Management Department

Management Department Faculty Publications

University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year 

Can Positive Employees Help Positive

Organizational Change? Impact of
Psychological Capital and Emotions on
Relevant Attitudes and Behaviors
James Avey∗ Tara S. Wernsing†
Fred Luthans‡

∗ Central Washington University

† University of Nebraska - Lincoln
‡ University of Nebraska - Lincoln, fluthans1@[Link]

This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

[Link]
 Published in The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 44:1 (March 2008), pp. 48–70;
doi 10.1177/0021886307311470 Copyright © 2008 NTL Institute; published by Sage Publica-
tions. Used by permission. [Link]

Can Positive Employees Help

Positive Organizational Change?
Impact of Psychological Capital and Emotions on
Relevant Attitudes and Behaviors

James B. Avey
Central Washington University

Tara S. Wernsing
Fred Luthans
University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Abstract:
Although much attention has been devoted to understanding employee resis-
tance to change, relatively little research examines the impact that positive em-
ployees can have on organizational change. To help fill this need, the authors
investigate whether a process of employees’ positivity will have an impact on rel-
evant attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, this study surveyed 132 employees
from a broad cross-section of organizations and jobs and found: (a) Their psycho-
logical capital (a core factor consisting of hope, efficacy, optimism, and resilience)
was related to their positive emotions that in turn were related to their attitudes
(engagement and cynicism) and behaviors (organizational citizenship and devi-
ance) relevant to organizational change; (b) mindfulness (i.e., heightened aware-
ness) interacted with psychological capital in predicting positive emotions; and
(c) positive emotions generally mediated the relationship between psychological
capital and the attitudes and behaviors. The implications these findings have for
positive organizational change conclude the article.
Keywords: psychological capital, positive emotions, mindfulness, cognitive me-
diation theory, positive organizational change

B oth scholars and practitioners would agree that employee resistance to

change is a primary obstacle for effective organizational change processes
and programs (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; O’Toole, 1995; Strebel, 1996),

48
Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change?   49

whether incremental or discontinuous change (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). In

particular, resistance manifested through employee dysfunctional attitudes
(e.g., disengagement or cynicism) and behaviors (e.g., deviance) can be devas-
tating to effective organizational change (Abrahamson, 2000; Reichers, Wanous,
& Austin, 1997; Stanley, Meyer, & Topolntsky, 2005). While much attention has
been given to such perspectives and how to overcome resistance to change, the
role that positive employees may play in positive organizational change has
been largely ignored. Although the importance of positive constructs has been
recognized from the beginning of organizational behavior research and the
study of organization development and change (e.g., the happy worker pro-
ductive worker thesis; for the history of positivity in the workplace see Quick
& Quick, 2004; Wright & Cropanzano, 2004), only recently has a positive ap-
proach received focused research attention as is found in this special issue of
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.
Although there are numerous conceptions and definitions, the perspec-
tive taken by this study is that organizational change initiates from a mis-
match with the environment (Porras & Silvers, 1994) and is motivated by
gaps between the organization’s goals and current results. This organization
change is both critical for managers in terms of effective implementation and
for employees in terms of acceptance and engagement. More than a decade
ago, Strebel (1996) argued that vision and leadership drive successful orga-
nizational change but that few leaders recognize the importance of the em-
ployees’ commitment to changing. Employees within the organizational sys-
tem are responsible for adapting and behaving in ways aligned with change
strategies and programs initiated by management, often with fewer resources
than before (Mishra, Spreitzer, & Mishra, 1998). With the change, they must
learn to forge new paths and strategies to attain redefined goals. They must
have the confidence (efficacy) to adapt to organizational change as well as
the resilience to bounce back from setbacks that are bound to occur during
the change process. Moreover, it follows that to be successful, employees un-
dergoing change would need to have the motivation and alternate pathways
determined (i.e., hope) when obstacles are encountered and make optimistic
attributions of when things go wrong and have a positive outlook for the fu-
ture. Gittell, Cameron, Lim, and Rivas (2006) explain that positive relation-
ships can be one source for developing some of these ways, such as resilience
when faced with change, and we add to this research by highlighting the pos-
itive processes that may be available to support employees who are facing or-
ganizational change.
Based on positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), we pro-
pose the newly emerging fields of positive organizational scholarship (Cam-
eron & Caza, 2004; Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Roberts, 2006) and pos-
itive organizational behavior (Luthans, 2002a, 2002b; Nelson & Cooper, 2007;
Wright, 2003) may offer insights into effective organizational change. In partic-
ular, this study investigates whether employees’ psychological resources, such
as hope, optimism, efficacy, and resilience (i.e., what has been termed their pos-
itive psychological capital, PsyCap for short; see Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Nor-
50   Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans in J. of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 44 (2008)

