Reimagining Performance Management: A Strengths-Based Process Designed to Offer MORE to the Supervisor and Employee

Abstract

The traditional performance review has been considered ineffective and possibly damaging to employee performance and the relationship between the manager and the employee. To advance research and practice in this area, we offer a model focusing on a positive, strengths-based approach to feedback and employee performance management. Specifically, the performance conversation is an area we suggest can be altered to achieve positive outcomes by focusing on employees’ strengths, resulting in higher engagement, trust, performance, and higher quality relationships. We present a four-step process, called MORE, which allows managers to capitalize on employees’ strengths, intending to yield better results for both the employee and the organization. We review each step in the MORE process incorporating evidence-based arguments for their effectiveness. We also suggest further avenues for research and practical application that can assist in retaining and developing talent, building strong relationships between managers and employees, and fostering high performance.

1. Introduction

Within the human resource management field, several models have been used to evaluate the performance of employees. Many of these approaches, however, have been shown to be either ineffective [1], have unintended, adverse effects on the employee’s performance [2, 3], or damage the relationship between the supervisor and employee [4]. Additionally, traditional performance management processes are too often focused on the supervisor’s work habits and approaches rather than considering the employee’s unique skills that could be implemented to achieve success. The ideal dynamic should seek to create a two-dimensional “window” rather than a one-dimensional “mirror” to allow for creative dialog and mutual supervisor-employee engagement [5]. Even the phrase “performance management” is problematic. It carries negative connotations, implying that something is done to the employee rather than engaging them in a process that enables support and mutual dialog [6]. Furthermore, traditional approaches to performance management are rarely flexible enough to account for the full spectrum of an employee’s disposition—from the high achiever and overperforming employee to the underperformer or struggling one [5].

The vertical relationship between the supervisor and the employee is a crucial component and a foundational aspect of performance management [4], as it impacts essential outcomes such as job performance and satisfaction [7]. As such, examining the relationship between the leader (supervisor) and the follower (the employee) in a “leader-member exchange” (LMX) allows for analyzing the exchange relationship within the dyad [8]. This examination is critical because the relationship between the supervisor and the employee is crucial to the workplace experience. The foundation of the relationship between the manager and the supervisor, through the performance management process, has the ability to impact productivity, clarify expectations, motivate employees, and align organizational goals [4]. In addition, when an enabling performance management approach is used—one that involves the employee and uses two-way communication, focused on the employee’s development—a sense of well-being can be created [9] and performance enhanced [10].

As suggested above, an important aspect of the performance management process is the supervisor and employee relationship quality. In today’s “war on talent” [11], organizations should look at practical ways to ensure strong relationships between management and their employees to attract, develop and retain talent. Furthermore, if the cliché that “people do not quit jobs, they quit managers” is true, more effective strategies for building stronger relationships that result in higher performance, increased retention, and more robust, meaningful engagement between the supervisor and the employee should be explored [12]. In this paper, we offer the proposition that by engaging in an enabling strengths-based performance coaching process that focuses on an employee’s natural talents and abilities, better relationships are formed between the employee and supervisor, resulting in positive outcomes for both, and the organization more broadly.

To this end, we present a performance management model for coaching employees that has been developed and implemented in a Canadian university administrative department that focuses on the principle of “MORE.” The acronym MORE refers to Multiply (identify and build upon an employee’s strengths); Obstacle (identify and empower the employee’s ability to navigate obstacles); Results (identify and render visible the positive results of the employee’s efforts) and Energize (identify and reinforce those aspects of the work that the employee finds personally energizing and fulfilling). This approach builds on the idea that when employees do more of what energizes them and use their strengths more, the results benefit them and the organization. This strategy emphasizes a strengths-based, employee-centered coaching approach that can be a powerful asset in attracting, developing, and retaining employees in today’s competitive workplace environment.

2. Beyond “performance management:” why MORE?

A traditional performance review most commonly focuses on critical elements related to objectives and key performance indicators identified by the reviewer or organization. The performance review may either be single-input or multi-ranked. Common examples include the supervisor’s feedback regarding tasks [13] and looking at how the employee is performing in relation to the organization’s goals [3]. These approaches often take the form of a unidimensional assessment of the employee with a listing of pre-determined categories and graphic rating scales or balanced scorecards [14].

