Applied Research in Quality of Life (2020) 15:503–527
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9691-3
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential
Relationships Across Occupational Groups and Adulthood
Sonja Heintz 1 & Willibald Ruch 1
Received: 6 October 2018 / Accepted: 28 November 2018/ Published online: 8 January 2019
# The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) and Springer Nature B.V. 2018
Abstract
Character strengths are a central construct within positive psychology, and their
importance for the workplace was supported recently. Little is known, however, which
strengths matter the most at the workplace. The aim of the present investigation was
thus to assess the relationship between the level of the 24 character strengths with
overall job satisfaction in a general working population (N = 12,499) as well as in eight
occupational subgroups (nurses, physicians, supervisors, office workers, clinical psychologists, social workers/educators, economists, and secondary-school teachers) and
in six age groups (from 18 to 61+ years) and to compare the overall level of character
strengths across the eight occupational subgroups. Results showed that, similar to life
satisfaction, zest, hope, curiosity, love, and gratitude, and emotional strengths in
general, related most strongly to overall job satisfaction. However, the relationships
of the strengths with job satisfaction differed depending on the facet of job satisfaction,
the occupational subgroup, and the age group under study. Knowing which individual
strengths as well as strengths factors are more important for specific working populations can help to develop and apply more effective strength-based interventions in the
workplace, thus improving positive and reducing negative work-related outcomes.
Keywords Character strengths . Job satisfaction . VIA classification . Person-job fit .
Workplace . Intervention
Introduction
In their seminal book, Peterson and Seligman (2004) introduced 24 character strengths
that should contribute to the Bgood life^. In line with this notion, the importance of
these strengths for well-being was frequently supported (for overviews, see Hausler
* Sonja Heintz
s.heintz@psychologie.uzh.ch
1
Section on Personality and Assessment, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich,
Binzmühlestrasse 14/7, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland
504
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
et al. 2017; Schutte and Malouff 2018; Sin and Lyubomirsky 2009). More recently,
studies focused on the workplace as a relevant applied setting for character strengths.
For example, job satisfaction is shaped by the working conditions, by the person, and
by the person-environment or person-job fit (e.g., Agho et al. 1993; Büssing et al. 1999;
Kristof-Brown et al. 2005), and character strengths should thus influence job satisfaction both directly and indirectly (via the fit with the job/environment). Research
supported the importance of the level (also labeled endorsement or possession) and
manifestation (also labeled enactment or use) of character strengths for a variety of
positive work outcomes (for overviews, see Bakker and van Woerkom 2018; Lavy and
Littman-Ovadia 2017). The present investigation adds to this literature by comparing
the level of character strengths and their relationship to job satisfaction across eight
occupational subgroups (nurses, physicians, supervisors, office workers, clinical psychologists, social workers and educators, economists, and secondary-school teachers)
and six age groups (from 18 to 61+ years). This allows determining whether different
character strengths matter for job satisfaction depending on the participants’ occupational subgroup and age.
Character Strengths and the BGood Life^
Peterson and Seligman (2004) introduced 24 character strengths as positive and
morally valued traits, which can be assigned to six core virtues (see Höfer et al.
2018a, b). The character strengths are supposed to contribute to the Bgood life^: The
higher the level of the strengths, the more often and the more easily people should
manifest them in their daily lives, which should be intrinsically rewarding and
fulfilling and which should also lead to positive outcomes for oneself and one’s
surroundings. Peterson and Seligman (2004) also emphasized the importance of
signature strengths, defined as the three to seven highest strengths that should be
the most characteristic and central for a person. In addition to the strengths, studies
investigated second-order factors based on the 24 scales of the VIA Inventory of
Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson et al. 2005), which usually yielded five strengths
factors (Höfer et al. 2018a, b; McGrath 2014; Ruch et al. 2010): Interpersonal
(e.g., kindness, teamwork, fairness), emotional (e.g., zest, hope), restraint (e.g.,
self-regulation, prudence), intellectual (e.g., love of learning, creativity), and theological (e.g., spirituality, appreciation of beauty and excellence).
In line with these conceptualizations, character strengths, signature strengths,
and strengths factors have been shown to be positively related to the Bgood life^,
mostly operationalized as subjective or psychological well-being (e.g., Hausler
et al. 2017; Martínez-Martí and Ruch 2014; Park et al. 2004; Peterson and Park
2011; Peterson et al. 2007). Additionally, strength-based positive psychology
interventions were found to increase subjective and psychological well-being with
mostly medium effects (e.g., Gander et al. 2013; Schutte and Malouff 2018;
Seligman et al. 2005; Sin and Lyubomirsky 2009). These interventions usually
consist of short exercises that either aim at practicing a specific strength (such as
kindness or gratitude), an individual set of strengths (e.g., identifying and/or
applying one’s signature strengths in a new way), or a general set of strengths
(e.g., strengths that correlate the highest or the lowest with life satisfaction). For
example, it was found that practicing strengths that correlated high, in comparison
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
505
to those that correlated low, with life satisfaction yielded larger increases in life
satisfaction (Proyer et al. 2013). Thus, strength interventions can be adapted both
to the individual (e.g., signature strengths) and to the domain that should be
improved (e.g., life satisfaction, and potentially also job satisfaction).
Character Strengths at the Workplace
A central concept in the Bgood life^ is life satisfaction, or the evaluation of one’s life
as a whole (Diener et al. 1985; Pavot and Diener 2008). Accordingly, life satisfaction has been the main outcome variable in investigations of character strengths.
These studies often yielded five strengths that were most highly correlated with life
satisfaction, namely hope, zest, gratitude, love, and curiosity (e.g., Park et al. 2004;
Peterson et al. 2007; Ruch et al. 2010). As these studies were heterogeneous in
terms of age, another study investigated three age groups, ranging from 27 to
57 years (Martínez-Martí and Ruch 2014). This study found that kindness, social
intelligence, persistence, and love of learning emerged among the top-five strengths
correlating with life satisfaction within the different age groups.
In addition to satisfaction with one’s life in general, satisfaction can also be assessed at
the level of specific life domains, such as work and family (Diener et al. 1999). Relevant
for the present investigation, a meta-analysis found an average weighted correlation of .40
between life and overall job satisfaction and smaller relationships for specific facets of job
satisfaction (Bowling et al. 2010). Overall job satisfaction can be assessed with short
scales or single ratings (Wanous et al. 1997), or it can be assessed as a composite of several
facets, such as satisfaction with payment, co-workers, and supervisors. Overall job
satisfaction was also found to relate to job performance (e.g., Edwards et al. 2008;
Judge et al. 2001), with differential effects for the facets; for example, satisfaction with
supervision was more strongly related to contextual performance than to task performance, while the reverse pattern was found for satisfaction with work.
In terms of strengths, both the level and manifestation of specific character strengths
and broader strengths factors were found to be related to job satisfaction (Gander et al.
2012; Harzer and Ruch 2013, 2015; Lavy and Littman-Ovadia 2017; Peterson et al.
2010) as well as a variety of positive work outcomes, such as productivity (Lavy and
Littman-Ovadia 2017), performance (Harzer and Ruch 2014; Littman-Ovadia and Lavy
2016), meaning (Allan et al. 2017; Harzer and Ruch 2013; Littman-Ovadia and Steger
2010), and engagement (Harzer and Ruch 2013; van Woerkom et al. 2016). In the few
studies that reported strength-level correlations, the strengths that most highly correlated with job satisfaction were zest, hope, curiosity, gratitude, and persistence/spirituality
(Gander et al. 2012; Peterson et al. 2010). Recently, strength-based interventions have
been conducted at the workplace, supporting the causal influence of character strengths
on calling (Harzer and Ruch 2016), well-being, and work performance (Dubreuil et al.
2016).
Although it has been argued that the manifestation of the strengths at the workplace
might be more important for positive workplace outcomes than their absolute level
(Bakker and van Woerkom 2018; Huber et al. 2018; Lavy and Littman-Ovadia 2017),
positive outcomes were found for both. Furthermore, medium to large overlaps were
found between the level and manifestation of strengths in both private and work life
(correlations ranging from .16 for self-regulation to .82 for spirituality, Mdn = .34;
506
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
Harzer and Ruch 2013). Thus, investigating levels and manifestations of strengths can
be seen as complementary, rather than mutually exclusive approaches to assess the
Bgood character^ at work.
