From a Personal Quality to a Working Practice

Two people can carry out the same task with similar technical competence while bringing different personal qualities to it. One asks questions that uncover a hidden problem. Another persists through a difficult revision. A third notices whose contribution has been overlooked. These examples illustrate curiosity, perseverance and fairness in action. They also suggest why a conversation about good work needs more than a list of technical skills.

In the VIA framework, character strengths are positive qualities expressed through thinking, feeling and behaviour. Its 24 strengths include honesty, kindness, judgment, teamwork and love of learning. They describe aspects of how a person approaches life, rather than proficiency in a particular occupation (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In a workplace, the useful question becomes specific: how does this quality influence what someone actually does, with whom, and under what conditions?

This article reviews selected research on strengths and work. Some studies investigate VIA character strengths specifically; others examine strengths use more broadly. Keeping that distinction visible matters because a programme built around talents or general capabilities does not automatically establish the effectiveness of a particular VIA exercise.

Having a Strength and Being Able to Use It

A strength can be important to someone without finding much room in their job. A curious employee may work in a setting where questions are discouraged; a creative colleague may have no discretion to try an alternative. Recognising the quality and making its use possible are separate tasks.

Harzer and Ruch (2013), studying 1,111 adults, found that applying more signature character strengths at work was associated with more positive work experiences, including satisfaction and meaning. The relationships were particularly relevant to strengths central to the individual. This supports examining opportunities for expression alongside a strengths profile. It does not establish that changing duties will necessarily produce the same benefit for every employee.

Which Outcome Are We Talking About?

Job satisfaction concerns how people evaluate their work. Engagement refers to an experience characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption. Meaning concerns the significance people find in what they do. Performance concerns how well work is carried out, and can involve task completion or contributions to the wider team. These outcomes are related, but they should not be treated as interchangeable.

A meta-analysis by Rudolph and colleagues (2025) found positive relationships between strengths use at work, employee wellbeing and work performance. It brings together evidence of association, rather than demonstrating that strengths use alone causes those outcomes. The wider strengths literature also spans different definitions and measurement tools, as the review by Miglianico and colleagues (2020) explains.

For a manager evaluating a programme, this distinction changes what counts as success. Employees enjoying a workshop is one outcome; finding more meaning over subsequent weeks is another; fewer errors is a third. Each requires an appropriate measure. An improvement in one should not be reported as proof that all three improved.

Can Using Strengths Increase Meaning?

Harzer and Ruch (2016) tested a four-week online intervention in which participants used their four highest strengths more often or in new ways at work. In this randomised placebo-controlled study, 83 participants received the intervention and 69 joined the comparison condition. Increased calling—a sense of work as meaningful and purposeful—was reported after the intervention and maintained at six months. The study offers evidence for a particular approach, rather than a rule that everyone must use exactly four strengths.

A useful practical question is therefore not simply “Do I love my job?” It might be “Which part of this task lets me make a contribution I value?” For example, preparing a routine handover could become an opportunity to make information clearer and more useful to a colleague. This is an illustrative application, not a promise that reframing a task can resolve unsuitable employment conditions.

What Intervention Studies Actually Show

A 2025 meta-analysis by Vásquez-Pailaqueo and colleagues included seven experimental or quasi-experimental studies of character-strengths-based interventions. It found small average benefits for work engagement (d = 0.37) and job performance (d = 0.27). These are standardised effect sizes, not increases of 37% and 27%. The small evidence base also means that estimates should be interpreted with care.

A broader preregistered meta-analysis by Virga and colleagues (2023) included 21 controlled trials of strengths use interventions. It found small improvements in wellbeing and performance immediately after intervention. Wellbeing benefits remained small at follow-up, while the follow-up performance effect was not statistically significant. Because this review covers broader strengths approaches, its findings should not be attributed exclusively to VIA.

Taken together, these reviews support realistic expectations: structured opportunities to use strengths can help, but average gains are modest and durable performance improvements are less certain. That is a useful basis for trying and evaluating a programme, rather than advertising it as a guaranteed transformation.

Why a Before-and-After Improvement Is Not Enough

Bratty and Dennis (2024) reported two intervention studies with mixed results. Several outcomes improved over time, but key comparisons did not show that intervention groups improved more than controls. In their second study, an interaction favouring the intervention appeared for organizational citizenship behaviour, while several other outcomes lacked that pattern. Substantial attrition also complicated interpretation.

The methodological lesson is straightforward. A team can improve during a programme because its workload changes, a difficult project ends, or people become familiar with the questionnaire. A comparison group helps distinguish those possibilities from a programme effect. Organisations need this distinction when deciding whether to extend training or invest in different changes.

Performance Includes More Than Output

Harzer, Bezuglova and Weber (2021) studied 169 employees from varied occupations, using supervisors’ assessments of performance alongside employees’ measures. Character strengths added statistical predictive information beyond general mental ability and the Big Five personality traits. This provides evidence that strengths are relevant to performance, while leaving open how well those predictions would transfer to new samples or particular personnel decisions.

For everyday development, it helps to specify the behaviour being discussed. Completing an individual assignment, adapting when priorities change, and helping a team coordinate are different contributions. A conversation about strengths becomes more useful when it connects to one of these contributions rather than asking whether someone is simply a “strong performer”.

Consider an illustrative disagreement over a report. Curiosity could support asking why colleagues interpret the figures differently; judgment could support checking the evidence; honesty could support acknowledging an error. The appropriate combination depends on the task. This example offers a way to discuss behaviour, rather than a research-derived formula for the best employee. Technical knowledge, adequate resources and clear expectations still belong in the conversation.

