed deliberately (Borghans, Duckworth, Heckman, & Ter Weel,
2008; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). For instance, research has shown that, through

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

11
 practice, people can learn to be more curious, more grateful, or optimistic (Emmons,
& McCullough,2003; Sheldon, & Lyubomirsky, 2006; Meevissen, Peters, & Alberts,
2011; Smeets, Neff, Alberts & Peters, 2014). In general, these studies show that
over time, practice and effort can help to build new habits that boost strength use.
Boosting strengths means that not only the frequency of use is increased, but also
the number of different situations in which the strength is applied. When strengths
are not used or trained, their potential impact on well-being remains limited. When
a child who is very creative is denied or has very little exposure to activities that call
upon this strength, the child is unlikely to develop skills, knowledge, and experience
that will maximize its creative potential. Although many strengths are already
present at a very young age, they still need to be nourished in order for them to
realize their full potential: they do not take care of themselves.

A DEFICIT FOCUS CAN HELP TO PREVENT PROBLEMS

If we keep focusing on repairing weakness, we will increase our understanding

of weaknesses. First, this means that we will increase our understanding of all
the negative characteristics that accompany and predict problems and disorders.
For instance, from past research we know that depression is characterized by an
attentional bias towards negative information (Mogg, Bradley & Williams, 1995) and
that factors like low self-esteem and low self-efficacy are negatively related to job
performance (Judge & Bono, 2001). Second, a focus on repairing weakness will bring
forward different ways to decrease the gap between -5 and 0. Indeed, during the past
40 years, many interventions have been developed that aimed to cure mental illness
or other problems. These interventions are primarily aimed at fixing things when
they have already gone wrong.

Obviously, it is important to have different interventions and treatment programs

to deal with problems and setbacks. However, what we have learned over 50 years
is that the disease model does not move us closer to the prevention of problems.
When it comes to prevention, the question is not “How can we treat people with
problem X effectively?”, but the question is: “How can problem X be prevented from
occurring?” Working exclusively on personal weakness and disorders has rendered
science poorly equipped to design effective prevention programs. During the past
50 years, the disease model did not help us to move closer to the prevention of
serious problems like, for instance, burnout, depression, or substance abuse. Major
advances in prevention are largely the result of a perspective systematically building
competency, not correcting weakness (see, for instance, Greenberg, Domitrovich, &
Bumbarger, 1999, for a review of effective prevention programs for youths).
In order to design effective prevention programs, we must also focus on the +5 part:

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 12

 How come some people flourish despite difficult circumstances? How come some
employees do not suffer from burnout symptoms? How come some employees
show a high level of work engagement? What are the characteristics of resilient
and flourishing individuals, and what can we learn from them? How can we use this
knowledge to design interventions that help people to become more resilient so that
they are capable of bouncing back when the going gets tough?

THE POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY PERSPECTIVE

In 1998, Martin Seligman strongly encouraged the field of psychology to widen its
scope and move beyond human problems and pathology. According to Seligman
(2002), the goal of positive psychology is to move people not from -3 to 0 but from
+2 to +5 (see fig. 2). In order to do so, a different focus is needed. Rather than merely
focusing on what is wrong with people and fixing their problems, the focus should
also be on what is right with people and boosting their [Link] questions that
positive psychology aims to answer are: What are the characteristics of the people
that experience high levels of happiness? What are the qualities of the people that
surmount their troubles so effectively? Or, in other words, what strengths do these
people possess? Obviously, these questions do not fit the disease model. These
questions force us to consider the bigger question of “What is right with people?”
If we learn what differentiates happy and resilient people from unhappy and non-
resilient people, then we can use this knowledge to increase happiness and boost the
resilience of others.

“A strength-focus means a focus on what is right rather than what is wrong.

It is a focus on human strengths that promotes human flourishing and acts as
a buffer in difficult times.”

Therefore, an important mission of positive psychology research is to investigate

human behaviour using a strength approach. This focus on human flourishing and
markers of psychological well-being has been referred to as the health model of
human functioning (see table 1).