While most studies focused on a general working population, a few studies targeted
specific occupational subgroups, such as nurses (Harzer and Ruch 2015), counselors
(Allan et al. 2017), or army personnel (Boe et al. 2015; Gayton and Kehoe 2015). To
our knowledge, only one study compared character strengths across occupational
groups (Peterson et al. 2010), including professional (e.g., chief executives, lawyers),
managerial (e.g., managers, nurses, social workers, teachers), administrative, clerical
(e.g., clerks, secretaries, salespeople), blue-collar workers, and homemakers. They
found that the levels of all character strengths (except for humor) differed across the
six occupational groups, albeit with small effect sizes. Also, the top-five strengths
correlating with job satisfaction differed slightly across the occupational groups.
Specifically, for managerial and administrative professions, love was among the five
strengths that correlated highest with job satisfaction, and for blue-collar professions,
perspective and self-regulation were among the top-five strengths. Peterson et al.
(2010) concluded that Bthere are more similarities across occupational type than
differences in the strengths that relate to satisfaction at work^ (p. 229). However, a
comparison of the interplay of character strengths and job satisfaction in more specific
occupational subgroups has not yet been conducted. This gap is thus addressed in the
present investigation.
The Present Investigation
The aims of the present investigation were (1) to assess the relationship between the
level of the 24 character strengths and the five strengths factors with overall job
satisfaction and its facets, (2) in eight occupational subgroups, and (3) in six age
groups (from 18 to 61+ years), and (4) to compare the overall level of character
strengths across eight occupational subgroups (nurses, physicians, supervisors,
office workers, clinical psychologists, social workers/educators, economists, and
secondary-school teachers). The first aim replicates and extends previous studies
(Gander et al. 2012; Peterson et al. 2010) by taking into account not only overall job
satisfaction, but also specific facets of job satisfaction. It is expected that character
strengths rather relate to facets representing subjective evaluations (e.g., evaluation
of the company, development and application of own skills, resignation, and
turnover intentions) than those that reflect more objective environments or working
conditions (e.g., satisfaction with payment, career opportunities, and the leadership
style, respect and participation, pressure and work stress). As strengths could
potentially influence the latter by job crafting towards strengths (see Kooij et al.
2017), defined as Bself-initiated changes that individuals make in the task boundaries of their work to make better use of their strengths^ (Kooij et al. 2017, p. 972),
positive relationships are expected with all facets of job satisfaction in addition to
the overall score. While we cannot present hypotheses for each strength, a few
should be highlighted. Curiosity will allow raising interest in a new task or a new
way to do a task, and zest will facilitate the engagement with the task, which might
lead to flow experiences. Hope might help expecting a good outcome and persistence helps to continue with and finish a task rather than quitting it and hence more
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
507
likely leads to accomplishments. As many jobs involve interactions (e.g., with coworkers, customers, or students), love and teamwork might facilitate job satisfaction as well.
Regarding the second aim, recent work suggested that the person-job fit based on
character strengths is relevant for work-related outcomes (Harzer et al. 2017). Thus,
the relationship between a specific strength and job satisfaction might differ across
occupational groups, as would be predicted from person-environment models (see
Kooij et al. 2017; Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). For example, the character strength
leadership might more strongly determine job satisfaction for supervisors than for
other occupational groups, while modesty might be less important by comparison.
We thus expect fluctuations for the correlations of the character strengths with job
satisfaction across occupational subgroups, ranging from zero to small to medium
positive correlations. As all strengths should be inherently positive and morally
valued, we do not expect any negative correlations with job satisfaction for any
occupational subgroup. At the same time, certain strengths are expected to be
positively and strongly related to job satisfaction independent of the subgroup,
such as zest and hope (see Peterson et al. 2010).
Regarding the third aim, age is a relevant demographic variable to consider when
investigating the relationship between character strengths and job satisfaction. From
young to older adulthood, the job characteristics/environments change (e.g., progression from junior to senior positions, career transitions, and varying job complexity), as
does the person (see Levinson 1986; Wrzus and Roberts 2017). These changes and
their complex interplay in turn influence work-related outcomes, such as work motivation, turnover intentions, and job satisfaction (e.g., Dobrow Riza et al. 2015; Kanfer
and Ackerman 2004; Zacher and Frese 2011). We thus explore whether the relationships between character strengths and overall job satisfaction vary across adulthood
(from 18 to 61+ years). We expect that the five strengths that are most highly related to
job satisfaction differ especially between the youngest and oldest age groups.
In the fourth aim, we also compare the level of character strengths across the eight
occupational subgroups. People tend to select a job that matches their abilities and
preferences (Dawis 2005; Lubinski and Benbow 2006) and they shape their job
environments to increase the fit (Kooij et al. 2017; Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). At the
same time, the job itself influences the person (Roberts 1997; Roberts and Wood 2006).
These effects likely result in different levels of character strengths in the different
occupational groups (see also Proyer et al. 2012 for an investigation of character
strengths and vocational interests). Although Peterson et al. (2010) only found very
small effects, the present investigation employs more specific subgroups to allow for a
more fine-grained test of this hypothesis.
Investigating these topics might provide a basis for better tailoring strength-based
positive psychology interventions to the workplace and to the specific occupational
subgroups and age groups under study. This would potentially increase the activityperson fit and thus the gains for job satisfaction, making the interventions more
effective (see Harzer et al. 2017; Lyubomirsky and Layous 2013; Proyer et al. 2015).
Furthermore, this knowledge contributes to better understand the interplay between
character strengths in job-related outcomes in German-speaking countries, considering
that cultures differ in central work-related dimensions (e.g., work centrality, societal
norms, and work values; see Schwartz 1999).
508
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
Methods
Participants
The sample characteristics of the total sample and the eight occupational subgroups are
listed in Table 1. The occupational subgroups were derived from an open description of
the participants’ profession. These descriptions were categorized along the taxonomy of
job classification by the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Statistik (BGerman Federal Office for
Labor, Statistics^ 2010). This taxonomy allows categorizing professions at five levels,
from the most abstract level 1 (occupational fields) to level 5 (professions). We chose
level 4 for the present investigation (occupational subgroups), as it allowed the best
tradeoff of specificity and sample size. Participants who indicated several professions or
invalid descriptions (i.e., descriptions that were not pertaining to a job or that could not
be clearly categorized in the taxonomy) were not assigned to any occupation subgroup.
The eight subgroups for the present investigation were selected as they had sample sizes
of at least 200 to yield enough power for the statistical tests: Nurses, physicians,
supervisors (supervising and leading companies’ organization and strategies), office
workers, clinical psychologists, social workers and educators, economists (business
administrators, economists, and commercial clerks), and secondary-school teachers.
Measures
Scales for Assessing Job Satisfaction (SAZ; Fischer and Lück 1972) The SAZ comprises
37 items (the first item is used as a warm-up and is not scored) to assess overall job
satisfaction, comprising 10 subscales (general job satisfaction, satisfaction with payment, career opportunities, and the leadership style, respect and participation, evaluation of the company, pressure and work stress [reverse coded], development and
application of own skills, resignation [reverse coded], and turnover intentions [reverse
coded]) with two to five items each. In the present sample, internal consistency was
α = .95 for the total score. For the subscales, internal consistencies ranged from .73
(leadership style) to .89 (development and application of own skills). Intercorrelations
between the SAZ subscales ranged from .23 (between general job satisfaction and
payment) to .80 (between general job satisfaction and the application of own skills),
with a median of .53. The items were answered on five-point response scales (from 1 to
5 with different labels across the items, e.g., 1 = untrue to 5 = true). The mean was 3.33
for overall job satisfaction (SD = 0.72). For the subscales, the means ranged from 2.95
(SD = 0.90) for career opportunities to 3.57 (SD = 0.92) for resignation. Correlations
with demographic variables were small in magnitude, ranging from −.09 to .02 for
gender, .00 to .17 for age, and −.02 to .07 for education.
The VIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson et al. 2005; German adaptation by Ruch et al. 2010) assesses the 24 character strengths entailed in the
VIA classification. It consists of 240 items (10 for each strength) with a fivepoint scale from 1 = very much unlike me to 5 = very much like me. In the present
sample, internal consistencies ranged from α = .72 (authenticity) to α = .90 (spirituality). Intercorrelations between the VIA-IS scales ranged from −.13 (between
creativity and modesty) to .73 (between the zest and hope), with a median of .32.
The means ranged from 2.94 (SD = 0.90) for spirituality to 3.95 (SD = 0.54) for
12,499
Total
218
226
229
360
572
559
Physicians
Supervisors
Office
Clin. psych.
Social
Economists
Teachers
1986
3498
4066
2322
254
21–30
31–40
41–50
51–60
61+
50.00
68.2
71.0
70.3
74.5
74.5
83.1
76.6
86.1
81.8
98.7
56.0
68.4
93.8
70.5
50.00
31.8
29.0
29.7
25.5
25.5
16.9
23.3
13.9
18.8
1.3
44.0
31.6
6.3
29.5
63.75
54.50
45.53
35.66
26.69
18.39
43.24
41.31
41.31
41.79
40.70
39.00
43.81
42.63
41.00
3.39
2.67
2.81
2.92
2.57
0.74
10.58
10.26
10.72
11.10
10.57
8.85
9.99
11.03
10.69
SD
M
%F
%M
Age in years
Gender
37.0
26.2
21.8
18.7
18.9
19.8
19.9
29.2
22.2
32.3
15.0
21.6
12.6
8.2
21.5
%Swiss
Nationality
55.5
64.3
67.2
67.9
65.8
67.0
65.8
61.9
68.6
48.0
69.9
65.6
77.7
77.9
66.4
%German
7.5
9.5
11.0
13.4
15.3
13.2
14.3
8.9
9.2
19.7
15.1
12.8
9.7
13.9
12.1
%Other
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.2
%Less comp.
Education
24.0
25.7
24.9
16.8
17.8
30.6
2.5
29.7
7.8
0.0
43.4
15.6
0.0
59.6
21.8
%Comp.
8.7
8.3
7.6
5.6
7.4
6.7
0.7
17.7
4.7
0.0
11.9
7.3
0.0
5.3
7.1
%Appr.
5.1
7.4
10.1
10.3
13.4
14.2
2.3
13.1
1.9
0.4
19.0
6.0
0.0
18.8
10.2
%UED
61.8
58.2
57.1
67.2
61.3
48.0
94.5
39.5
85.6
99.6
25.7
71.1
100.0
15.9
60.6
%Uni.
Clin. psych. = clinical psychologist, Office = office workers, Social = social workers/educators, Teachers = secondary-school teachers, %F = percent females, %M = percent males,
%Less comp. = percent with less than compulsory education, %Comp. = percent with compulsory education, %Appr. = percent with apprenticeship, %UED = university-entrance
diploma, %Uni. = percent with university degree or currently studying
373
18–20
Age groups
208
215
Nurses
Subgroup
N
Sample
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the total sample and the different occupational subgroups and age groups
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
509
510
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
curiosity. Correlations with demographic variables were small in magnitude, ranging from −.08 to .15 for gender, −.05 to .18 for age, and −.12 to .16 for education.
Procedure
The sample was collected via a website for research purposes (www.charakterstaerken.
org), which offers research instruments mainly related to positive psychology. Selection
criteria for participants were the age of 18 years and above and a reasonable command
of German. The website is regularly advertised to a variety of groups (e.g., via talks,
webpages, and interviews), though participants were not specifically invited to
complete the relevant measures on the website. The sample is thus a self-selected
convenience sample, who completed the VIA-IS and the SAZ (among other questionnaires that are hosted on the website) between 2008 and 2017. Participants received an
automated and personalized feedback after completing each questionnaire. The data
collection and analyses was conducted in line with local ethical guidelines.
Analyses
The relationship between character strengths and job satisfaction (overall composite score
and facets) was tested with partial Pearson correlations or with partial Spearman’s rank
correlations in case the assumption of normally distributed variables was violated. Correlations were computed for the total sample and separately for the occupational subgroups
and the age groups. All correlations were controlled for gender and education (and age in
the total sample and the occupational subgroups). To determine the total overlap of the 24
strengths with job satisfaction, we also computed standard stepwise regressions, in which
gender and education (and age in the total sample and the occupational subgroups) were
added in a first step and the 24 strengths in a second step. The level of the character
strengths across the occupational subgroups were compared with an analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA), with the strengths as dependent variables, the eight occupational subgroups
as independent variables, and gender, age, and education as covariates. The levels of the
individual occupational subgroups were then compared against the grand mean across the
subgroups; these multiple comparisons were Bonferroni-corrected (i.e., p < .006). The 5
second-order strengths factors were derived in principal components analyses of the 24
VIA-IS scales with varimax rotation: Interpersonal (kindness, social intelligence, teamwork, fairness, leadership, and forgiveness), emotional (bravery, persistence, zest, love,
hope, and humor), restraint (persistence, honesty, modesty, prudence, and self-regulation),
intellectual (creativity, open-mindedness, love of learning, and perspective), and theological (appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, and religiousness).
Results
Relationships of Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction
In a first step, we determined empirically which character strengths are the most
relevant for overall job satisfaction by computing the ranks for the 24 strengths within
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
511
each person (with 24 representing the highest rank and 1 representing the lowest rank.)
Ranks were chosen to identify the strengths that have a signature quality for a person
(i.e., the highest level of all strengths) and to serve as a precaution against a potential
acquiescence bias. Correlating these ranks with overall job satisfaction yielded the
following seven strengths that correlated significantly (p < .001) and positively with job
satisfaction: Hope (r = .31), zest (r = .30), curiosity (r = .15), love (r = .08), gratitude
and spirituality (r = .07), and persistence (r = .06).
Next, the partial correlations of the 24 character strengths with overall job satisfaction and its facets were investigated (see Table 2). The pattern of correlations based on
the normative correlations (i.e., levels of strengths with overall job satisfaction) yielded
a similar pattern as the ranks, with zest, hope, curiosity, love, and gratitude showing the
strongest positive correlations. The 24 character strengths together accounted for 12%
of the variance in job satisfaction beyond gender, age, and education.
Regarding the facets of job satisfaction, the strengths accounted for most
variance in resignation (14%) and in the general job satisfaction index (11%),
while they accounted for the least variance in satisfaction with payment (3%) and
with leadership (4%). Regarding the relevance of individual strengths for the
satisfaction with specific job facets, the five strengths zest, hope, curiosity, love,
and gratitude showed positive and significant relationships with all facets. Additional strengths were among the top-five strengths that correlated highest with
some facets, namely persistence with the general job satisfaction index and satisfaction with career opportunities, development and application of own skills,
resignation, and turnover intentions; forgiveness with satisfaction with leadership
as well as respect and participation; bravery with resignation; teamwork with
satisfaction with leadership and the evaluation of the company; and humor with
pressure and work stress. Thus, 9 of the 24 strengths were found to have the
highest correlations with either overall job satisfaction or with specific job facets,
including both positive and negative job attributes and evaluations.
