Abstract
Annual performance appraisals routinely instruct employees to identify “weaknesses” and construct improvement plans, implicitly treating all evaluative shortfalls as remediable skill deficits. This assumption is scientifically indefensible for a substantial class of individual differences. Drawing on trait-stability research, trait activation theory, person–environment fit theory, and the strengths-based literature in positive organizational psychology, this article argues that many workplace “weaknesses” are not deficits at all but stable dispositional traits whose evaluative valence is a function of situational fit rather than an intrinsic property of the trait. We synthesize evidence showing that (a) personality traits are moderately to highly stable across adulthood, limiting the returns to corrective intervention; (b) the same trait can predict superior performance in one occupational context and impaired performance in another; (c) feedback interventions targeting the self rather than the task frequently reduce rather than improve performance; and (d) strengths-based interventions and person–job fit produce reliable, meta-analytically confirmed gains in performance and well-being that deficit-correction approaches do not reliably match. We propose a Holistic Trait-Profile Model in which managers first classify an evaluative concern as either a trainable competency gap or a stable trait, then act through development (for genuine skill gaps), redeployment or job crafting (for well-functioning but mismatched traits), or calibration (for traits at maladaptive intensity). We conclude with practical implications for appraisal design, manager training, and talent allocation, and we situate the persistence of the deficit model partly as a legacy of applied psychology’s own historical debt to a clinical, pathology-oriented paradigm.
Keywords: performance appraisal, trait stability, person–environment fit, strengths-based management, trait activation theory, positive organizational psychology
Introduction
The annual performance appraisal is one of the most durable rituals of organizational life. Despite decades of criticism regarding its reliability, fairness, and motivational value (DeNisi & Murphy, 2017), the basic script has changed little: an employee's performance over the preceding period is rated, areas of relative weakness are identified, and a development plan is constructed to close the gap. Implicit in this script is a single, largely unexamined assumption — that every identified weakness is a deficit of the same kind, correctable in principle by sufficient training, coaching, or effort. This assumption does not survive contact with the empirical literature on individual differences.
Many of the attributes that appraisal systems label as weaknesses are not skill gaps but stable dispositional traits — characteristic ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving that show substantial continuity across the adult lifespan (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). Asking a person low in trait extraversion to “be more visible in meetings,” or asking a highly detail-oriented, low-risk-tolerance employee to “move faster and take more risks,” is not equivalent to asking them to learn a new spreadsheet function. It is asking them to override a disposition that is, for most practical purposes, a fixed feature of who they are. Left unacknowledged, this conflation produces appraisal cycles that repeatedly target the same “weaknesses” year after year with little durable change — not because the employee is unmotivated, but because the target was never a trainable competency in the first place.
A second, related problem is that performance management systems typically evaluate traits in the abstract, as though a given characteristic were universally good or universally bad. Yet a substantial experimental and meta-analytic literature shows that the same trait can be an asset in one task environment and a liability in another (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett & Guterman, 2000). A person's evaluative “strengths” and “weaknesses,” on this view, are less like a ledger of pluses and minuses than like the fingers of a hand — differentiated structures of differing length and function, each suited to particular tasks, together constituting a single, usable, whole instrument. The relevant management question is therefore not “how do we fix this person’s weaknesses” but “where does this configuration of traits fit, and where does it not.”
This article develops that argument systematically. We first lay out four converging bodies of theory and evidence — trait stability, trait activation theory, person–environment (P–E) fit theory, and strengths-based organizational psychology — that together justify replacing the deficit-correction default with a trait-contextual, fit-oriented model of performance management. We then examine why the deficit model has nonetheless persisted, including a specific argument that applied psychology's own disciplinary history — its long-standing debt to a clinical, pathology-focused paradigm — bears some responsibility for exporting a corrective mindset into a domain where it fits poorly. We close with an integrative framework and concrete practical implications for how organizations might diagnose, develop, and deploy employees more accurately.
Theoretical Framework
The Stability of Individual Differences
The premise that any identified weakness can be closed through sufficient effort presupposes that the underlying characteristic is malleable. This is true of many competencies — unfamiliarity with a piece of software, gaps in domain knowledge, an unpracticed presentation technique — but it is not generally true of personality traits. In the most comprehensive quantitative synthesis of longitudinal trait research to date, Roberts and DelVecchio (2000) aggregated 3,217 test–retest correlations from 152 longitudinal studies and found that rank-order trait consistency rises steadily across the lifespan, from approximately .31 in childhood to .54 during the college years, .64 around age 30, and a plateau near .74 between ages 50 and 70 for comparable retest intervals. In other words, by the time most employees enter the workforce, their standing on core personality dimensions relative to their peers is already substantially fixed and becomes progressively more so with age. This is not a claim that people cannot change at all — mean levels of traits such as conscientiousness and emotional stability do shift modestly across adulthood — but it is a strong empirical constraint on how much rank-order change an annual coaching conversation should realistically be expected to produce.