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

13
 Fig 2. A focus on building strengths

-5 0 +5

Table 1. Key aspects of the Disease versus Health Model

Disease Model Health Model

Focus on weaknesses Focus on strengths

Overcoming deficiencies Building competencies

Running from unhappiness Pursuing happiness

Neutral state (0) as ceiling No ceiling

CRITICAL NOTES

At first glance, the previously discussed misconceptions about a deficit focus may
give rise to the idea that one should predominantly focus on human strengths,
rather than weaknesses. While it may be true that correcting weakness will
not create optimal performance or well-being, it is also true that only focusing
on human strengths while ignoring weaknesses will not automatically lead to
optimal performance or well-being. Especially when weaknesses cause problems
or hinder optimal strength use, they need to be addressed and managed. While
many traditional psychologists may falsely believe that taking away negatives will
automatically create positives, positive psychologists must avoid the trap of believing

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 14

 that creating positives will automatically take away the negatives. As discussed
above, the positive and negative are on two separate continua. Attention must be
paid to processes for building the positive and to processes for coping with the
negative. For this reason, positive psychology can best be considered as an addition
to existing psychology, not a replacement. It can best be considered as an enrichment
of the field, rather than a rejection of it, or to use Seligman’s words: “Positive
psychology is not just happyology” and “is not meant to replace psychology as usual”
(Seligman, 2001).

Although a great amount of research has addressed aspects of human functioning

that are linked with lower levels of well-being, it is incorrect to categorise
psychological research in terms of positive and negative. These are evaluative
terms and raise the false impression that research can be categorised as “good” and
“bad.” First, psychological research aims to shed more light on human functioning
in general; it is not devoted to positive or negative human conditions. Moreover,
increasing insight into aspects that hinder well-being is equally as valuable as insights
that promote well-being. Therefore, categorising studies on human dysfunction as
“negative psychology” should be avoided.

When examining psychological research of the past 40 years in the domains of

psychopathology and clinical psychology, one can conclude that this research
has mainly adopted a “negative” side of human functioning. However, the field of
psychology reaches far beyond the subdomains of psychopathology and clinical
psychology. Examples of other fields include health psychology, social psychology,
developmental psychology, and organizational psychology. Many studies in these
other domains have been focusing on well-being for years. These studies have
addressed “positive” topics like job satisfaction, safe sex practices, and high self-
esteem. Thus, claiming that psychology has predominantly focused on the negative
side of human functioning is simply not true.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

15
chapter 2

Defining
Strengths
 The research on human strengths that has been conducted in the past 30 years can
generally be divided into two categories. The first line of research has addressed
human strengths from a perspective that is focused on optimal performance and
positive experiences. Here, we will refer to this focus as “strengths in the context of
performance.” The second line of research has predominantly focused on strengths in
the context of hardship and problems. We will refer to this focus as “strengths in the
context of hardship.” Note that this distinction is far from perfect and, in some cases,
strengths may apply to both contexts. However, for the sake of clarity, we distinguish
here between both contexts.

STRENGTHS IN THE CONTEXT OF ENGAGEMENT

A commonly used definition of strengths in the field of positive psychology is offered

by Alex Linley (2008). According to Linley, “... a strength is a pre-existing capacity for a
particular way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is authentic and energizing to the
user, and enables optimal functioning, development and performance” (Linley, 2008,
p. 9). Studies using this definition have mostly addressed the effects of strength in
the context of work and performance. Simply put, using strengths allows people to
do what they do best and feel at their best. The following key ingredients apply to the
definition of strengths in the context of engagement:

Pre-existence
A strength is pre-existing, which means that it is already present within us. As Alex
Linley states: it is not something which is “added in” to us from the outside. This is the
reason why many strengths are often visible at an early age. Many of the
strengths that we as adults display or use, like, for instance, creativity, are also
reflected by the preferred activities in our childhood. Pre-existing means it is already
there, but it does not mean that every person has used or developed his or her
strengths equally. While some people use their strengths on a daily basis. For others,
their strengths remain relatively unused.

Authenticity
A strength is authentic. When people use their strengths they feel like their true
selves. In other words, using a strength feels natural. Some people say: “I feel this is
something I was born to do.”

Energy
Using a strength is energising. Perhaps this is one of the most important
characteristics of a strength. While our weaknesses often drain us, strengths provide

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

17
 us with energy. Activities that rely on your strengths are enjoyable and feel as if your
energy levels are being raised.