Relationships of Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction in Different Occupational
Subgroups
Next, the relationships between the character strengths and overall job satisfaction
are investigated in eight occupational subgroups (see Table 3). As shown in Table 3,
the character strengths accounted for most variance in overall job satisfaction
among supervisors (29%), followed by nurses and physicians (24% each), while
the least variance was accounted for among economists (13%) and office workers
(16%). Regarding the individual character strengths, the top-five strengths in the
total working population were also positively and significantly related to overall job
satisfaction in all subgroups, with the exception of love for supervisors. However,
some additional strengths showed strong relationships for specific occupational
subgroups. For physicians, supervisors, social workers/educators, and economists,
persistence emerged as a top-five strength; teamwork emerged for nurses, teachers,
and clinical psychologists, humor for supervisors, leadership for nurses and
teachers, and forgiveness for clinical psychologists and supervisors. Overall, the
strengths zest and hope were the strengths most highly related to overall job
.02*
.11***
.06***
.21***
.35***
.18***
.02*
.12***
.03***
.21***
.37***
.18***
Self-regulation
ABE
Gratitude
Hope
Humor
Leadership
Prudence
.17***
.17***
Fairness
−.03***
.09***
.07***
Teamwork
.16***
.17***
.18***
Social intelligence
.18***
.15***
.17***
Kindness
−.05***
.14***
.12***
Modesty
.21***
.23***
Love
Forgiveness
.39***
.38***
Bravery
Zest
.18***
.17***
Perspective
.09***
.14***
.15***
Love of learning
.23***
.13***
.10***
Open-mindedness
.20***
.06***
.06***
Curiosity
.08***
.25***
.24***
Authenticity
.11***
.09***
Creativity
Persistence
GI
Total
VIA-IS scales
.05***
.15***
.13***
.28***
.16***
.01
−.02*
.10***
.09***
.03***
−.01
.13***
.14***
.04***
.14***
.11***
.09***
.16***
.25***
.07***
.16***
.12***
.10***
.05***
.06***
.03***
.01
.09***
.05***
.04***
.08***
.05***
.03***
.11***
.13***
.04***
.05***
.03***
.04***
.00
.01
.04***
.16***
.05***
−.02*
.08***
Career
Pay
.09***
.20***
.11***
−.01
.07***
.01
−.01
.11***
.07***
.03***
.12***
.09***
.05***
.11***
.19***
.04***
.05***
.06***
.07***
.04***
.01
.11***
.01
LS
.10***
.24***
.14***
.02*
.08***
.01
−.03***
.14***
.11***
.04***
.13***
.13***
.07***
.16***
.24***
.04***
.11***
.10***
.10***
.06***
.03***
.15***
.06***
Respect
.14***
.28***
.18***
.04***
.08***
.03***
−.02*
.15***
.14***
.07***
.18***
.13***
.12***
.18***
.27***
.07***
.13***
.11***
.11***
.06***
.02*
.16***
.05***
CE
.13***
.23***
.10***
−.02*
.14***
.31***
.18***
.03***
.08***
.02*
−.02*
.11***
−.05***
.14***
.17***
.06***
.14***
.14***
.11***
.20***
.31***
.08***
.22***
.17***
.14***
.09***
.07***
.20***
.09***
Skills
−.05***
.09***
.07***
.01
.06***
.11***
.06***
.12***
.25***
.04***
.06***
.11***
.08***
.08***
.02*
.14***
.05***
PWS
.18***
.37***
.20***
.05***
.12***
.00
−.09***
.18***
.21***
.09***
.16***
.18***
.13***
.22***
.41***
.09***
.22***
.22***
.16***
.17***
.09***
.29***
.15***
Res.
Table 2 Partial correlations of the 24 character strengths (VIA-scales controlled for gender, age, and education) with the scales assessing job satisfaction (SAZ)
.14***
.29***
.15***
.00
.08***
.01
−.03***
.13***
.09***
.04***
.12***
.10***
.08***
.16***
.30***
.05***
.16***
.11***
.10***
.05***
.02*
.16***
.03***
TI
512
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
.16***
.11***
.37***
.15***
.12***
.37***
Spirituality
ΔR2
R
.20***
.03***
.05***
Pay
.26***
.06***
.10***
Career
.21***
.04***
.06***
LS
.25***
.06***
.11***
Respect
.26***
.07***
.12***
CE
.27***
.07***
.05***
PWS
.34***
.08***
.13***
Skills
.39***
.14***
.17***
Res.
.32***
.09***
.10***
TI
* p < .05. *** p < .001
N = 12,499 (df = 12,494). ABE = Appreciation of beauty and excellence, GI = general index, Pay. = payment, LS = leadership style, CE = company evaluation, PWS = pressure and
work stress, Res. = resignation, TI = turnover intentions, ΔR2 = Variance accounted for by the 24 character strengths in overall job satisfaction and its facets (beyond gender, age, and
education), R = multiple correlation coefficient of the stepwise regressions
GI
Total
VIA-IS scales
Table 2 (continued)
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
513
.09
.02
.20**
−.07
−.07
.14*
−.16*
.21**
.14*
.41***
.30***
.21**
.23**
.35***
.14
.28***
.15*
.10
.11
.16*
.03
.22**
.39***
Persistence
Authenticity
Zest
Love
Kindness
Social intelligence
Teamwork
Fairness
Leadership
Forgiveness
Modesty
Prudence
Self-regulation
ABE
Gratitude
Hope
.41***
.22**
.00
.11
.03
.36***
.32***
.27***
.13*
.15*
.08
−.05
.30***
.21**
.17**
.25***
.20**
.17**
.22**
.37***
.16*
.17*
.16*
.05
.14*
−.01
.02
.16*
−.07
.06
.13
.11
.36***
.13
.23**
.19**
.03
.13
.04
.28***
.39***
.02
.22**
.15*
.13
.15*
.20**
.06
.11
.08
Bravery
.18**
.15*
.02
.22**
.02
.13*
.19**
−.01
.24***
.19**
Open-mindedness
.10
.31***
Clin. psych.
(df = 224)
Supervisors
(df = 213)
Perspective
.06
Curiosity
Physicians
(df = 211)
Love of learning
.13
.27***
Creativity
Nurses
(df = 203)
VIA-IS
.33***
.25***
.08
.12
−.02
−.10
.14*
.12
.01
.17*
.05
.10
.30***
.34***
.02
.12
.11
.11
.39***
.30***
.05
.24***
.11*
−.01
.15**
.12*
.16**
.23***
.11*
.18**
.30***
.42***
.11*
.25***
.09
.12*
.11*
.08
−.03
.02
.23***
.11*
Social
(df = 355)
.18**
−.01
Office workers
(df = 221)
Table 3 Partial correlations of the 24 character strengths (controlled for gender, age, and education) with overall job satisfaction in 8 subgroups
.36***
.22***
.04
.16***
.06
.04
.19***
.14**
.11**
.20***
.12**
.17***
.24***
.42***
.12**
.27***
.15***
.13**
.13**
.04
.25***
.07
Economists
(df = 567)
.40***
.26***
.06
.10*
−.01
.01
.20***
.29***
.18***
.28***
.22***
.22***
.32***
.41***
.09*
.12**
.15***
.17***
.10*
.01
.27***
.11**
Teachers
(df = 594)
514
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
.21**
.14*
.24**
.49**
Humor
Spirituality
ΔR2
R
.52***
.24***
.13
.14*
Physicians
(df = 211)
.55***
.29***
.16*
.20**
Supervisors
(df = 213)
.48**
.18**
.15*
.15*
Clin. psych.
(df = 224)
.42*
.16
.12
.16*
Office workers
(df = 221)
.47***
.21***
.18**
.14*
Social
(df = 355)
.38***
.13***
.13**
.18***
Economists
(df = 567)
.43***
.18***
.12**
.26***
Teachers
(df = 594)
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
ABE = Appreciation of beauty and excellence, Clin. psych. = clinical psychologist, Social = workers/educators, Teachers = secondary-school teachers, ΔR2 = Variance accounted for by
the 24 character strengths in overall job satisfaction (beyond gender, age, and education), R = multiple correlation coefficient of the stepwise regressions
Nurses
(df = 203)
VIA-IS
Table 3 (continued)
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
515
516
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
satisfaction independent of the specific occupational subgroup, while the other topfive strengths differed depending on the specific subgroup.
This pattern was also supported if the five strengths factors were investigated instead
of the 24 character strengths (see Table 4). The emotional strengths factor was always
significantly and most strongly associated with overall job satisfaction across all
occupational subgroups. However, the interpersonal strengths factor was related to
job satisfaction for nurses, clinical psychologists, economists, and teachers, while the
theological strengths factor was related to job satisfaction for all subgroups except for
nurses and supervisors. The restraint strengths factor was positively related to overall
job satisfaction only in social workers/educators and economists, and the intellectual
strengths factor showed a negative relationship in social workers/educators. Thus,
emotional strengths showed the highest positive relations with overall job satisfaction
independent of the specific occupational subgroup, while the relationships of the other
strengths factors depended on the subgroup.