There has been research on the use of a strengths based approach to performance management [13, 15]. Kluger and Nir [13] provided a structured interview protocol named “feedforward” intended to provide managers with a way of uncovering and exploring the performance strengths of their employees. Subsequently, Budworth et al. [15] found support that these interviews could be used in lieu of traditional feedback conversations to encourage performance improvement. While this stream of research provides support for a strengths-based approach to performance management, there is still much to be understood. Feedforward is a guided conversation focussed on goal setting and performance planning. There is room for a broader approach that explores strengths more generally and focusses the employee-supervisor relationship.

Unlike traditional approaches to performance management, the MORE performance strategy is rooted in a coaching methodology that draws upon positive psychology literature. Peterson and Seligman [16] explain that there are three tenants to the study of positive psychology; positive subjective experiences—a focus on being content with the past, hopeful, and optimistic for the future and happy and engaged in the present [17]; positive personal characteristics; and organizations that utilize these positive capabilities and attributes. The MORE approach enables this positive approach. MORE builds upon positive characteristics from Gallup’s CliftonStrengths Assessment [18] and incorporates Marcus Buckingham’s concept of “red threads” [19]—something you love to do that leverages your strengths and that allows you to enter an almost spiritual state. Buckingham and Goodall [5] also consider the formal performance review as more of a mirror than a window. They argue that supervisors tend to click the “meets requirements” versus “exceeds requirements” boxes on a formal review based on how that supervisor approaches work from their strengths—not the employee’s strengths. By viewing performance through the lens of the employee’s talents and abilities, a more satisfying and effective process for positive performance management may be established. Coaching from a positive, strengths-based lens enables the employee to have the capacity to overcome obstacles and find new pathways to achieve the goals that provide meaning and energy. Despite this helpful theory, Buckingham has not put forward a method to operationalize these ideas into a functional form that will assist supervisors in their everyday operations. The MORE process is thus presented as a way to translate this strength-based philosophy into a viable performance coaching tool.

3. The foundational theory of MORE: positive psychology and a strengths-based coach approach

A vital component of the MORE performance assessment draws upon personal strengths, defined as valuing an individual’s natural ability, skills, expertise, networks, and potential [20]. By focusing on what is right with people [21] rather than what is wrong with them, individuals are able to leverage their talents and build skill capacity. Furthermore, focusing on what the individual does well allows them to move toward their best possible self through reflection and feedback [22]. This positive psychological approach enables the achievement of goals, fosters individual growth, and facilitates sustainable positive personal change [23].

There are a variety of tools that have been developed to identify and characterize an individual’s strengths. Peterson and Seligman [16] developed a character strengths and virtues (CSV) classification system based on the tenets of positive psychology. Peterson and Seligman’s research relates to individual strengths, defined as positive characteristics reflected in actions, thoughts, and feelings. Their VIA (Values in Action) classification identified 24 strengths in six domains: wisdom & knowledge; courage; humanity; justice; temperance; and transcendence [24]. These strengths and virtues are founded on the concept of motivating individuals to reach their highest potential [25] and thereby “make good life possible” ([16], p. 4). Their VIA classification of character strengths and virtues has shown a positive correlation between life satisfaction, happiness, and well-being [26]. These ideals are strongly associated with family, work, and community virtues [26]. However, as Baumrind [27] notes, these values largely reflect Western moral standards.

A broader approach is offered through the work of Alex Linley. Linley’s pioneering work in positive psychology has been instrumental in validating and developing strengths-based tools and includes an almost anti-taxonomy approach, reflecting his determination to understand uncovered strengths [28]. A trailblazer in strength’s philosophy, Linley has been noted as bringing the approach to society at large [29]. Within this approach four areas, Maximize—unrealized strengths, Marshal—realized strengths, Minimized—weaknesses, and Moderate—learned behaviors, can be used to foster optimal performance [30]. In Linley’s Average to A+ [31], he builds off previous works of Peterson and Seligman [16] and Buckingham and Clifton [32] by expanding the taxonomies to over 100 strengths. While this can benefit those who feel that the smaller taxonomies are not expansive enough to cover the vast array of individuals’ natural talents, behaviors, and actions, it can also feel overwhelming when put to practical use in an organizational setting [28]. However, we consider that Linley’s assertation that “the right strengths, to the right amount, in the right way, at the right time” ([31], p. 58) is one of the best pieces of simple advice in the book [28] since balance, awareness and how to harness strengths is part of the MORE coaching approach outlined below.