Optimal Functioning
Using a strength promotes optimal functioning, development, and performance.
When people use their strengths, they enjoy what they are doing. The focus is on
the process, rather than on the outcome of the activity. As a result of this intrinsic
motivation, in many cases a high level of performance is achieved.

So, there is an internal drive to use strengths, rather than the outside world
requiring or pushing the individual to use strengths. Because of this internal drive,
development of strengths is often a natural and self-guided process.

Table 1.

Thoughts during strength use: Feelings during strength use:

“I can’t wait to start!” Powerful

“This is fun!” Passionate

“I could do this forever.” Motivated

“This is my calling.” Enthusiastic

“This is perfect for me.” Natural

“Just try and stop me.” Authentic

Confident

STRENGTHS IN THE CONTEXT OF HARDSHIP

Difficult times are part of life. Failing an exam, losing a loved one, physical illness; the
question is not if these events will happen, but rather when they will happen. While
it is hard, if not impossible, to circumvent difficult events from happening, one can
choose how to deal with these hardships and with the emotions that are present.
Research has identified characteristics that allow humans to effectively cope with
difficult times.

Examples of these characteristics include optimism (positive expectations of

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 18

 the future), gratitude (being able to see the positive despite the negative), and
mindfulness. When people possess characteristics that help them to cope in times of
adversity, it is also referred to as strength. In a context of difficulty, a strength can be
defined as:

“the capacity to cope with difficulties, to maintain functioning in the face of stress, to
bounce back in the face of significant trauma, to use external challenges as a stimulus
for growth, and to use social supports as a source of resilience” (p. 203, McQuaide &
Ehrenreich, 1997).

Thus, when considering strengths in the context of hardship, the emphasis is on their
power to increase resilience and cope with difficulties, rather than on the positive
emotions, energy, and high performance that may result from using them.

WHAT STRENGTHS ARE NOT

When working with strengths, it is important to distinguish between the concept of a

strength and other related concepts like talents, skills, values and interests.
Admittedly, the distinction is both vague and debatable. Nonetheless, it is important
to distinguish strengths like creativity and gratitude, from talents and abilities like
perfect pitch and verbal IQ.

First, talents and abilities on the face of it seem more innate, more immutable,
and less voluntary than strengths. Second, talents and abilities seem valued more
for their tangible consequences (acclaim, wealth) than in their own right. Indeed,
someone who “does nothing” with a talent like a high IQ courts eventual disdain.
In contrast, we never hear the criticism that a person did nothing with his or her
kindness or authenticity.

„„ Talents are strengths that are innate abilities, which typically have a strong
biological loading, and may or may not be well-developed (e.g., intelligence,
musical ability, athletic ability).
„„ Skills are strengths that are specific proficiencies developed through training
(e.g., learning a particular trade, computing skills, researching skills)
„„ Interests are areas or topics an individual is passionate about and driven to
pursue, such as playing sports, engaging in particular hobbies, and working with
arts or crafts.
„„ Values are enduring beliefs, principles, or ideals that are of prime importance to
the individual.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

19
 INTERPERSONAL DIFFERENCES

Strengths are a set of individual differences. People vary in the degree to which
they possess certain strengths and people have different combinations of strengths.
Even if two people possess the same set of strengths, they are very likely to display
the strengths in different ways. For example, the strength of “creativity” can be
expressed beyond the traditional and stereotypical manifestations, like painting
or writing music. Some people are very creative in finding solutions for complex
commercial problems, while others may be creative in formulating novel and
interesting research ideas, etc. When spotting strengths, it is important to have an
open mindset and remember that strengths can be expressed in many different ways.

The fact that strengths illustrate interpersonal differences is also visible in human
behaviour. Strengths guide our thoughts, feelings, and actions. For instance, a person
with the strength of forgiveness is likely to think, feel, and behave differently when
offended by another person than a hateful person who seeks revenge. Likewise, a
person with a high level of self-regulation will probably be better able to cope with
temptation than a person who is highly impulsive.

OPTIMAL STRENGTH USE

While underusing strengths may have a negative impact on well-being, so may

overusing strengths. For example, overusing curiosity can result in nosiness, and
overusing bravery may be considered foolhardy. Possible reasons for strength
overuse include: perfectionism, a “more is better mindset,” and a fear of displaying
a certain character trait (e.g. the fear of self-promotion can cause excessive self-
restraint).