This matters directly for performance management because personality traits are also robust, differentiated predictors of job performance. Barrick and Mount's (1991) meta-analysis of the five-factor model and job performance across professional, managerial, sales, police, and skilled/semi-skilled occupations found that conscientiousness predicted performance consistently across every occupational group and criterion, but that the other four traits' predictive value was highly occupation-specific. Extraversion, for example, predicted performance only in occupations with a substantial social-interaction component (management and sales); it was unrelated to performance elsewhere. Most tellingly, low emotional stability — ordinarily framed as an unambiguous weakness — showed a small negative correlation with performance among professionals, meaning that in this occupational group, individuals who were more “worrying, nervous, emotional, and high-strung” tended to perform somewhat better, plausibly through heightened vigilance in error-sensitive, high-precision work (Barrick & Mount, 1991). A trait that is a liability in one occupational role can be a modest asset in another. This is direct evidence against treating any single trait as a context-free weakness.
Trait Activation Theory: Traits Are Expressed, Not Fixed in Valence
Trait activation theory (TAT) supplies the mechanism behind these occupation-specific reversals. Tett and Guterman (2000) proposed that traits are behaviorally expressed only when situational cues are relevant to that trait — a disposition toward risk-taking, for instance, will shape behavior in situations that call for risk-related judgment but will be functionally invisible in situations that do not. Their experimental work showed that trait–behavioral-intention correlations were substantially stronger in situations high in trait relevance than in situations low in trait relevance, and that cross-situational behavioral consistency likewise depended on the degree of shared trait relevance across situations. A subsequent Annual Review synthesis of TAT scholarship spanning nearly a decade of empirical work found a 60% significance rate across 262 reported moderator effects testing this principle, indicating that situational relevance reliably conditions when and how strongly a trait translates into valued work behavior (Tett, Toich, & Ozkum, 2021).
The organizational implication is direct: a trait's usefulness is not a property of the trait alone but of the trait–situation pairing. “Weakness” and “strength” are therefore not fixed labels attachable to a person in the abstract; they are labels that only become meaningful once a specific task environment is specified. An organization that appraises traits as though they carried an intrinsic, situation-independent valence is, in effect, making a category error that TAT research has spent two decades correcting.
Person–Environment Fit Theory
If a trait's value depends on the situation, the natural management lever is not to change the trait but to change — or better select — the situation. This is the core proposition of person–environment (P–E) fit theory, most rigorously tested in Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson's (2005) meta-analysis of 172 studies and 836 effect sizes. The authors found that person–job fit, person–organization fit, person–group fit, and person–supervisor fit were each meaningfully associated with attitudinal outcomes (satisfaction, commitment), performance, and reduced withdrawal behavior, with credibility intervals that excluded zero across the large majority of relationships tested, indicating that these associations generalize broadly across settings rather than reflecting idiosyncratic samples. Person–job fit in particular — the match between an individual's traits, skills, and needs and the specific demands and rewards of a role — was among the more consistent predictors of performance outcomes across this literature.
P–E fit theory reframes the appraisal question. Rather than asking “how do we change this employee so that they fit the role,” it asks “how well does this role fit this employee, and could a different role, task allocation, or team assignment produce a better match.” Wrzesniewski and Dutton's (2001) construct of job crafting operationalizes this at the individual level: they show that employees actively and often informally reshape the task, relational, and cognitive boundaries of their jobs to bring the role into closer alignment with their own dispositions and motivations, and that this self-initiated fit-seeking behavior changes both the meaning of the work and, downstream, engagement and performance. Fit, in other words, is not solely something organizations design top-down; it is something employees actively pursue when permitted to do so — which has direct implications for how much latitude a performance-management system should leave for self-directed task redesign rather than externally imposed remediation.
The Positive Psychology Critique and Strengths-Based Alternatives
The theoretical case against a pure deficit model was made explicitly at the founding of positive psychology as a subfield. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) argued that psychology as a discipline had, for most of the twentieth century, organized itself almost entirely around a “disease model” — identifying pathology and deficit and building interventions to correct them — while devoting comparatively little systematic attention to the conditions under which individuals and institutions flourish. Their proposed corrective was not to deny that deficits exist, but to insist that a science of what functions well is at least as important, and that strength-building and deficit-correction are logically and empirically distinct projects that should not be collapsed into one.