The study of strengths-based approaches has been dominated by the Gallup Organization, founded by Don Clifton, often referred to as the “Father of Strengths” [33]. Clifton, a researcher in psychology, explored how individuals’ strengths contributed to their success. This research led to the establishment of CliftonStrengths, an empirical and comprehensive process using psychometric tests [34]. These tests present the user with 177 work-based questions that assess an individual’s natural inclinations [35]. This assessment led to the creation of a robust model that categorizes people’s natural talents and abilities into 34 behavior-based strengths categories (e.g., ‘ideation,’ ‘strategic,’ ‘learner’), which are then categorized into four themes: influencing, relational, strategic, and executing. This typography gives the employee and manager standard language to describe and explore individual talents [32]. The effectiveness of this approach has been researched in various industry contexts. For example, in a study by Arakawa and Greenburg [36] involving 86 employees and 17 IT managers, positive correlations were found between using CliftonStrengths as a management tool with positivity, accomplishment, and commitment. Additionally, positive associations between higher levels of employee engagement and manager optimism [36, 37] and improved performance [38, 39] have also been noted. Asplund and Blacksmith [40] have also observed the benefits of strengths-based approaches for organizations. These advantages include increased employee retention, productivity, and profitability. Although VIA, Realise2 and CliftonStrengths categories can be used to create a taxonomy for behavioral assessment, the Clifton approach holds a more direct application to the workplace [41]. It also has a manageable number of strengths for business operations purposes [28] and, as such, is the chosen method for the MORE approach.

The MORE conversation can be seen as an “appreciation jolt”—a prompt to self-revision and reflection based on positive feedback centered around an individual’s strengths [42]. Through this formal appreciation method, positive feedback becomes more common, ensuring that the employee is not waiting for their “funeral” to hear how they are appreciated and valued, but instead receives such feedback on an ongoing basis. Through positive self-reflection, Roberts et al. [42] argue that focusing on the positive reduces anxiety and allows employees to recognize and embrace their strengths and who they are at their best. Strength-based approaches allow employees to bring forward challenges and strategies they hope to share with a trusted advisor as they look for further development. A vital element of Roberts et al.’s Reflective Best Self (RBS)—a reflective approach that can be incorporated into other strengths-based approaches—is for a person not to compare themselves to others but to use their talents and abilities (strengths) to determine their own path and achieve their own goals. This approach parallels the proposed MORE strategy, given that the process establishes reflection on personal abilities and strengths. As Roberts et al. argue, having relational resources, including a high-quality relationship with one’s supervisor, provides safety and security, allowing employees to be resilient in the face of challenges and explore possibilities enabled by their best selves. Combined with the taxonomy of strengths, we submit that this approach may be an effective way to offer feedback and foster ongoing coaching conversations.

4. Strengths-based coaching

Another critical component of the MORE approach draws upon the scholarship on coaching psychology. In the MORE context, the supervisor acts as a coach. Strengths-based coaching involves counseling and guiding employees to identify their strengths to build confidence, increase self-efficacy, and achieve their goals [43]. Paláez et al. [44] examined a strengths-based coaching strategy in the work environment by distributing participants into two groups—one which received a strengths invention and another which remained uncoached in strengths. It was reported that the strengths-based coaching group had higher performance, personal development, and effectiveness than the group without intervention. This study employed a micro-coaching intervention consisting of short but frequent intervals of counseling and advice. Research in the field of workplace and executive coaching has revealed that this kind of intervention can increase individual engagement [45], goal achievement [38], and performance levels [46]. However, the literature on strength-based coaching, although demonstrating positive impacts for the employee, falls short of considering the impact on the employee-supervisor relationship. This relationship is an underdeveloped aspect of the strength-based coaching literature that the MORE approach can address. Leaders may be able to leverage their employees’ talents, increase self-confidence, and build better relationships by changing their approach from performance management to performance coaching.