man, 2007; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007), and
positive emotions (e.g., see Fredrickson, 1998; Lord, Klimoski, & Kanfer, 2002;
Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994) are examples of positive individual-level factors
that may facilitate organizational change. In other words, positive employees,
defined here as those with positive psychological capital and positive emotions,
may exhibit attitudes and behaviors that in turn may lead to more effective and
positive organizational change.
For this study, positive organizational change is any change that does more
good than harm in and for an organization, considering aspects of employees’
psychological resources, behavior, and performance that may be affected by the
change. An important consideration in positive change is the corresponding ef-
fects on employees as well as organizational outcomes. For example, downsiz-
ing is a change intended to be positive by increasing organizational efficiency
but often fails to be positive because of its disastrous effects on employees (Cas-
cio, 2002). It follows from this perspective that one of the most important as-
pects of positive organizational change is how the employees respond in terms
of their attitudes and behaviors.
To explicate the relationship between positive employees and their attitudes
and behaviors that have implications for positive organizational change, we can
draw from a stream of research in positive psychology. Specifically, Fredrick-
son’s (1998, 2001, 2003b) broaden and build theory examining the role that posi-
tive emotions play in generating broader ways of thinking and behaving seems
especially relevant to explaining the role that positive employees can play in pos-
itive organizational change. Research on positive emotions shows that a ratio of
about 3:1 positive to negative emotions leads to flourishing (i.e., high levels of
functioning and wellbeing; Keyes, 2002) due to increased “momentary thought-
action repertoires” (Fredrickson, 2001, p. 219) that come from experiencing posi-
tive emotions (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). Additional empirical evidence dem-
onstrates that positive emotions can engender better decision making (Chuang,
2007) and are positively related to various measures of success and well-being
(Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). In other words, positive emotions may
help employees cope with organizational change by broadening the options they
perceive, maintaining an open approach to problem solving, and supplying en-
ergy for adjusting their behaviors to new work conditions (Baumeister, Gailliot,
DeWall, & Oaten, 2006).
For this study, the proposed process and empirical relationship between
positive employees and positive organizational change is as follows: Employ-
ees’ positive PsyCap, through positive emotions, relates to their relevant at-
titudes and behaviors that can facilitate (or inhibit) positive organizational
change. More specifically, cynical attitudes and deviant behaviors may inhibit
positive change, but their attitudes of engagement and organizational citizen-
ship behaviors may enhance positive organizational change. We now turn to
the background leading up to the specific study hypotheses for this proposed
process shown in Figure 1.
Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change?   51

Figure 1: Model for Impact of Psychological Capital (PsyCap), Mindfulness, and Positive
Emotions on Attitudes and Behaviors Relevant to Positive Organizational Change