This reorientation has since generated a substantial and increasingly rigorous applied literature specific to organizational settings. Meyers and van Woerkom (2017), in a field study of Dutch employees, found that a structured strengths-identification and strengths-use intervention improved general and work-related well-being, mediated by increases in positive affect. Ghielen, van Woerkom, and Meyers's (2018) review of 18 controlled or quasi-experimental strengths-intervention studies published between 2011 and 2016 found consistently positive effects on well-being, job outcomes such as engagement, and personal growth. More recent, pre-registered meta-analytic work has substantially firmed up this evidence base: Virga, Rusu, Pap, Maricuțoiu, and Tisu (2023), synthesizing 21 independent controlled trials of employee strengths-use interventions, found significant post-intervention improvements in personal resources (d = .53), workplace well-being (d = .31), and job performance (d = .28), with effects on personal resources and well-being still detectable at follow-up. Most recently, Rudolph, Friedrich, Koziel, and Zacher's (2025) meta-analysis of the correlational literature on character-strengths use at work found robust positive associations with both work performance (ρ = .421) and worker well-being (ρ = .621) — among the more strongly supported individual-difference correlates of performance reported in this literature to date. None of this research claims that strengths-based approaches are a costless panacea; rather, it establishes, with a level of methodological rigor (pre-registration, controlled designs, meta-analytic aggregation) that much deficit-correction research has historically lacked, that reallocating managerial attention toward identifying and deploying what employees already do well is an evidence-supported alternative to reflexive weakness-remediation.
Why the Deficit Model Persists
If the theoretical and empirical case against reflexive weakness-correction is this substantial, its continued dominance in organizational practice requires explanation. We identify three contributing mechanisms.
Negativity Bias
Human cognition is not evaluatively symmetric. Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs's (2001) influential review, “bad is stronger than good,” documents a pervasive asymmetry across domains — impressions, feedback, close relationships, learning — in which negative information is processed more thoroughly, weighted more heavily, and retained longer than comparably significant positive information. Applied to appraisal, this means that a manager reviewing a year of an employee's work is cognitively predisposed to notice, remember, and prioritize discussion of the employee's shortfalls over their comparably sized or more numerous successes, independent of any deliberate managerial philosophy. The deficit-orientation of performance appraisal is therefore not solely an institutional choice; it is partly an artifact of a basic feature of human information processing that organizational systems have, historically, done little to counteract.
The False Assumption That Feedback Reliably Improves Performance
Performance-appraisal practice generally assumes that clearly communicated negative feedback about a weakness will motivate corrective effort and thereby improve subsequent performance. Kluger and DeNisi's (1996) meta-analysis of 607 effect sizes across 23,663 observations directly tested this assumption and found it to be substantially false as a generalization: while feedback interventions improved performance on average (d = .41), more than one-third of the feedback interventions studied actually decreased subsequent performance. Their feedback intervention theory (FIT) explains this pattern by proposing that feedback which directs attention toward the self (“you need to be more assertive”) rather than toward the task (“this specific step in the process needs adjustment”) is disproportionately likely to provoke defensive, anxiety-related responses that impair rather than improve performance. Appraisal conversations organized around identifying and correcting personal “weaknesses” are, almost by construction, self-directed rather than task-directed feedback — precisely the form of feedback that Kluger and DeNisi's data associate with the highest risk of a counterproductive effect.
Historical and Institutional Inertia
DeNisi and Murphy's (2017) century-spanning review of performance appraisal research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology concludes that the field's scholarly contribution has been mainly to test and refine ideas proposed elsewhere rather than to originate new evaluative paradigms, and that many features of contemporary appraisal practice — including its centering on individual deficiency — trace back to organizational and measurement conventions established well before the emergence of positive organizational psychology as a distinct research tradition. Applied psychology's own disciplinary formation compounds this inertia: because industrial-organizational psychology, like clinical psychology more broadly, developed many of its diagnostic and interventional tools within a paradigm oriented toward identifying and correcting deficiency (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), the assessment technology available to HR practitioners for most of the twentieth century was itself deficit-oriented by design, even where the underlying trait science increasingly pointed toward a fit-based alternative. In this sense, the profession's own methodological toolkit — not merely managerial habit — has helped keep the corrective model in place longer than the evidence base has supported.
Boundary Conditions: What This Argument Does Not Claim
A trait-contextual, fit-oriented framework is not a license to ignore genuine skill deficits or to treat every trait as beyond examination, and the literature itself supplies two important qualifications.