5. The components of MORE: multiply; obstacle; results; energize

5.1 Step one: setting the stage

In the MORE strengths-based performance coaching approach, the first step is identifying and “claiming” [37] the employee’s strengths. Upon starting with the organization or moving into a unit that adopts this approach, the employee takes the CliftonStrengths online assessment and has their top five strengths identified and shared with their supervisor. An initial discussion regarding their top five strengths creates a mutual understanding of the employees’ talents in the preliminary strength discovery phase of the conversation [18]. This begins the coaching process. Similar to high-performing athletes, coaching is an ongoing process. Coaching conversations are intended to be open-ended and continuous discussions, not just point-in-time feedback (i.e., an annual review). A performance coaching plan is established by thoroughly going through the MORE steps (outlined below). Ongoing coaching is the basis for the enhanced relationship between the employee and supervisor upon which the performance management process is built. This process is woven into the fabric of the day-to-day operations and creates a foundation for a strong employee-supervisor relationship.

5.2 Step two: M—Multiply—identify and build strengths

Multiplying strengths means increasing and intensifying employees’ top strengths through several means and workplace contexts. Multiply in the MORE model considers the context in which employee strengths may be fostered. This early step provides a basis for a conversation focused on the identified behaviors an employee exhibits that relate to their strengths and high performance in the workplace, which the supervisor and employee want to expand. For example, a sales manager coaching an employee hears the employee has used successful sales techniques by virtue of their communication strength as identified by their assessment. The supervisor, recognizing this strength, can amplify and reinforce the employee’s communication behavior by providing positive feedback to the employee, using the understanding of the communication strength as outlined by Gallup [32]. In turn, the employee feels affirmation and an intrinsic feeling of satisfaction and may then feel empowered to use communication skills more often and extend these skills into more workplace contexts. Through recognition and encouragement of the positive, the foundation may be laid for developing vigorous leader-member exchange (LMX), leading to deeper relationships.

The study of LMX, first introduced by Dansereau et al. [8], examined the vertical dyad between the superior (supervisor) and the member (supervisee), noting the influence of the degree of latitude given to the individual being supervised has an impact on the nature of the supervisory relationships in the organization. This dynamic affirms the importance of the first step in the MORE process—identifying the employee’s strengths for the dyad to understand and affirm as a basis for greater employee latitude. This is also where the basis of a trusting relationship is created within the pair.

Employee-employer trust is integral to the LMX relationship [47]. Trust perception by employees can positively impact the quality of the LMX exchange in an organization [48]. In their longitudinal investigation of 285 employee-supervisor pairings, Chen et al. found that relationships are stronger when the employee trusts their supervisors, allowing the employee to be willing to be more open and vulnerable. This elevated level of trust, and the increased quality of LMX, resulted in higher employee work performance. Similarly, in Martin et al.’s [49] meta-analysis, the relationship between LMX indicators and work performance, trust, motivation, empowerment, and job satisfaction were found to be positively related to task performance and citizenship performance and negatively related to counterproductive performance. Martin et al. conclude that in the relationships between LMX and task and citizenship performance, “trust in the leader had the largest effect” ([49], p. 103).

One area not well-explored in the LMX literature is how the supervisor builds trust. Toward this end, a study by Van Woerkom and Myers [50] examined how employees perceived their working environment. This study examined 442 participants within 39 working units among eight Dutch and Belgian companies, where employees answered a survey to measure their perception of the organization’s working climate. Results indicated that the employees who felt they were given autonomy over the development and use of their strengths rated their working environment positively, which enhanced their work performance and relationships with their manager. A strengths-based psychological climate was thus found to impact employees’ sense of well-being. These studies underscore the critical role of supervisors’ management philosophy and interaction style in producing desirable work outcomes. The MORE model extends these studies to propose that to produce desirable outcomes, trust within the supervisor-employee relationship must “multiply” through several frequent interactions that reflect an evolved and mutually respectful relationship. As a result of the preceding discussion, we offer the following propositions which can serve as a basis for future research:

Proposition #1: The MORE process will lead to highly desirable employee outcomes such as job satisfaction, work engagement, motivation, organizational commitment, and task and citizenship performance.