The Role of Emotions, Attitudes, and Behaviors in Organizational Change

In this study we investigate the impact that positive employees, represented

by their levels of psychological capital (covered next) and positive emotions,
and their relevant attitudes and behaviors may have on positive organizational
change. Based on Fredrickson’s (1998, 2001, 2003b) work, we propose positive
emotions will result in higher levels of engagement attitudes and organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors that would facilitate positive change. By the same
token, those employees who are low in PsyCap will experience lower levels of
positive emotions and in turn are more likely to experience cynical attitudes
and deviant behaviors that would be indicative of resistance to change and de-
tract from positive organizational change.
Relevant prior research by Staw and colleagues (Staw & Barsade, 1993;
Staw et al., 1994; Wright & Staw, 1999) has found that employees who report
more frequent levels of positive emotions tended to be more socially inte-
grated in the organization, thus likely leading to higher engagement and cit-
izenship than those who reported fewer positive emotions. In terms of work
attitudes, Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden and build theory of positive emotions
predicts that positive emotions “broaden people’s momentary thought-ac-
tion repertoires, widening the array of the thoughts and actions that come
to mind” (p. 220). She further notes “the personal resources accrued during
states of positive emotions are conceptualized as durable” (p. 220). It would
follow that these psychological resources generated by employees experienc-
ing positive emotions may lead to employee attitudes such as emotional en-
gagement. This employee engagement would not only affect individual em-
ployees but may also impact other team members’ motivation and emotions,
which in turn can be a positive influence on organizational change (Bakker,
van Emmerik, & Euwema, 2006).
52   Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans in J. of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 44 (2008)

Fredrickson and colleagues’ (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001; Fredrickson, Man-

cuso, Branigan, & Tugade, 2000) work also provides insight into the role pos-
itive emotions may play in influencing negative attitudes such as cynicism to-
ward organizational change. For example, she notes the undoing hypothesis of
positive emotions: Positive emotions “undo” the dysfunctional effects of neg-
ative emotions (Fredrickson & Levenson, 1998). Because organizational cyni-
cism is an individual attitude (Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998) associated
with negative emotions (Andersson & Bateman, 1997), it follows from Fred-
rickson’s “undoing hypothesis” that employees high in positive emotions will
be expected to have fewer cynical attitudes regarding organizational change.
Because cynicism is a result of negative experiences and emotions (Pugh,
Skarlicki, & Passell, 2003), Fredrickson’s research would suggest that such cyn-
ical attitudes toward organizational change would be undone or decreased by
positive emotions.
Furthermore, because Fredrickson’s broaden and build theory argues that
positive emotions broaden both thought and action repertoires, we also pro-
pose that positive emotions will affect employees’ behaviors with regard to
organizational change. Specifically, Fredrickson (2003a) argues that while the
absence of positive emotions limits thought-action repertoires to instinctual hu-
man functioning (e.g., fight or flight) leading to more short-term thinking and
undesirable organizational outcomes, the presence of positive emotions broad-
ens thought-action repertoires to consider a wider array of positive behavioral
manifestations toward organizational change. In other words, those experienc-
ing positive emotions may engage in fewer deviant behaviors and more posi-
tive citizenship behaviors in regard to organizational change. Given the afore-
mentioned proposed relationships of positive emotions with both employee
attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, the following study hypotheses are
derived:

Hypothesis 1: Positive emotions will be positively related to employee atti-

tudes of engagement and negatively to organizational cynicism.
Hypothesis 2: Positive emotions will be positively related to employee behav-
iors of organizational citizenship and negatively to workplace deviance.

Psychological Capital

Besides the roles of emotions, attitudes, and behaviors, central to our pro-
posed model of the relationship of positive employees in positive organiza-
tional change is psychological capital. This PsyCap is based on the emerging
field of positive organizational behavior (for a recent review article, see Luthans
& Youssef, 2007). Like psychology, positive organizational behavior makes no
claim to discovering the importance of positivity in the workplace but rather
is simply calling for a focus on relatively unique positive, state-like constructs
that have performance impact (see Luthans, 2002a, 2002b). To differentiate
from the positively oriented popular personal development literature (e.g., the
power of positive thinking or the seven habits of highly successful people) or
the relatively fixed, trait-like positively oriented organizational behavior litera-
Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change?   53