First, the distinction between a trainable competency gap and a stable trait-based disposition is doing essential work in this argument and must be actively diagnosed rather than assumed. Unfamiliarity with a specific software tool, a gap in technical or regulatory knowledge, or an unpracticed skill such as financial modeling is a legitimate target for training and typically responds well to it; conflating such genuine skill gaps with dispositional traits in either direction — treating a trainable gap as an immutable trait, or treating a stable trait as a trainable gap — produces poor management decisions. The framework proposed below is intended precisely to force this diagnostic step rather than to dissolve it.
Second, strengths are not unconditionally beneficial at all intensities. Grant and Schwartz (2011) marshal evidence for pervasive inverted-U, or “too-much-of-a-good-thing,” effects across a wide range of ordinarily positive traits and states, in which a characteristic that is beneficial at moderate levels becomes counterproductive at extremes — for example, curvilinear relationships have been documented between traits such as assertiveness or conscientiousness and leadership or performance outcomes, such that both very low and very high levels underperform intermediate levels. Consistent with this concern, some organizational scholars have raised the possibility of “strengths overuse” as a distinct risk. It is therefore notable that the most recent, large-sample meta-analytic test of this specific concern in the workplace strengths literature did not find evidence for the predicted nonlinearity: Rudolph et al. (2025) explicitly tested for curvilinear effects in the strengths-use–performance and strengths-use–well-being relationships and found none, suggesting that within the range of strengths use typically observed in field settings, overuse effects may be less prevalent than theorized. Taken together, these two literatures counsel a moderate rather than a maximalist reading of the strengths-based case: the goal is calibrated deployment of trait-based strengths within their zone of situational relevance, not indiscriminate maximization of any one trait, and not abandonment of skill-based development where it is genuinely warranted.
An Integrative Framework: The Holistic Trait-Profile Model
The evidence reviewed above supports a three-step diagnostic and action framework that managers and HR systems can apply in place of reflexive weakness-correction.
Step 1 — Diagnose the source of the evaluative concern. Is the identified shortfall a gap in declarative or procedural knowledge/skill (trainable in principle; Barrick & Mount's conscientiousness findings suggest effort and diligence-related competencies are broadly trainable and broadly valuable) or a manifestation of a stable dispositional trait (subject to the rank-order stability documented by Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000)? This is not always self-evident, and misdiagnosis in either direction is costly: treating a skill gap as immutable forecloses legitimate development, while treating a trait as a trainable deficit sets up a low-probability, potentially demoralizing improvement plan.
Step 2 — If trait-based, assess situational relevance rather than valence in the abstract. Following trait activation theory (Tett & Guterman, 2000; Tett et al., 2021), the question is not “is this trait good or bad” but “in which current or available tasks is this trait activated, and does that activation help or hinder valued performance in that specific context.” A trait that is a liability in the employee's current role assignment may be a latent asset elsewhere in the organization.
Step 3 — Choose the appropriate lever: develop, redeploy, craft, or calibrate. Genuine skill gaps warrant development (training, coaching, practice). Well-functioning but poorly situated traits warrant redeployment (reassignment to roles, projects, or teams where the trait is activated productively, informed by P–E fit assessment; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) or job crafting (supporting the employee in reshaping task and relational boundaries within their current role to better exploit their trait profile; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Traits that are directionally appropriate to the role but currently expressed at a maladaptive intensity warrant calibration rather than either development or redeployment — coaching aimed at moderating expression toward the productive middle of the inverted-U rather than trying to eliminate the trait (Grant & Schwartz, 2011).
This framework operationalizes the essay's opening metaphor: a person's trait profile, like the differentiated fingers of a hand, is not usefully reduced to a ledger of separable strengths and weaknesses to be separately maximized and minimized. It is a single integrated instrument whose components each have a range of tasks for which they are well suited and a range for which they are not. Good management, on this view, is chiefly an exercise in situational matching and selective calibration — identifying where each component of the profile is activated productively — rather than an exercise in uniformly filing down whichever parts of the profile currently look shortest.
Practical Implications
The framework above translates into several concrete changes to organizational practice.
Appraisal instrument redesign. Appraisal forms that ask managers to list “weaknesses” and “improvement plans” without distinguishing skill gaps from trait-based characteristics should be revised to require this diagnostic distinction explicitly, following DeNisi and Murphy's (2017) observation that appraisal instrument design has historically lagged behind the theoretical literature. Feedback tied to trait-based observations should be framed around task and situational fit (“this type of work draws less on your natural strengths; here is where your profile is a stronger match”) rather than around personal deficiency, consistent with Kluger and DeNisi's (1996) finding that self-directed negative feedback carries meaningful risk of impairing rather than improving subsequent performance.