Optimal strength use is heavily influenced by the specific demands of a situation

and the needs of the individual at a given moment in time. Perhaps the best way to
approach strength-use is by comparing it to a volume control, rather than an on-
off switch. Some situations demand that the individual use a particular strength
more, while other situations require that the same strength is used very little or
not even at all. A small child, being very proud of his or her new drawing and asking
for your opinion may require you to “turn down the volume knob” of your strength
“honesty” and instead choose to leverage your strength “empathy.” A good way for
clients to learn about which of their strengths may be overused is, quite simply, by
asking others. Practitioner can increase awareness of potential overuse of strengths

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 20

 by posing self-reflective questions like: “Which of your strengths might you be
overplaying, and in which situations?”, “If you were overplaying one of your strengths,
what would that look like?”, and “Does this happen? If so, what can you do to regulate
this strength?”.

In addition to overuse or underuse of strengths, strengths can also be misused.

When misused, strengths either cause direct harm to other people or to the self. An
individual who uses his or her strength of “creativity” to generate malevolent emails
that require receivers to enter their bank account information can be regarded
as a complete misuse of his or her creativity. People who use their strength of
“persistence” to continue doing a job they hate are misusing their strength because it
directly impacts their well-being in a negative way.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

21
chapter 3

Strengths-based
Practice
 According to Saleebey (2010), Strength-Based Practice (SBP) means that “everything
you do as a helper will be based on facilitating the discovery and embellishment,
exploration, and use of clients’ strengths and resources in the service of helping them
achieve their goals and realize their dreams (p. 1).” Strength-based practice is based
on the view that the identification and utilization of a client’s strengths will allow
them to regain power over their lives (Greene, Lee, & Hoffpauir, 2005). SBP means
that attention is devoted to what is already working, positive exceptions to problems,
and coping strategies that the client is already using (Saleebey, 2006). This type of
attention allows clients to become aware of their own power and autonomy. In turn,
this realization can positively affect the investment of clients and their willingness to
take action.

It is important to note that SBP does not ignore weaknesses or problems.

Practitioners using SBP acknowledge the importance of addressing weaknesses
by seeking to understand and manage areas of deficiency (Clifton & Harter, 2003;
Shushok & Hulme, 2006).

Key aspects of SBP:

1. Strengths-based practice is goal-oriented.

2. Strengths-based practice contains a systematic means of assessing strengths.
3. Strengths-based practice sees the environment as rich in resources.
4. The strengths-based relationship is hope-inducing.
5. In strengths-based practice the provision of meaningful choices is central, and
individuals have the authority to choose.
6. Strengths-based practice assumes that we best serve clients by collaborating
with them.
7. Strengths-based practice assumes trauma and abuse, illness and struggle, may be
injurious but they may also be sources of challenge and opportunity.
8. Strengths-based practice assumes that the practitioner does not know the upper
limits of individuals’ capacity to grow and change.

THE BENEFITS OF STRENGTH-BASED PRACTICE

Including a strength perspective in interventions is thought to prevent problems,

promote human growth, and maximise human potential (Gelso & Fretz, 2001; Gelso
& Woodhouse, 2003). Moreover, both strength spotting and strength building
have been recognized by researchers as ways to promote client cooperation and
acceptance of the intervention (Conoley, Padula, Payton, & Daniels, 1994; Scheel,

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

23
 Seaman, Roach, Mullin, & Blackwell-Mahoney, 1999).

Practitioners who apply strength-based practice have described strength work as

having many advantages. A strength-perspective builds trust in the relationship
with the client. Moreover, it motivates clients, instils hope, and demonstrates the
practitioner’s hope for and belief in the client. Practitioners have also indicated that
incorporating strengths in interventions broadens the perspective of clients about
themselves, about the problems they wish to address, and how change could take
place (Scheel, Davis & Henderson, 2012).