ture (e.g., Big Five personality dimensions or core self-evaluations), the follow-
ing definition of positive organizational behavior has been offered: “the study
and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psycho-
logical capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for
performance improvement” (Luthans, 2002b, p. 59; also see Luthans & Youssef,
2007; Nelson & Cooper, 2007; Wright, 2003).
Although a number of positive constructs have been researched (e.g., see Cam-
eron et al., 2003; Nelson & Cooper, 2007), so far the four that have been identified
to best meet the criteria of the definition of positive organization behavior are
hope, efficacy, optimism, and resilience (Luthans, 2002a; Luthans, Youssef, et al.,
2007). When combined, these four have been conceptually (Luthans & Youssef,
2004; Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007) and empirically (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007)
demonstrated to represent a second-order, core factor called psychological capi-
tal. After a brief overview of the four components and their relevancy to positive
organizational change, the precise meaning of PsyCap is provided as it is a major
predictor variable in the proposed process shown in Figure 1.
Conceptually, Snyder, Irving, and Anderson (1991) define hope as a “positive
motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful
(1) agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals)” (p.
287). People who are high in hope possess the uncanny ability to generate multi-
ple pathways to accomplishing their goals. This psychological resource continu-
ously provides hope that the goal will be accomplished. Furthermore, those with
high hope frame tasks in such a way that keeps them highly motivated to at-
tain success in the task at hand. Snyder (2002) notes that agency thinking in hope
“takes on special significance when people encounter impediments. During such
instances of blockage, agency helps the person to apply the requisite motivation
to the best alternative pathway” (p. 258). Therefore, both agency and pathways
thinking are necessary and complementary components of hope. Sustaining
hope during times of crises and change seems imperative for the well-being of
employees and a necessary ingredient of positive organizational change. In par-
ticular, the capacity for generating new pathways seems essential to navigating
discontinuous and unpredictable change processes (Weick & Quinn, 1999).
A second capacity of PsyCap is efficacy. Drawn from the theory and re-
search of Bandura (1997), applied to the workplace, efficacy can be defined as
“the employee’s conviction or confidence about his or her abilities to mobilize
the motivation, cognitive resources, or courses of action needed to successfully
execute a specific task within a given context” (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998b, p.
66). In relationship to hope, efficacy can be interpreted as the conviction and
belief in one’s ability to (a) generate multiple pathways, (b) take actions toward
the goal, and (c) ultimately be successful in goal attainment. Efficacy has shown
very strong relationships with performance (e.g., meta-analysis by Stajkovic &
Luthans, 1998a) and is generated from four generally recognized sources that
are all relevant to positive organizational change.
First, Bandura (1997) has conceptually and empirically demonstrated that
task mastery, or successfully accomplishing a task, is a primary source of effi-
cacy. When employees successfully accomplish a task or cope with change, they
are more likely to believe they can do it again. Other major sources of efficacy in-
54   Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans in J. of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 44 (2008)

clude watching someone considered similar to oneself successfully accomplish

a task or cope with change (vicarious learning or modeling), being assured by
a respected role model (e.g., a coach or mentor) that one will be successful in
a new task or in the change process (social persuasion), and being emotionally
and physically motivated to complete the task or cope with the change (arousal).
Employees that are highly efficacious are characterized by tenacious pursuit and
persistent efforts toward accomplishment and are driven by beliefs in their own
successes. In other words, efficacy seems vitally important to effective organiza-
tional change efforts because employees are often required to take on new re-
sponsibilities and skills. Simply focusing time on early task mastery experiences,
role modeling, and greater social support can move employees toward higher
levels of efficacy in the changing workplace.
A third criteria-meeting positive resource of PsyCap is optimism. Carver and
Scheier (2002) note quite simply that “optimists are people who expect good
things to happen to them; pessimists are people who expect bad things to hap-
pen to them” (p. 231). This statement represents the expectancy framework used
to understand the influential role of optimism in one’s success in undergoing or-
ganizational change. Under this perspective, those high in optimism characteris-
tically expect success when faced with change. It is important to note that opti-
mistic expectations in this case are an individual-level attribution. It is not likely
that optimists expect organizational change efforts to be successful because of
their optimism. Rather, optimists tend to maintain positive expectations about
what will happen to them personally throughout the change process.
This optimism is in contrast with efficacious people who believe positive
outcomes will occur given their belief that their personal ability will lead to
success through making a change. Optimistic people expect positive outcomes
for themselves regardless of personal ability. In addition to this positive fu-
ture expectation, Seligman (1998) proposes a complementary optimistic frame-
work based in attributions or what he calls explanatory style. Optimists tend to
make internal, stable, and global attributions for successes and external, unsta-
ble, and specific attributions for failures. Thus, should a negative outcome oc-
cur during the process of change, optimists would tend to remain motivated
toward success because they conclude the failure was not due to something in-
herent in them (external) but was instead something unique in that situation
(specific) and a second attempt will likely not result in failure again (unstable).
Therefore, the optimistic employee can continue to move forward with positive
expectations regardless of past problems or setbacks.
The fourth positive capacity making up PsyCap is resilience. Given the tur-
bulent socioeconomic and “downsizing” types of adverse change facing most
of today’s organizations and employees, Luthans (2002a) defines resilience as
a “positive psychological capacity to rebound, to ‘bounce back’ from adversity,
uncertainty, conflict, failure, or even positive change, progress and increased re-
sponsibility” (p. 702). At the core of this capacity is the bouncing back (and be-
yond) from setbacks and positively coping and adapting to significant changes.
Masten and Reed (2002) assert resilience is “a class of phenomena characterized
by patterns of positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity or risk”
(p. 74). Thus, resilient employees are those who have the ability to positively
Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change?   55