Proposition #2: The MORE process will lead to a higher quality relationship between supervisors and employees such that a higher level of trust will characterize the relationship.

Proposition #3: Trust will mediate the relationship between the MORE process and desirable employee outcomes and work outcomes.

5.3 Step three: O—Obstacles: empower the navigation of obstacles

The third step in the MORE approach considers how the employee’s strengths and skills can be leveraged to empower action to take chances and overcome challenges. As noted earlier, building trust is essential to positive LMX. However, as Schoorman et al. [51] note, trust also cultivates “the willingness to be vulnerable” (p. 347). The more trustworthy employees find their supervisor, the more likely they are to be vulnerable with their manager [52]. This psychological state of allowing oneself to be vulnerable creates the context for the third step in the MORE strategy—the discussion of obstacles. Mayer and Davis [52] and Mayer et al. [52] proposed an integrated model of organizational trust that suggests that employee perceptions of ability, benevolence, and integrity will lead to trust, which in turn allows for risk-taking. In their research, these authors reported that the degree to which an employee is willing to take risks correlates with the amount of reported trust in their supervisor.

Given that the presence of trust is essential for risk-taking, the MORE model proposes that obstacles or challenges found in the workplace may be used to create opportunities if the “challenges conversation” can be framed positively by focusing the on the employee’s strengths. This supposition is supported in the literature. Trope and Pomerantz [53] reported that when college students, after experiencing a failure, were exposed to positive feedback—their level of defensiveness decreased. Results indicated that the more relevant the goal the more attention these participants gave to positive, not negative, feedback.

In order for the consequences of failure to be translated into an opportunity for growth and self-efficacy, employees must be willing to share their perceptions of workplace challenges and obstacles with their supervisor. As Nienaber et al. [54] suggest, vulnerability and trust in leader-follower relationships must be actioned. Trusting beliefs must be translated into trusting behavior. Nienaber et al. also suggest that the hallmark of an evolved relationship is one where the employee feels safe to trust, and the leader makes themselves accessible and engaged. They concluded that mutual engagement of shared safety and trust was crucial to the foundation of a robust relationship which enables an employee to move from trusting willingness to risk-taking action.

Another aspect of the MORE model relates to discussing obstacles related to safety and risk-taking. This aspect includes considering and understanding what it means to feel psychologically safe and what behaviors this feeling will generate. Edmondson [55] defines psychological safety as an individual’s perception of the impacts of taking personal risks in a specific environment. Edmondson and Lei’s [56] literature review on the subject noted that in cases of psychological safety, employees perform, speak, and share suggestions more freely [57] and that the climate for initiative is enhanced [58]. As Premeaux and Bedeian ([59], p. 1538) further note, the act of “speaking up” in the workplace is a critical quality to encourage. Their investigation concluded that employee “voice” predictors are related to openness and trust in upper management. Therefore, employees will feel safe enough to openly state their views and foster alternative tactics or different lines of thinking for tackling job-related obstacles.

Workplace safety and risk-taking are also related to information exchange and creativity. For example, Gong et al. [60] investigated a sample of 190 paired employees and managers to determine if employee proactivity could be linked to levels of trust in their relationships with supervisors and colleagues. The study demonstrated that the employees who had more trust in their supervisor were more proactive and engaged in an information exchange which led to greater creativity in finding solutions to their obstacles.

Step three in the MORE model builds on the safety, trust, and risk-taking research literature and extends theory by including two critical perspectives. The first is that the presence of “obstacles” or challenges in the workplace provides the occasion for trust to be developed. Generally, literature in the field has not examined problems in the workplace as a central focus or beginning point for the quality of the supervisor-employee relationship to be examined or as a discussion point for a strength-based review. Secondly, the MORE model places equal responsibility on employees and supervisors in their joint risk-taking behavior. For example, suppose the supervisor-employee relationship is rooted in the development of trust over time [61] through constant conversations [52] in a psychologically safe environment [55]. In that case, the supervisor must also demonstrate trust and risk-taking in the supervisor-employee relationship. The “obstacles” in the workplace provide the opportunity for this trust to develop through a shared responsibility to take risks in order to navigate the challenges that workplaces present. This discussion leads to the following proposition:

Proposition #4: The MORE process will lead to a more psychologically safe environment where obstacles and challenges can be discussed, mutual trust can be developed, and greater risk-taking will occur.