Strengths, Stress and the Conditions of Work

Harzer and Ruch (2015) examined character strengths, coping, work-related stress and satisfaction in samples of 214 workers from different occupations and 175 nurses. Their findings connected strengths with coping and job satisfaction, with interpersonal strengths particularly relevant in the nursing sample. These were observational studies; they do not establish that a strengths exercise prevents burnout.

An employee may draw on self-regulation to organise a difficult day or ask for help through teamwork. Yet understaffing, unsafe procedures and persistent overload require organisational action. A strengths conversation should make those conditions easier to discuss. Asking a highly persevering employee to absorb every extra demand would turn a useful personal quality into an excuse to leave a problem unresolved.

The Organisation Has a Role

Mubashar and Harzer (2023) studied 202 top managers across 56 branches of a large bank in Pakistan. They examined both signature strengths use and perceived organisational support for using strengths, finding links with employee and organisational outcomes. The study highlights the relevance of the setting around the individual, while its observational design and single-bank context limit causal and cross-context conclusions.

For practice, support needs to become visible in decisions. Can an employee suggest a better process? Is there time to learn? Can colleagues raise an honest concern without being dismissed? Are opportunities distributed fairly? These are proposed questions for a workplace conversation, not a validated checklist. They shift attention from identifying a strength to the conditions needed to express it constructively.

Wellbeing and Relationships at Work

In an international sample of 5,487 employees, Casali and Feraco (2024) examined character strengths and wellbeing. Hope, gratitude, zest, curiosity and love—the frequently discussed happiness strengths—showed relevant associations with wellbeing indicators. The cross-sectional results do not establish a universal ideal employee profile or prove that changing those five strengths causes wellbeing to increase.

Relationships are also receiving more focused attention. A 2026 study of 522 Hungarian employees by Balogh and colleagues examined workplace loneliness. Teamwork was particularly relevant among the strengths studied, with statistical links involving positive relationships. Because the data were cross-sectional, the proposed indirect pathway cannot be treated as an established causal mechanism.

These findings invite attention to everyday interaction alongside individual task design. A meeting can give people a real opportunity to contribute, or simply gather them in the same room. A colleague can receive specific appreciation for useful help, rather than a generic compliment. Such examples illustrate possible applications; they are not themselves tested prescriptions for eliminating loneliness.

Using the Language of Strengths Carefully

The VIA Institute’s educational article “Does Love Have a Place in the Workplace?” invites reflection on caring within professional life. In practical terms, care can mean attentive listening and concern for another person’s dignity while respecting professional boundaries. Educational material can help generate examples, but it should be distinguished from controlled evidence about an intervention.

The same care with language applies to strengths profiles. “I am creative” should open a discussion about behaviour, not assign someone permanently to every brainstorming task. “My colleague is kind” should not imply that they must always provide emotional support. A profile is more useful as an invitation to explore possibilities than as a fixed division of labour.

A Small Experiment in Everyday Work

A practical starting point is one real task, one relevant strength and one observable action. For a confusing handover, curiosity might mean asking which information the next person actually needs. For a stalled project, perseverance might mean completing a clearly defined next step. For an unequal discussion, fairness might mean inviting the person who has not yet spoken to contribute, without putting them under pressure.

Agree on what improvement would look like before trying the change. It could be fewer clarification requests, a completed milestone, or a colleague reporting that their view was heard. Review what happened and what conditions helped or obstructed it. The employee and manager should both have something to examine: the action itself, and the time, authority or resources available to support it.

This is an illustrative way to translate the research into reflection, not a separately validated intervention protocol. The central research-informed proposition is that character strengths can contribute to better working experiences when people have opportunities to use them. The practical task is to connect personal qualities with worthwhile actions and organisational conditions, then assess the results honestly.

This is a narrative review of selected research available through October 2026, not a comprehensive systematic review.

Related reading: Happiness strengths · Character strengths across cultures

References

• Balogh, B., Magony, L., Kovacs, L., Peteri, M., Salamon, J., & Kun, A. (2026). Social beings in organizations: The impact of distinct well-being dimensions and character strengths on workplace loneliness. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 11, 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-026-00307-8
• Bratty, A. J., & Dennis, N. C. (2024). The efficacy of employee strengths interventions on desirable workplace outcomes. Current Psychology, 43, 16514–16532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05607-9
• Casali, N., & Feraco, T. (2024). Which character strengths may build organizational well-being? Insights from an international sample of workers. PLOS ONE, 19(10), e0312934. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312934
• Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature character strengths and positive experiences at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 965–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9364-0
• Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2015). The relationships of character strengths with coping, work-related stress, and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00165
• Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2016). Your strengths are calling: Preliminary results of a web-based strengths intervention to increase calling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 2237–2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9692-y
• Harzer, C., Bezuglova, N., & Weber, M. (2021). Incremental validity of character strengths as predictors of job performance beyond general mental ability and the Big Five. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 518369. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.518369
• Miglianico, M., Dubreuil, P., Miquelon, P., Bakker, A. B., & Martin-Krumm, C. (2020). Strength use in the workplace: A literature review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21, 737–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00095-w
• Mubashar, T., & Harzer, C. (2023). It takes two to tango: Linking signature strengths use and organizational support for strengths use with organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 96, 897–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12455
• Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press and American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195167016.001.0001
• 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, 753–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-025-10424-2
• Vásquez-Pailaqueo, M. P., Acosta-Antognoni, H., & Leiva-Bianchi, M. (2025). Character strengths-based interventions and their efficacy related to work engagement and job performance: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 10, 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-025-00215-3
• VIA Institute on Character. (n.d.). Does love have a place in the workplace? Educational article. https://www.viacharacter.org/topics/articles/does-love-have-a-place-in-the-workplace
• 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

Illustrations created for Biri Publishing.