Research has consistently demonstrated that using one’s strengths is associated

with higher levels of well-being. For instance, in a longitudinal study by Wood and
colleagues (2011), strengths use was found to be an important predictor of well-
being and led to less stress and increased positive affect, vitality, and self-esteem at
both the 3-month and 6-month follow-up. Moreover, using one’s strengths in a new
and unique way has been found to increase happiness and decrease depression for
6 months (Seligman, Steen, Park, Peterson, 2005; Gander, Proyer, Ruch, & Wyss,
2012). Other studies have revealed positive associations between strength use and
job satisfaction (Littman-Ovadia & Davidovitch, 2010), work engagement (Minhas,
2010), and psychological vitality (Govindji & Linley, 2007).

DIFFERENT STRENGTH APPROACHES

Over the years, different strength approaches have been developed. The most well-
known and most commonly used approaches include the Values in Action Survey, The
R2 Strengths Profiler, and the Clifton StrengthFinder 2.0. Each of these approaches
attempts to measure a fixed set of strengths. It is important to note that, although
there is some overlap in terms of strengths, a great amount of strengths are unique
for each assessment. For instance, while the strength “humour” is included in both
the Values in Action Survey and The R2 Strengths Profiler, the strength “narrator” is
only part of the latter approach.

When spotting strengths, it is important to remember that the above-mentioned

approaches only address a very limited set of human strengths. In reality, it seems
likely that there are many more strengths that are currently not listed by any of
the aforementioned approaches. Probably, the majority have yet to be explicitly
identified, defined, or named. So, the strengths offered by the three different
approaches can best be considered as a good starting point, rather than a complete
set of available human strengths. In addition, some strengths are more relevant in

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 24

 a performance or work context, whereas other strengths are more valuable in a
context of resilience and hardship. Table 1. provides a comparison between the three
different strength approaches.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

25
 Table 1. a comparison between the major three different strength approaches

Strength Finder VIA survey R2 Strengths

Profiler
Orientation 34 talent themes 24 universal paths 60 different
to virtues strengths
Domain(s) Work Home, work, Work, coaching
school, social
Key Question What’s best about What is best about When do you
what you do at who you are? perform at your
work? best? What gives
you energy?
Strengths Talents & skills Core Character Core Character &
Identified Competencies

Strengths focus Top 5 only Signature Realised and

strengths, but all unrealised
24 matter strengths, learned
behaviours and
weaknesses
The scrutiny of Not peer-reviewed Peer-reviewed Peer-reviewed
science

Costs Yes No Yes

Country USA USA UK

Broad focus/work work broad broad

focus

Includes Yes (in full report Yes (bottom Yes

weaknesses version) strengths)

Can provide team No Yes (pro version) Yes

report?

How are strengths Strategic Thinking Wisdom & Thinking

categorised? Influencing Knowledge Being
Relationship- Courage Relating
Building Executing Humanity Communicating
Justice Motivating

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 26

 ENVIRONMENTAL STRENGTHS

Typically, strengths are considered from an individual perspective. However,

strengths can also be considered from a social perspective. To use McCashen’s
words: “Resources in people’s environment such as family, friends, neighbours,
colleagues, and so on, are also considered strengths” (McCashen, 2005, pp. 7–8).
Consequently, identifying the strengths of a client not only requires a perspective
that focuses on the individual qualities of the client, but also focuses on the qualities
of the client’s social network (Saleebey, 2011). Utilizing a strengths perspective
in practice therefore also includes assessing these environmental strengths: the
people and their strengths that help the client realize goals and aspirations, offer
support in difficult times, and contribute to the fulfilment of basic needs (autonomy,
relatedness, and competence).

An abundance of research has revealed that a supportive social network is essential

for maintaining physical and psychological health. For example, perceptions of
availability of social support have been associated with better outcomes during
times of stress (e.g., Wethington and Kessler, 1986). Moreover, the quality of
social relationships has been identified as one of the most consistent predictors of
subjective well-being (e.g., Diener & Seligman, 2002). Individuals who have satisfying
relationships report feeling happy more frequently and sad less frequently, and they
report being more satisfied with their lives than those who do not have satisfying
relationships.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

27
chapter 4

The Tools in this

Book
 APPLICATIONS OF THE STRENGTH TOOLS

The tools presented in this book were designed to be used in a wide variety of
contexts, including:

„„ Coaching
„„ Clinical Practice
„„ Leadership and talent development
„„ Team building
„„ Organizational development
„„ Performance management
„„ Talent selection
„„ Recruitment
„„ Executive and workplace coaching
„„ Career planning
„„ Student and teacher development
„„ Resilience and well-being development

Note that you are advised to use the tools within the boundaries of your professional
expertise. For instance, if you are a certified clinician, you are allowed to use the tools
within your field of expertise (clinical psychology). Likewise, a school teacher may
use the tools in the classroom, but is not allowed (or not advised) to use the tools for
clinical populations. Positive Psychology Program is not responsible for unauthorized
usage of the tools.