5.4 R—Results: render visible positive results

Step four in the MORE model considers how to assess and encourage positive “results” regarding goal achievements. This element of the approach draws upon research in the field of strength-based leadership [62], the influence of happiness and positive affect [63] and appreciative inquiry [64] as it intersects with the strengths-based management literature. A key element in the MORE approach is how the manager actively brings attention to the employee strengths so that the employee embraces and activates these attributes. It is proposed that by building upon stages one, two and three of the MORE approach, leveraging positive relationships (based upon trust, strengths, and the ability to navigate obstacles) that foster positive results employees will achieve more. Positivity precedes success.

Research in the area of strength-based leadership provides evidence that people follow great leaders who know how to identify and invest in strengths, maximize their teams’ strengths, and understand the needs of their followers [62]. Likewise, Lyubomirsky et al. [63], in their extensive review of published papers and dissertations at the time, reported that happy people are successful people. The experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal data indicated that positivity is integral to goal attainment. All three methodological approaches also suggested that “positive affect”—qualities such as confidence, optimism, self-efficacy, likeability, and other positive personality attributes—encourage actions which lead to the attainment of goal pursuits. Hakanen et al.’s [65] conceptual model of positive gain spirals at work describes this cycle as an increase in job resources leading to more work engagement, facilitating personal initiative, and positively impacting innovation. This positive work result then creates more personal initiative leading to more job resources, and the cycle continues to increase capacity. This “energizing power” is predicated on positive feedback and positive results.

The importance of positive results in the MORE model is also supported by research that draws upon appreciative inquiry theory—a change management strategy designed to find out what is working well, why it is working well, and then doing more of it [64]. It was with roots in this theory that Kluger and Nir [13] developed their Feedforward Interview (FFI)—a forward-looking appreciative inquiry interview between the supervisor and employee that focuses on a win-win approach and the notion of success to facilitate change. This interview process carries many elements of the MORE model, as it is designed to encourage positive emotion, foster bonding, and build psychological safety. Notably, it is designed to better support employees’ needs by increasing the feeling of positivity for both the employer and the employee [13]. In addition, the explicit inclusion of the supervisor’s role and responsibility to be an active agent in emulating and reflecting this positivity is also a vital component of the MORE approach.

As an example of further parallels between MORE and FFI, we look to Budworth et al.’s [15] field experiment as an intervention with an organization’s traditional performance review. In this study, the FFI’s impact on organizational performance considers the plethora of research that finds the traditional performance review ineffective or harmful to the employee and the organization [2]. Budworth et al. [15] studied managers and their subordinates who were assigned either feedback or feedforward methods. Budworth et al. reported that the FFI positively impacted performance compared to employees with the feedback method. These results demonstrated that FFI processes lead to high performance. Budworth et al. focused on feedforward interviews as a management tool and demonstrated that eliminating the focus of being a critic, and concentrating on the employee’s successes, allowed the employee to feel their voice matters [66], and past successes can be applied to new situations.

In the MORE approach, CliftonStrengths is used as a base for a common language. This approach may partially address the limitations that Budworth et al. [67] proffered—that within the FFI, individual differences are not taken into consideration. Through the use of CliftonStrengths, individual differences are considered, focusing on the employee’s top five strengths as determined by the assessment tool. In addition, the focus is on the employee, moving the attention away from the supervisor’s approach to work. By not being prescriptive of how work should be done, all employees can see themselves as able to advance toward their goals by drawing on their own unique capabilities and achieve success. Through this discussion on how results are achieved through a strengths-based coach approach, the following is proposed:

Proposition #5: Through the MORE process, which allows employees to be more vulnerable, open, and overcome obstacles, higher achievement and performance will occur.