Relationships of Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction in Different Age Groups
Next, the relationships between the character strengths and overall job satisfaction are
investigated in the six age groups (see Table 5). As shown in Table 5, the character
strengths accounted for most variance in overall job satisfaction in both the youngest
and the oldest age group (26% each), while the least variance was accounted for in 21–
30 (17%) and 31–40 year-olds (19%). Furthermore, the top-five strengths in the total
working population were also positively and significantly related to overall job satisfaction in all age groups. However, several additional strengths showed the largest
positive correlations for specific age groups, especially in 18–20-olds and in those older
than 61 years. Specifically, persistence was among the top-five strengths with the
Table 4 Partial correlations of the 5 second-order strengths factors derived from the 24 character strengths
(via-scales controlled for gender, age, and education) with overall job satisfaction in eight different occupational subgroups
VIA-IS
factors
Social
Economists Teachers
Office
Nurses
Physicians Supervisors Clin.
(df = 594)
workers (df = 355) (df = 567)
(df = 203) (df = 211) (df = 213)
psych.
(df = 224) (df = 221)
F1
.20**
−.09
.05
.21**
.07
.09
.10*
.24***
F2 Emotional
.32***
.42***
.35***
.25***
.32***
.34***
.36***
.35***
F3 Restraint
.09
.03
.00
.04
−.02
.12*
.09*
−.05
F4 Intellectual
.01
−.01
−.09
.00
−.10
−.11*
−.08
−.02
F5 Theological .12
.19**
.10
.17*
.16*
.23***
.16***
.11**
ΔR2
.15***
.21***
.15***
.13***
.15***
.19***
.17***
.19***
R
.39***
.50***
.42***
.42***
.42***
.45***
.42***
.45***
Interpersonal
Clin. psych. = clinical psychologist, Social = social workers/educators, Teachers = secondary-school teachers,
ΔR2 = Variance accounted for by the 5 s-order strengths factors in overall job satisfaction (beyond gender,
age, and education), R = multiple correlation coefficient of the stepwise regressions
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
517
Table 5 Partial correlations of the 24 character strengths (controlled for gender and education) with overall
job satisfaction in six age groups
VIA-IS
Age 18–20
(df = 369)
Age 21–30
(df = 1982)
Age 31–40
(df = 3494)
Age 41–50
(df = 4062)
Age 51–60
(df = 2318)
Age 61+
(df = 250)
Creativity
.03
.06**
.04*
.11***
.14***
.09
Curiosity
.26***
.21***
.22***
.25***
.26***
.20**
Open-mindedness
.06
.03
.03
.08***
.07***
.20**
Love of learning
.08
.11***
.09***
.10***
.12***
.12
Perspective
.09
.11***
.10***
.19***
.17***
.27***
Bravery
.16**
.14***
.14***
.19***
.22***
.28***
Persistence
.22***
.21***
.19***
.20***
.20***
.26***
Authenticity
.03
.06**
.06***
.10***
.11***
.25***
Zest
.41***
.35***
.36***
.38***
.39***
.32***
Love
.22***
.17***
.20***
.24***
.28***
.37***
Kindness
.03
.12***
.07***
.15***
.17***
.14*
Social intelligence
.14**
.11***
.12***
.20***
.21***
.24***
Teamwork
.22***
.16***
.14***
.19***
.21***
.16*
Fairness
.05
.04
.05*
.07***
.11***
.11
Leadership
.12*
.12***
.14***
.19***
.22***
.25***
Forgiveness
.17**
.13***
.17***
.19***
.22***
.20**
Modesty
−.02
−.05*
−.07***
−.05***
−.03
.08
Prudence
.09
−.02
−.01
.04*
.04*
.15*
Self-regulation
.11**
.10***
.09***
.13***
.13***
.19**
ABE
.04
.01
.00
.02
.08***
.02
Gratitude
.20***
.18***
.17***
.22***
.26***
.22***
Hope
.40***
.32***
.35***
.39***
.40***
.38***
Humor
.16**
.16***
.13***
.20***
.19***
.23***
Spirituality
.22***
.10***
.13***
.16***
.17***
.14*
ΔR2
.26***
.17***
.19***
.22***
.23***
.26***
R
.51***
.42***
.44***
.47***
.48***
.54***
ABE = Appreciation of beauty and excellence, ΔR2 = Variance accounted for by the 24 character strengths in
overall job satisfaction (beyond gender and education), R = multiple correlation coefficient of the stepwise
regressions
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
largest relationships with overall job satisfaction for the age groups of 18–40-year-olds.
For 18–20-year-olds, teamwork and spirituality emerged instead, and for over 61-yearolds, perspective and bravery emerged. Also, the relationship between zest and job
satisfaction declined with age: While it was the highest correlating strength for 18–40year olds, it was the second highest for 41–60-year-olds and the third highest for those
older than 61 years. Conversely, the character strength love increased in its correlations
with job satisfaction with age: It was the fourth to sixth highest correlating strength for
18–50-year-olds, the third highest for 51–60-year-olds, and the second highest for those
older than 61 years.
518
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
Table 6 Partial correlations of the 5 second-order strengths factors derived from the 24 character strengths
(VIA-scales controlled for gender and education) with overall job satisfaction in six age groups
VIA-IS Factors
Age 18–20
(df = 369)
Age 21–30
(df = 1982)
Age 31–40
(df = 3494)
Age 41–50
(df = 4062)
Age 51–60
(df = 2318)
Age 61+
(df = 250)
F1 Interpersonal
.05
.06**
.06***
.09***
.12***
.10
F2 Emotional
.33***
.31***
.33***
.37***
.37***
.35***
F3 Restraint
.09
.04*
.05**
.04**
.01
.12***
F4 Intellectual
−.08
−.04
−.05**
−.02
−.04*
.01
F5 Theological
.20***
.11***
.13***
.10***
.14***
.03
ΔR2
.17***
.11***
.13***
.16***
.18***
.17***
R
.41***
.35***
.36***
.40***
.42***
.45***
ΔR2 = Variance accounted for by the five strengths factors in overall job satisfaction (beyond gender and
education), R = multiple correlation coefficient of the stepwise regressions
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
A similar pattern was found if the five strengths factors were investigated instead of
the 24 character strengths (see Table 6). The emotional strengths factor was always
significantly and most strongly associated with overall job satisfaction across all age
groups. Additionally, the interpersonal strengths factor was significantly correlated for
21–60-year-olds, the restraint factor for 21–50- and for over 61-year-olds, and the
theological strengths factor for all age groups except for those older than 61 years.
Furthermore, the intellectual strengths factor was negatively related to job satisfaction
in 31–40- and 51–60-year-olds. Thus, the emotional strengths factor was the most
highly correlating factor independent of the age group, while the relationships of the
other strengths factors were age-dependent.
Levels of Character Strengths across Occupational Subgroups
The final analyses aim at replicating and extending Peterson et al.’s (2010) comparison
of six broad occupational groups. To this end, the level of character strengths in the
eight occupational subgroups was compared against the grand mean of the strengths
across the subgroups. Table 7 shows the means and standard deviations of the 24
character strengths, the effect sizes of the ANCOVA, and the means in the subgroups
that were significantly higher or lower than the grand mean.
The means between the occupational subgroups differed significantly, except for
kindness, self-regulation, and humor. However, all effects were small (1–3% of variance accounted for). When comparing the means of the character strengths in each
subgroup with the grand mean, physicians had significantly higher means in curiosity,
love of learning, persistence, and spirituality; supervisors had significantly higher
means in creativity, open-mindedness, bravery, persistence, and leadership; clinical
psychologists had significantly higher means in perspective, love, social intelligence,
and hope; teachers had significantly higher means in persistence, fairness, leadership,
and spirituality; economists had higher scores in modesty; and social workers/educators
had a higher mean in teamwork.