Manager training in trait- and fit-diagnosis. Because the distinction between a trainable gap and a stable trait is not intuitively obvious, managers require explicit training in recognizing markers of each — for instance, a shortfall that persists despite multiple, well-resourced improvement cycles is more likely trait-based than skill-based, given the stability data reviewed above (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000).
Structured internal mobility and job crafting latitude. Organizations should build structured mechanisms — internal role marketplaces, cross-functional project staffing, or formal job-crafting conversations — that make redeployment and self-directed task redesign genuinely available options rather than rhetorical ones, since P–E fit research indicates that fit-based reallocation carries reliable, broad-based benefits for both performance and retention-relevant outcomes (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) and job crafting research indicates that employees are already motivated to pursue this fit on their own initiative when permitted (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
Investment in strengths-identification tools. Given meta-analytic evidence for the performance and well-being benefits of structured strengths-use interventions (Virga et al., 2023; Rudolph et al., 2025), organizations have a stronger evidentiary basis for investing in systematic strengths-identification processes (e.g., structured strengths inventories reviewed collaboratively by employee and manager) than has often been assumed, while avoiding an unqualified “maximize strengths at all costs” philosophy given the theoretical case for moderation at extremes (Grant & Schwartz, 2011).
Limitations and Future Research Directions
This framework has boundaries that merit further empirical work. First, much of the P–E fit and strengths-use literature is correlational or drawn from short-duration field interventions; longer-horizon studies tracking redeployment and job-crafting outcomes across multi-year careers would strengthen causal inference. Second, the diagnostic distinction between trainable skill gaps and stable traits, while conceptually clear, lacks a validated, practitioner-usable instrument for reliably classifying ambiguous cases in real appraisal settings; developing and validating such a tool is a natural next step for applied research. Third, the boundary conditions on strengths-overuse remain only partially resolved: Rudolph et al.’s (2025) failure to detect the predicted nonlinearity is an important recent finding, but it does not eliminate the theoretical case from Grant and Schwartz (2011), and further work disaggregating specific traits, intensities, and task types is warranted before treating the overuse question as settled. Finally, this framework has been developed primarily from evidence generated in Western, higher-income-country organizational contexts; the generalizability of both the trait-stability findings and the strengths-intervention effects to other cultural and institutional settings deserves direct empirical attention.
Conclusion
The performance-appraisal ritual's default assumption — that every identified weakness is a correctable deficit — is not a neutral technical convention but a specific, historically contingent inheritance that the accumulated evidence on trait stability, trait activation, person–environment fit, and strengths-based intervention now substantially contradicts. Personality traits are considerably more stable across adulthood than the annual-improvement-plan model presumes (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000); the same trait can help or hinder performance depending on situational relevance rather than any fixed valence (Tett & Guterman, 2000; Barrick & Mount, 1991); well-fitted placement and self-directed task crafting produce reliable, broad-based benefits that reflexive remediation does not (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001); and structured attention to strengths, rather than exclusively to deficits, is now supported by pre-registered, meta-analytic evidence at a level of rigor the deficit-correction literature has often lacked (Virga et al., 2023; Rudolph et al., 2025). None of this implies that development, training, or honest feedback about genuine skill gaps should be abandoned; it implies that organizations — and the psychologists who design their evaluation systems — should stop treating every trait-based difference as a flaw to be sanded down, and start treating the whole person, strengths and limitations together, as the differentiated, situationally deployable instrument the evidence shows them to be.
References
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085
Ghielen, S. T. S., van Woerkom, M., & Meyers, M. C. (2018). Promoting positive outcomes through strengths interventions: A literature review. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(6), 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1365164
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393523
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Meyers, M. C., & van Woerkom, M. (2017). Effects of a strengths intervention on general and work-related well-being: The mediating role of positive affect. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 671–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9745-x
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3
Rudolph, C. W., Friedrich, J. C., Koziel, R. J., & Zacher, H. (2025). Character strengths use at work: A meta-analysis of relations with work performance and employee wellbeing. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 20(2), 753–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-025-10424-2
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 397–423. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292
Tett, R. P., Toich, M. J., & Ozkum, S. B. (2021). Trait activation theory: A review of the literature and applications to five lines of personality dynamics research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8(1), 199–233. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062228
Virga, D., Rusu, A., Pap, Z., Maricuțoiu, L., & Tisu, L. (2023). Effectiveness of strengths use interventions in organizations: A pre-registered meta-analysis of controlled trials. Applied Psychology, 72(4), 1653–1693. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12451
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011