5.5 E—Energize: discover and “energize”

The final step in the MORE process attends to the importance of energy as a resource for work performance as a result of focusing on one’s strengths. Reminiscent of Hakanen et al.’s [65] study cited earlier on positive gain spirals at work, if the cycle of positive feedback works effectively, the process results in “energizing power.” This idea of building upon an employee’s passion and energy draws from the concept of flow, pioneered by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Csikszentmihalyi’s [68] concept of flow is a state of complete immersion in an activity—a sense of total absorption. This feeling of energizing flow, akin to Buckingham’s [69] description of the “red threads,” is the final element in the MORE approach that is vital to a strengths-based supervisor-employee relationship. Buckingham’s [19] “red threads,” Hakanen et al.’s “positive gain spirals,” and Csikszentmihalyi’s descriptions of total absorption suggest that employees can be energized by their work and thereby generate the capacity to put even more energy into their jobs by building more resources and aiming toward better results.

Further support for this idea of energizing work may be found in the research by Bakker and Demerouti [70]. These researchers describe the components of work engagement as an advanced and satisfying professional state of mind. This psychological state involves three components: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor is a feeling of enthusiasm—even in the face of difficulty. Dedication is a feeling of pride and fulfillment, even in doubt and uncertainty. Finally, absorption is the ability to concentrate, focus, and be absorbed in one’s work [70].

The element of “energy” is a vital component of the MORE process, given that the manager supports the employee to pursue what engages and energizes them. A study in South Africa investigated the mediating effects of LMX with strengths use and work engagement [71]. In this study of 213 financial services employees, it was found that perceived organizational support of the use strengths-based approaches created a positive relationship between LMX and work engagement. This study built on the concept of trust, mutual respect between the dyad and the hope for continued growth between the two. According to this investigation, this happens through perceived organizational support of using strengths, high-quality LMX, and LMX being the mediator between the perception of organizational support for strengths and work engagement. Vigor, related to the concept of energy within the MORE model, was positively correlated between LMX and work engagement therefore reinforcing the connection of a positive, trusting relationship between the supervisor and employee and an increased energy and ability to persistently work without tiring and being excited about one’s work. Reinforcing the concept of better relationship quality, the more trusting the relationship, the more likely it is that employees will bring forward obstacles and be vulnerable, leading to higher quality results and invigorated, energized work.

In summary, the “E” for energizing in the MORE model builds upon the research on the psychological state of flow and work absorption and proposes that the employee will feel more energized and engaged through a strengths-based approach. For the supervisor, implementing a successful MORE strategy will involve coaching the employee to discover their strengths, find work at which they are passionate, and thereby use their talents to feel fulfilled and energized, leading to the final proposition:

Proposition #6: As a result of the MORE process, employees will be more fulfilled by their work as they experience higher levels of engagement, vigor, passion, flow, and energy.

6. Discussion and conclusion

It has been argued that traditional performance management has often fallen short of the ideal state of building a supervisor-employee relationship that would yield positive results for both the employee and the organization. In the search for more improved strategies and approaches, this chapter has reviewed research and theory on strength-based capacity, trust, risk-taking and energizing power. These elements serve as the basis of the proposed MORE model that offers an alternative to the traditional performance management process. We have also offered a number of propositions that can serve as a basis for future research.

However, beyond theory, the MORE model has been implemented within a university administrative department for over five years. Although both employees and managers within this department report positive informal feedback employing the MORE model, a formal investigation is required to test the model and consider any contextual variables, in order to develop a nuanced assessment of the efficacy and impact of the model on both employees and supervisors.

Budworth et al. [67] adopted a positive psychology framework in which they employed the “feedforward” interview technique to more clearly understand the contextual and environmental conditions that impacted employee performance. This strategy holds the promise of generating more significant opportunities for developing new constructive workplace interventions and creating more innovative and relevant employee (and supervisor) performance metrics. Given the incredibly complicated interplay between environmental and personal factors in the workplace, understanding more about the supervisor-employee relationship is critical.