0.57
0.56
0.61
0.45
0.61
0.62
3.82b
3.79
3.82
3.50
3.48
3.35b
3.79
3.42b
3.74b
Curiosity
Open-mindedness
Love of learning
Perspective
Bravery
Persistence
Authenticity
Zest
Love
0.52
0.53
3.61
3.96
3.57
3.52
3.31
3.35
3.13
3.63
3.70
Teamwork
Fairness
Leadership
Forgiveness
Modesty
Prudence
Self-regulation
ABE
Gratitude
0.47
Social intelligence
0.54
0.55
0.54
0.54
0.46
0.46
0.44
0.48
3.84
3.74
Kindness
0.49
0.61
0.49
0.61
3.46
Creativity
SD
M
Scales
Nurses
(n = 208)
0.44
0.53
3.57b
3.43b
3.79
3.64
3.25
3.33
0.52
0.53
0.58
0.56
0.57
0.46
3.79b
3.14
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.49
0.59
0.41
0.61
0.52
3.53
3.68
3.77
3.89
3.60
3.78
3.62a
3.55
0.47
0.53
4.07a
3.57
0.46
0.50
0.68
SD
3.93
4.09a
3.58
M
Physicians
(n = 215)
0.63
3.66
3.52
3.25
0.50
0.56
0.53
0.49
3.11b
3.44
0.52
0.45
0.49
0.45
0.51
0.49
0.60
0.59
0.43
3.55
3.83a
3.91
3.68
3.70
3.80
3.76
3.58
3.85
0.54
0.53
3.67a
3.68a
0.49
0.55
3.65
3.91
0.55
0.44
3.98
0.66
3.64a
3.99a
SD
M
Supervisors
(n = 218)
3.78
3.60
3.20
3.31
3.08b
3.55
3.64
3.89
0.53
0.53
0.56
0.57
0.55
0.53
0.46
0.44
0.50
0.40
3.57
0.46
3.86a
0.47
0.51
0.43
0.61
3.78
3.98a
3.61
3.77
3.55
0.49
0.46
3.61
0.53
3.63a
0.44
0.53
0.69
SD
3.99
3.96
4.04
3.56
M
Clin. psych.
(n = 229)
3.78
3.60
3.18
3.38
3.30
3.50
3.54
3.93
3.60
3.71
3.90
3.85
3.54
3.81
3.35b
3.46b
3.50
3.77
3.77
3.84
3.42
M
Office
(n = 226)
0.49
0.53
0.56
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.48
0.41
0.46
0.47
0.44
0.49
0.56
0.42
0.61
0.56
0.50
0.61
0.50
0.55
0.65
SD
3.74
3.58
3.14
3.30
3.17
3.53
3.66
0.49
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.54
0.51
0.44
0.43
0.47
3.70a
3.95
0.40
0.44
0.49
0.55
0.41
0.56
0.47
0.42
0.52
0.44
0.51
0.61
SD
3.80
3.77
3.89
3.50
3.79
3.46
3.60
3.54
3.86
3.85
3.93
3.52
M
Social
(n = 360)
0.56
0.58
0.54
3.49b
3.66b
0.52
0.53
0.53
0.48
0.43
0.48
0.49
0.47
0.57
0.60
0.45
0.64
0.56
0.47
0.61
0.46
0.55
0.66
SD
3.20
3.39
3.33a
3.47
3.58
3.92
3.58
3.62b
3.79
3.77b
3.46b
3.85
3.44
3.47b
3.50
3.78b
3.84
3.88
3.38b
M
Economists
(n = 572)
Table 7 Means and standard deviations of the 24 character strengths (VIA-scales) in eight occupational subgroups and effect sizes of mean comparisons
3.79
3.65
3.23
3.39
3.22
3.57
3.72a
3.96a
3.62
3.73
3.82
3.91
3.57
3.78
3.58a
3.52
3.52
3.95
3.88
4.00
3.56
M
Teachers
(n = 559)
0.55
0.56
0.55
0.54
0.55
0.51
0.45
0.46
0.49
0.45
0.49
0.52
0.57
0.41
0.57
0.54
0.46
0.55
0.46
0.50
0.67
SD
.01**
.01**
.00
.01**
.01***
.01**
.03***
.01***
.01***
.02***
.00
.01***
.01***
.01*
.03***
.02***
.01*
.01**
.01**
.01**
.01***
ηp2
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
519
3.46
3.56
3.04
Hope
Humor
Spirituality
0.81
0.63
0.64
SD
0.63
0.82
3.59
0.56
SD
3.17a
3.60
M
Physicians
(n = 215)
2.68b
3.62
3.58
M
0.83
0.64
0.57
SD
Supervisors
(n = 218)
3.04
0.89
0.58
0.55
3.63a
3.67
SD
M
Clin. psych.
(n = 229)
2.84b
3.68
3.51
M
Office
(n = 226)
0.84
0.61
0.59
SD
3.12a
3.58
3.49
M
Social
(n = 360)
0.89
0.60
0.58
SD
2.80b
3.55
3.43b
M
0.84
0.66
0.63
SD
Economists
(n = 572)
3.11a
3.58
3.53
M
Teachers
(n = 559)
0.90
0.59
0.60
SD
.03***
.01
.01***
ηp2
significantly (p < .006, Bonferroni-corrected) lower than the grand mean across the eight occupational subgroups (ANCOVA contrast)
b Mean
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
significantly (p < .006, Bonferroni-corrected) higher than the grand mean across the eight occupational subgroups (ANCOVA contrast)
a Mean
ABE = Appreciation of beauty and excellence, Clin. psych. = clinical psychologists, Office = office workers, Social = social workers/educators, Teachers = secondary-school teachers,
ηp2 = effect size of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the character strength as dependent and the eight occupational subgroups as independent variables, controlling for gender,
age, and education
M
Nurses
(n = 208)
Scales
Table 7 (continued)
520
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
521
Discussion
The aims of the present investigation were (1) to assess the relationship between
the level of the 24 character strengths and the five strengths factors with overall
job satisfaction and its facets, (2) in the eight occupational subgroups, and (3) in
six age groups, and (4) to compare the overall level of character strengths across
the eight subgroups. Regarding the first aim, previous studies suggested zest,
hope, curiosity, gratitude, and persistence/spirituality to be the five strengths that
are most highly related to overall job satisfaction (Gander et al. 2012; Peterson
et al. 2010). However, in the present investigation hope, zest, curiosity, love, and
gratitude (and additionally spirituality in the ipsative, rank-level analyses)
emerged as the most highest correlating strengths. This is similar to the list of
strengths that correlated most strongly with life satisfaction (e.g., Park et al. 2004;
Peterson et al. 2007; Ruch et al. 2010), with the exception that curiosity seemed
relatively more important for job satisfaction than for life satisfaction. Although
persistence was proposed to be a central strength for the workplace (LittmanOvadia and Lavy 2016), it might be more relevant for work performance than for
job satisfaction (see also Harzer et al. 2017).
Furthermore, the correlations of the character strengths with job satisfaction differed
across the facets of job satisfaction. Specifically, persistence was one of the top-five
highest correlating strength for 5 of the 10 facets of job satisfaction, including positive
and negative facets. Forgiveness and teamwork were relevant for 2 of the 10 facets, and
bravery and humor for one facet each. Thus, strength-based interventions at the
workplace could target 9 of the 24 strengths to improve either overall job satisfaction
or specific facets of it (especially those related to subjective evaluations), such as
satisfaction with leadership and career opportunities, the development and application
of skills, and to decrease resignation, pressure and work stress, and turnover intentions.
As expected, all correlations between the character strengths and job satisfaction that
were substantial (i.e., >|.10|) were positive. The only character strength that showed a
tendency for negative relationships with overall job satisfaction and its facets (especially resignation) was modesty. This is in line with previous studies, in which modesty
was often the strength with the lowest correlations with life and job satisfaction (e.g.,
Martínez-Martí and Ruch 2014; Peterson et al. 2010). However, a recent study that
investigated friendships in early adolescents (Wagner 2018) suggests that modesty
might rather be associated with interpersonal benefits, such as peer acceptance and
friendship satisfaction. Consequently, the role of character strengths in workplace
relationships (e.g., between co-workers and between employees and the employer)
would be an important area for future research and applications.
Regarding the second aim, we found that the relationships of the character strengths
with job satisfaction differed between the occupational subgroups. While hope and zest
were strongly related to job satisfaction in most of the subgroups, as expected,
persistence emerged as a top-five strength in four of the eight occupational subgroups,
teamwork in three, forgiveness and leadership in two, and humor in one subgroup. This
again supports the notion that strength-based interventions could potentially be tailored
to the specific occupational subgroup that is targeted. Future research could investigate
the fit between the character strengths and job demands (as an extension of the personenvironment model; see Harzer et al. 2017; Kooij et al. 2017; Kristof-Brown et al.