It is further important to note that the tools presented in this product are not, in
themselves, a coaching curriculum that one imposes on a client or group. They are
a set of tools and procedures that are designed to accomplish coaching goals. They
are intended to be used selectively—for a particular client or group, for a particular
issue, for a particular purpose, whether that purpose is to clarify strengths or use it
to increase strengths use.

LEGAL NOTES

Please refer to the seperate white label rights document included with your
Strength-Based Coaching package.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

29
 UNDERSTANDING THE LEGEND OF THE TOOLS

All of the tools are written in a uniform format. Below the title of each tool, a legend
is displayed. Here, we explain what every symbol of the legend means.

The first icon shows the type of tool. The following options are available:

„„ Exercise (a tool that describes an activity that is done once, during a session)
„„ Overview (a tool that provides an overview or list of something; research
findings, facts, etc.)
„„ Advice (a tool that is directed at the helping professional providing advice on
how to carry out a certain activity)
„„ Intervention (a tool that describes an activity that needs to be done two or more
times during a certain period)

The second icon provides an estimation of the time it takes to complete the tool. For
some tools, it is difficult to provide an estimation. In these cases, n/a (not available) is
written. The third icon describes for whom the tool was designed.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 30

 REFERENCES

Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A
study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
83, 189-206.

Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Ter Weel, B. (2008). The economics
and psychology of personality traits. Journal of human Resources, 43, 972-1059.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system architecture and
operating characteristics. Current directions in psychological science, 8, 133-137.

Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Investing in strengths. Positive organizational

scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline, 111-121.

Clifton, D. O., & Nelson, P. (1996). Soar with your strengths. New York: Dell
Publishing.

Conoley, C. W., Padula, M. A., Payton, D. S., & Daniels, J. A. (1994). Predictors of client
implementation of counselor recommendations: Match with problem, difficulty level,
and building on client strengths. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 3.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 3,
81–84.

Drucker, P.F. (1967). The effective executive. London: Heinemann.

Edwards, J. R., & Cooper, C. L. (1988). Research in stress, coping, and health:
Theoretical and methodological issues. Psychological medicine, 18, 15-20.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: an

experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-389.

Fletcher, B., & Payne, R. L. (1980). Stress and work: A review and theoretical
framework, I. Personnel Review, 9, 19-29.

Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Wyss, T. (2012). The good character at work: An
initial study on the contribution of character strengths in identifying healthy and
unhealthy work-related behavior and experience patterns. International archives of
occupational and environmental health, 85, 895-904.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

31
 Gelso, C. J., & Woodhouse, S. (2003). Toward a positive psychotherapy: Focus on
human strength. Counseling psychology and optimal human functioning, 171-197.

Gelso, C., & Fretz, B. (2001). Counseling psychology (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Gormally, J., Rardin, D., & Black, S. (1980). Correlates of successful response to a
behavioral weight control clinic. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 179-191.

Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (1999). Preventing mental

disorders in school-age children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention
programs. Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development, College
of Health and Human Development, Pennsylvania State University.

Greene, G. J., Lee, M. Y., & Hoffpauir, S. (2005). The languages of empowerment and
strengths in clinical social work: A constructivist perspective. Families in Society, 86,
267-277.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its
relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. Flourishing: Positive
psychology and the life well-lived, 2, 205-224.

Helgeson, V. S., Reynolds, K. A., & Tomich, P. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of

benefit finding and growth. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 74, 797-816.

Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1986). Personality, coping, and family resources in
stress resistance: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology,
51, 389-395.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-

esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job
satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 86,
80-92.

Keyes, C. L. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the
complete state model of health. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 73, 539-
548.

Keyes, C. L. (2006). Mental health in adolescence: Is America’s youth flourishing?.