An additional imperative that supports the reimagination of traditional forms of employee performance measures stems from the growing complexity of the nature of work and the additional responsibility to attract, energize, engage, and retain talent. Increasingly, conversations of labor shortages, skill gaps, recruitment challenges and retention issues fill hiring managers, CEOs and government officials meeting agendas. The nature of work has been impacted by a host of environmental, technological, and geopolitical factors—not the least of which includes the specter of artificial intelligence (AI) and the rapidly changing global economy. According to the World Economic Forum [72], The Fourth Industrial Revolution, characterized by the integration of cyber-physical systems, means that businesses and employers will need to adapt to the acceleration of innovation and the velocity of disruption. The introduction of new technologies will disrupt employment patterns and require new ways to serve consumer needs.

In North America, the changes brought about by this new industrial wave have also been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic, shifting age demographics, and the higher cost of living—creating a “perfect storm” that has triggered a severe talent drought. Contributing to the talent drought are declining unemployment rates [73], increases in retirement and a growing demand for technologically skilled labour. All these factors are stressing the labor market. Now, more than ever, managers need to understand the labor market and recognize that the competition for attracting, retaining, and training (or re-training) their employees is imperative. According to Clifton and Harter [74], the quality of managers and team leaders (supervisors) is the most significant single factor in an organization’s long-term success. Those entering the workforce (Generation Z) identify that the difference between a “good job” and a “great job” is dependent upon whether the employee feels that they have the potential for substantial growth and meaningful and fulfilling work. Gallup contends that these employees do not want “bosses”—they want coaches. Rather than annual performance reviews, they prefer conversations; rather than fixating on their weaknesses they want managers to discover and value their strengths. It is not about “their job”—it is about “their life.”

Given the changing nature of work and the shifting expectations of the labor force, organizations must look to their managers and supervisors for strategies to help address these associated stressors. Strength-based approaches to employee performance management offer part of a solution to these challenges—but the tools to enact this strategy are not well-developed, universally recognized, or easily accessible to the managers who need them.

Having tools based on research, relatively simple to enact, and easily accessible from both a cost and resource perspective may assist in skilling a workforce of managers to lessen these stressors. Strengths-based tools are readily available; however, how to operationally embed such a tool into the everyday operations of a unit may not be as intuitive for managers. By equipping managers with knowledge on how to leverage employee strengths, we hope that the MORE approach helps to promote more effective management techniques that can foster organizational effectiveness and generate positive experiences for both supervisors and employees.

This paper proposes to take the next step in developing a strength-based framework—the MORE model—and operationalize this strategy in a real-world workplace setting with formalized parameters. This will entail the development of a formalized supervisor’s “feedforward” coaching inventory of questions and check-ins with employees and an employee “feedforward” series of responses and answers/questions from the employee to the supervisor. Elements of the MORE model will provide the framework for these coaching and feedback inventories. As one possibility, the coaching intervention period might entail a four-month work cycle (e.g., September to December), with coaching questions/employee feedback based on the four elements: (1) discovery of employee strengths (Multiply); (2) identification of a workplace “risk-taking” challenge (Obstacle); (3) rendering visible/naming the results of the workplace challenge (Results); and (4) identification of what “energizes” the employee in the workplace setting (Energize). The research method might also include a “pretest” assessment for both employees and supervisors concerning the desired outcomes of the project (e.g., level of job satisfaction, work engagement, motivation, and organizational commitment); and a “post-test” assessment after the intervention/coaching period. Although limited to a relatively small scale and short timeline, such a project might serve as a helpful way to begin to forge a dedicated and consistent two-way coaching dialog between employees and their supervisors. A project such as this might also raise interesting perspectives and new learnings about the workplace and the organization’s health. Given the very fluid nature of the post-Covid working environment, employers would benefit from learning “MORE” about how to ensure that their employees are both happy and productive—before employees decide to leave their jobs in search of new horizons.

To investigate the viability of the MORE approach, this model needs to be tested in a real-world industry setting. In order to do this, measures for each step of the process would need to be developed, inclusive of a method that would establish a timeline and develop an inventory of questions and responses (for both supervisors and employees) that would determine if the process does indeed, elicit “success” in terms of improved relationships, trust, employee engagement and work performance. Given the post-Covid environment, the workplace is now, more than ever, where employees wish to achieve “more” in the form of personal fulfillment in their work. Supervisors and industry leaders are also acutely aware that it will take “more” to keep employees happy and productive. The MORE approach holds promise to achieve both these goals.