522
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
2005) in more detail by determining the best character strengths for specific jobs, for
example, by employing ratings of the importance of strengths (by employees or
employers) or self-ratings of strengths by successful employees.
Regarding the third aim and as expected, the correlations between the character
strengths and job satisfaction were found to differ with age, especially between the
youngest and oldest groups. Interestingly, the strengths accounted for the most variance
in the youngest (18–20-year-olds) and oldest age group (>61-year-olds), indicating that
the Bgood character^ might be more relevant at the beginning and end of one’s career.
Strength-wise, general trends were a decreasing correlation of zest and an increasing
correlation of love with job satisfaction throughout adulthood. At the factor-level, a
shift from theological to restraint and interpersonal strengths could be observed across
adulthood. Potentially, being energetic and excited and believing in something that
transcends oneself is especially important for job satisfaction at the beginning of one’s
career, and later relationships with others and self-regulation and self-control become a
more important source for one’s job satisfaction. Interestingly, spirituality and teamwork were more strongly related to job satisfaction in 18–20-year-olds than in any of
the other age groups. By contrast, perspective and bravery exhibited strong relationships only in the oldest age group (61+ years). These age differences did not match
those found for life satisfaction (Martínez-Martí and Ruch 2014). One possibility is that
they compared participants between 27 and 57 years, which did not differ as strongly in
the character strengths most highly related to job satisfaction in the present investigation. Furthermore, the interplay between character strengths and job satisfaction might
be more prone to show age effects given the different stages that one experiences
throughout the career, potentially influencing the work environment, the person, and
their fit (see Dawis 2005; Lubinski and Benbow 2006; Roberts 1997; Roberts and
Wood 2006).
These findings indicate that strength-based interventions might also benefit from
being tailored depending on the age groups that are targeted, especially when early or
late career populations are concerned. Furthermore, character strengths might be useful
predictors not only in the work context, but they might also facilitate the transitions
from school or university to work (e.g., career preparation or job-search outcomes;
Baay et al. 2014; Hirschi 2010) and from work to retirement (e.g., improved retirement
planning; Griffin et al. 2012). Long-term longitudinal studies are needed to determine
the temporal sequence and potentially complex interplay of character strengths, the job
environment and working conditions, and job satisfaction.
Regarding the fourth aim, mean differences in character strengths between the
subgroups were significant for 21 of the 24 strengths, yet all of them were small. This
replicates and extends Peterson et al.’s (2010) findings with more specific occupational
subgroups and in another cultural setting, namely German-speaking countries. The
specific strengths that were higher in certain occupational subgroups were mostly
reasonable; for example, physicians had higher scores in curiosity, love of learning,
and persistence (which fits to their task of diagnosing and treating patients), supervisors
had higher scores in open-mindedness, persistence, bravery, and leadership (which fits
to their responsibility in leading and making impactful decisions for employees and the
company), clinical psychologists had higher scores in love, social intelligence,
perspective, and hope (which fits to their intensive patient relationships and their aim
of improving the patients’ mental health), and secondary-school teachers had higher
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
523
scores in fairness and leadership (which fits to fairly treating their pupils and guiding
them). Of course, we cannot determine how these differences originate; that is, whether
people with certain strengths select specific professions (selection effects; Dawis 2005;
Lubinski and Benbow 2006; Proyer et al. 2012) or whether their work experience
shapes their strengths (socialization effects; Roberts 1997; Roberts and Wood 2006), as
well as the mutual influence of both the person and the environment. Again, longitudinal designs are needed to track changes in the character strengths throughout people’s
careers and career transitions to delineate the emergence of these effects.
Limitations and Future Directions
The present investigation only employed self-reports. Obtaining other-reports, for
example ratings by subordinates, supervisors, colleagues, or clients, would help to
determine how character strengths impact work relationships and workplace environment. Along these lines, team roles could be assessed to complement character
strengths (Ruch et al. 2018). Furthermore, assessing objective criteria, such as work
performance (see Harzer and Ruch 2014) and absenteeism (see van Woerkom et al.
2016) would help to evaluate the financial impact of character strengths at the workplace. The present investigation was also limited to eight occupational subgroups for
which a sufficient number of participants were available, and most participants were
from Germany. While the present investigation thus extends our knowledge about the
interplay between character strengths and job satisfaction in German-speaking countries, adding to an increasingly cross-cultural knowledge in the field (see Liu et al.
2004; McGrath 2015; Schwartz 1999), extending research on this topic to further
occupational groups, to specific professions, and to other cultures would show to what
extent the present findings can be generalized. As the present investigation focused on
job satisfaction (overall and facets), determining which strengths are most relevant for
other positive work-related outcomes across different occupational groups and age
groups would be a fruitful avenue for future research and applications. Furthermore,
the present investigation was cross-sectional, and it can thus not be determined whether
the differences between the age groups were due to developmental or generational
factors. Long-term longitudinal studies are needed to disentangle these influences and
to track changes in the relevance of character strengths for the workplace within people
and across professional transitions and career pathways (as already investigated for
personality and well-being; see e.g., Johnston et al. 2016; Seibert et al. 2001). Finally,
the demographic distribution within the occupational subgroups was not always representative; for example, women were overrepresented. Though we controlled for gender
(as well as age and education) in our analyses, future studies should investigate
representative samples for each profession or occupational group.
Conclusion
The present investigation employed a large sample of the general working population
in German-speaking countries to determine the relationships of character strengths with
job satisfaction. Five character strengths were found to matter most at the workplace,
which matched with the strengths that were most highly related to satisfaction with life
in general (i.e., hope, zest, curiosity, love, and gratitude). However, the strengths
524
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
showing the highest relationships with job satisfaction differed depending on the facet
of job satisfaction (e.g., forgiveness for satisfaction with leadership and bravery for
resignation), the occupational subgroup (e.g., persistence for physicians, teamwork for
nurses, and forgiveness for clinical psychologists), and the age group (e.g., spirituality
and teamwork for 18–20-year-olds and bravery and perspective for those older than
61 years). This investigation contributes to better understand the relevance of character
strengths for job satisfaction in specific workplace settings, thus enabling the development and adaptation of strength-based interventions for specific target groups. These
interventions could help to improve work-related positive outcomes and potentially
reduce undesired outcomes for the employees and the organization.
Acknowledgements This publication was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant
number 172’723). The authors would like to thank Julia Moser, Moritz Meyer, and Andreas Dahlmann for
their help in coding the occupational subgroups, and Olenka Dworakowski for her help in the analyses.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
References
Agho, A. O., Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1993). Determinants of employee job satisfaction: an empirical
test of a causal model. Human Relations, 46, 1007–1027. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600806.
Allan, B. A., Owens, R. L., & Douglass, R. P. (2017). Character strengths in counselors: relations with
meaningful work and burnout. Journal of Career Assessment, 106907271774866. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1069072717748666.
Baay, P. E., Van Aken, M. A., De Ridder, D. T., & Van der Lippe, T. (2014). Understanding the role of social
capital in adolescents' Big Five personality effects on school-to-work transitions. Journal of Adolescence,
37, 739–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.04.015.
Bakker, A. B., & van Woerkom, M. (2018). Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of
occupational health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 59, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1037
/cap0000120.
Boe, O., Bang, H., & Nilsen, F. A. (2015). Selecting the most relevant character strengths for Norwegian
Army officers: an educational tool. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 801–809. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.188.
Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., & Wang, Q. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship
between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 83, 915–934.
Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Statistik (2010). Klassifikation der Berufe 2010 - Systematisches Verzeichnis
(Classification of professions 2010 – Systematic index.) Retrieved from https://statistik.arbeitsagentur.
de/Navigation/Statistik/Grundlagen/Klassifikation-der-Berufe/KldB2010/KldB2010-Nav.html. Accessed
19 Aug 2018.
Büssing, A., Bissels, T., Fuchs, V., & Perrar, K. M. (1999). A dynamic model of work satisfaction: qualitative
approaches. Human Relations, 52, 999–1028. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016979523846.