American journal of orthopsychiatry, 76, 395-402.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 32

 Keyes, C. L., Wissing, M., Potgieter, J. P., Temane, M., Kruger, A., & van Rooy, S. (2008).
Evaluation of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) in Setswana-
speaking South Africans. Clinical psychology and psychotherapy, 15, 181-192.

Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: a prospective
study. Journal of personality and social psychology, 42, 168-177.

Lamers, S., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. (2011).
Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health continuum‐short form
(MHC‐SF). Journal of clinical psychology, 67, 99-110.

Linley, A. P., Harrington, S., & Wood, A. M. (2006). Positive psychology: Past, present,
and (possible) future. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 3-16.

Linley, A., Willars, J., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). The strengths book. Coventry, United
Kingdom: CAPP Press.

Linley, P. A. (2008). Average to A. Realising strengths in yourself and others. Coventry,

UK: CAPP Press. Linley, PA, Nielsen, KM, Wood, AM, Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener.

Littman-Ovadia, H., & Davidovitch, N. (2010). Effects of congruence and character-

strength deployment on work adjustment and well-being. International Journal of
Business and Social Science, 1, 138–146.

McCashen, W. (2005). The strengths approach. Victoria: St. Luke’s Innovative

Resources.

McQuaide, S., & Ehrenreich, J. (1997). Assessing client strengths. Families in Society:
The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 78, 201-212.

Meevissen, Y. M., Peters, M. L., & Alberts, H. J. (2011). Become more optimistic by
imagining a best possible self: Effects of a two-week intervention. Journal of behavior
therapy and experimental psychiatry, 42, 371-378.

Minhas, G. (2010). Developing realised and unrealised strengths: Implications

for engagement, self-esteem, life satisfaction and well-being. Assessment and
Development Matters, 2, 12-16.

Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., & Williams, R. (1995). Attentional bias in anxiety and
depression: The role of awareness. British journal of clinical psychology, 34, 17-36.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

33
 Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (2003). Health psychology and work stress: A more
positive approach. Handbook of occupational health psychology, 2, 97-119.

Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (2006). Eustress and hope at work: Accentuating the
positive. Stress and quality of working life: Current perspectives in occupational health,
121-135.

Nelson, D. W., & Cohen, L. H. (1983). Locus of control and control perceptions and
the relationship between life stress and psychological disorder. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 11, 705-722.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

Rapp, C. A., & Goscha, R. (2006). The strengths model: Case management with people
with psychiatric disabilities (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and
work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of
service climate. Journal of applied Psychology, 90, 1217-1227.

Saleebey, D. (2010). The strengths perspective. Strengths Institute, University of

Kansas School of Social Welfare. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Saleebey, D. (2011). Some basic ideas about the strengths perspective. Social work
treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches, 5, 477-4850.

Scheel, M. J., Davis, C. K., & Henderson, J. D. (2012). Therapist use of client strengths:
a qualitative study of positive processes. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 392-427.

Scheel, M. J., Seaman, S., Roach, K., Mullin, T., & Mahoney, K. B. (1999). Client
implementation of therapist recommendations predicted by client perception of fit,
difficulty of implementation, and therapist influence. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
46, 308.

Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology
progress: empirical validation of interventions. American psychologist, 60, 410.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential 34

 Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive
emotion: The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 73-82.

Shushok Jr, F., & Hulme, E. (2006). What’s right with you: Helping students find and
use their personal strengths. About Campus, 11, 2-8.

Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2007). Eustress at work: Extending the holistic stress
model. Positive organizational behavior, 40-53.

Smeets, E., Neff, K., Alberts, H., & Peters, M. (2014). Meeting suffering with kindness:
Effects of a brief self‐compassion intervention for female college students. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 70, 794-807.

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory:

Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of traumatic stress, 9, 455-471.

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual

foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological inquiry, 15, 1-18.

Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1986). Perceived support, received support, and
adjustment to stressful life events. Journal of Health and Social behavior, 78-89.

World Health Organization, World Psychiatric Association, International Association

for Child, Adolescent Psychiatry, & Allied Professions. (2005). Atlas: child and
adolescent mental health resources: global concerns, implications for the future. World
Health Organization.

STRENGTH-BASED COACHING - essential tools for realising human potential

35