Dawis, R. V. (2005). The Minnesota theory of work adjustment. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career
development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 3–23). Hoboken: Wiley.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffins, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.
Dobrow Riza, S., Ganzach, Y., & Liu, Y. (2015). Time and job satisfaction: a longitudinal study of the
differential roles of age and tenure. Journal of Management, 44, 2558–2579. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0149206315624962.
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
525
Dubreuil, P., Forest, J., Gillet, N., Fernet, C., Thibault-Landry, A., Crevier-Braud, L., & Girouard, S. (2016).
Facilitating well-being and performance through the development of strengths at work: results from an
intervention program. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 1, 1–19. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s41042-016-0001-8.
Edwards, B. D., Bell, S. T., Arthur, W., Jr., & Decuir, A. D. (2008). Relationships between facets of job
satisfaction and task and contextual performance. Applied Psychology, 57, 441–465. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00328.x.
Fischer, L., & Lück, H. E. (1972). Entwicklung einer Skala zur Messung von Arbeitszufriedenheit (SAZ)
[Development of scale to measure work satisfaction (SAZ)]. Psychologie und Praxis, 16(2), 64–76.
Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Wyss, T. (2012). The good character at work: an initial study on the
contribution of character strengths in identifying healthy and unhealthy work-related behavior and
experience patterns. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 85, 895–904.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-012-0736-x.
Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Wyss, T. (2013). Strength-based positive interventions: further evidence
for their potential in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14,
1241–1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9380-0.
Gayton, S. D., & Kehoe, E. J. (2015). A prospective study of character strengths as predictors of selection into
the Australian army special force. Military Medicine, 180, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D14-00181.
Griffin, B., Loe, D., & Hesketh, B. (2012). Using proactivity, time discounting, and the theory of planned
behavior to identify predictors of retirement planning. Educational Gerontology, 38, 877–889. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03601277.2012.660857.
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. (2014). The role of character strengths for task performance, job dedication,
interpersonal facilitation, and organizational support. Human Performance, 27, 183–205. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08959285.2014.913592.
Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2015). The relationships of character strengths with coping, work-related stress, and
job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. 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., Mubashar, T., & Dubreuil, P. (2017). Character strengths and strength-related person-job fit as
predictors of work-related wellbeing, job performance, and workplace deviance. Wirtschaftspsychologie,
19(3), 23–38 Retrieved from https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/ap-age/mam/images/wipsy2017-3_inhalt_
web.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2018.
Hausler, M., Strecker, C., Huber, A., Brenner, M., Höge, T., & Höfer, S. (2017). Distinguishing relational
aspects of character strengths with subjective and psychological well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01159.
Hirschi, A. (2010). The role of chance events in the school-to-work transition: the influence of demographic,
personality and career development variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 39–49. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.002.
Höfer, S., Gander, F., Höge, T., & Ruch, W. (2018a). Editorial to the special issue „Character strengths, wellbeing, and health in educational and vocational settings^. Applied Research in Quality of Life, in press.
Höfer, S., Hausler, M., Huber, A., Strecker, C., Renn, D., & Höge, S. (2018b). Psychometric characteristics of
the German Values in Action Inventory of Strengths 120-item short form. Applied Research in Quality of
Life, in press.
Huber, A., Strecker, C., Hausler, M., Kachel, T., Höge, T., & Höfer, S. (2018). Possession and applicability of
signature character strengths: What is essential for well-being, work engagement, and burnout? Applied
Research in Quality of Life, in press.
Johnston, C., Maggiori, C., & Rossier, J. (2016). Professional trajectories, individual characteristics, and
staying satisfied and healthy. Journal of Career Development, 43, 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0894845315584161.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance
relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Academy of
Management Review, 29, 440–458. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.13670969.
526
S. Heintz, W. Ruch
Kooij, D. T., van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L., & Denissen, J. J. (2017). Job crafting towards
strengths and interests: the effects of a job crafting intervention on person–job fit and the role of age.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 971–981. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000194.
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, 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.
Lavy, S., & Littman-Ovadia, H. (2017). My better self: using strengths at work and work productivity,
organizational citizenship behavior, and satisfaction. Journal of Career Development, 44, 95–109.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316634056.
Levinson, D. J. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, 41(1), 3–13.
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Lavy, S. (2016). Going the extra mile: perseverance as a key character strength at work.
Journal of Career Assessment, 24, 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715580322.
Littman-Ovadia, H., & Steger, M. (2010). Character strengths and well-being among volunteers and employees: toward an integrative model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 419–430. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17439760.2010.516765.
Liu, C., Borg, I., & Spector, P. E. (2004). Measurement equivalence of the German job satisfaction survey
used in a multinational organization: implications of Schwartz's culture model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 1070–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1070.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: uncovering
antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1,
316–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Layous, K. (2013). How do simple positive activities increase well-being? Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412469809.
Martínez-Martí, M. L., & Ruch, W. (2014). Character strengths and well-being across the life span: data from a
representative sample of German-speaking adults living in Switzerland. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01253.
McGrath, R. E. (2014). Scale-and item-level factor analyses of the VIA inventory of strengths. Assessment, 21,
4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112450612.
McGrath, R. E. (2015). Character strengths in 75 nations: an update. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10,
41–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.888580.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 23, 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701756946.
Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2011). Character strengths and virtues: Their role in well-being. In S. I. Donaldson,
M. Csikszentmihalyi, & J. Nakamura (Eds.), Applied positive psychology: Improving everyday life,
health, schools, work, and society (pp. 49–62). New York: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Assessment of character strengths. In G. P. Koocher, J. C.
Norcross, & S. S. Hill, III (Eds.), Psychologists’ desk reference, 2nd ed. (pp. 93–98). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beermann, U., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2007). Strengths of character, orientations
to happiness, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 149–156. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17439760701228938.
Peterson, C., Stephens, J. P., Park, N., Lee, F., & Seligman, M. E. (2010). Strengths of character and work. In
P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Page (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 221–231).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Proyer, R. T., Sidler, N., Weber, M., & Ruch, W. (2012). A multi-method approach to studying the relationship
between character strengths and vocational interests in adolescents. International Journal for Educational
and Vocational Guidance, 12, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-012-9223-x.
Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Buschor, C. (2013). Testing strengths-based interventions: a preliminary study on
the effectiveness of a program targeting curiosity, gratitude, hope, humor, and zest for enhancing life
satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9331-9.
Proyer, R. T., Wellenzohn, S., Gander, F., & Ruch, W. (2015). Toward a better understanding of what makes
positive psychology interventions work: predicting happiness and depression from the person × intervention fit in a follow-up after 3.5 years. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being, 7, 108–128. https://doi.
org/10.1111/aphw.12039.
Character Strengths and Job Satisfaction: Differential...
527
Roberts, B. W. (1997). Plaster or plasticity: Are adult work experiences associated with personality change in
women? Journal of Personality, 65, 205–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00953.x.
Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). Personality development in the context of the neosocioanalytic model of
personality. In D. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 11–39).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ruch, W., Proyer, R.T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2010). Values in Action
Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS): Adaptation and validation of the German version and the development
of a peer-rating form. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001
/a000022
Ruch, W., Gander, F., Platt, T., & Hofmann, J. (2018). Team roles: their relationships to character strengths and
job satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1080
/17439760.2016.1257051.
Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2018). The impact of signature character strengths interventions: a metaanalysis. Journal of Happiness Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9990-2.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology, 48,
23–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model
linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–874. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x.
Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical
validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066
X.60.5.410.
Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with
positive psychology interventions: a practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65,
467–487. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20593.
van Woerkom, M., Oerlemans, W., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Strengths use and work engagement: a weekly
diary study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 384–397. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1089862.
Wagner, L. (2018). Good character is what we look for in a friend: character strengths are positively related to
peer acceptance and friendship quality in early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence,
027243161879128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431618791286.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item
measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247.
Wrzus, C., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Processes of personality development in adulthood: The TESSERA
framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1088868316652279.
Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2011). Maintaining a focus on opportunities at work: the interplay between age, job
complexity, and the use of selection, optimization, and compensation strategies. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32, 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.683.