adapt and thrive in very challenging circumstances such as involved in most

organizational change.
The aforementioned indicates that employees high in the four components
making up PsyCap could have a variety of positive psychological resources to
draw from to cope with the challenges of organizational change. This combined
effect of PsyCap has been defined as
an individual’s positive psychological state of development that is characterized
by: (1) having confidence (self efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary ef-
fort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive expectation (optimism)
about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when
necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when be-
set by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond
(resilience) to attain success. (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007, p. 3)

As a higher-order core capacity, PsyCap has an underlying common thread

and shared characteristics running through each of the psychological resource
capacities (i.e., efficacy, optimism, hope, and resiliency) of positive agentic (in-
tentional) striving toward flourishing and success, no matter what changes and
challenges arise. This PsyCap core construct has been found to be validly mea-
surable and related to several key workplace outcomes, including employee
performance, job satisfaction, and absenteeism (Avey, Patera, & West, 2006; Lu-
thans, Avolio, et al., 2007). Research has also shown that the overall core con-
struct of PsyCap better relates to these outcomes than the individual constructs
that make it up (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007; Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, &
Li, 2005). Finally, there is beginning evidence that PsyCap is open to develop-
ment in short training interventions (see Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, &
Combs, 2006; Luthans, Avey, & Patera, in press).

The Mediating Role of Positive Emotions

As shown in Figure 1, PsyCap is related to positive emotions, and positive

emotions in turn are related to employee attitudes and behaviors relevant to
positive organizational change. Thus, we are proposing that positive emotions
mediate the relationship between PsyCap and attitudes and behaviors. Al-
though the powerful effects of positive emotions have been empirically dem-
onstrated in the workplace (for a review, see Brief & Weiss, 2002; Lord et al.,
2002; Payne & Cooper, 2001), there is still debate on whether cognition pre-
cedes emotion or vice versa (e.g., see Izard, 1993; Lazarus, 2006). In any case,
there seems to be a closely linked and reciprocal relationship between cogni-
tion and emotion. There is evidence that thoughts cause emotional responses
(Frijda, 1986; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988), cog-
nition creates labels used to identify physiological feelings as discrete emo-
tions (Schachter & Singer, 1962), and emotions in turn are a source for infor-
mation processing and decision making (Albarracin & Kumkale, 2003; Schwarz
& Clore, 1983). We propose that Lazarus’s (1991, 1993, 2006) cognitive media-
tion theory that views appraisals and evaluations as the basis for emotional re-
sponse elicitation is the most relevant framework for the workplace, as demon-
strated by affective events theory developed by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996).
56   Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans in J. of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 44 (2008)

Affective events theory explains that an event elicits an initial evaluation “for
relevance to well-being in simple positive or negative terms. This initial evalua-
tion also contains an important evaluation which influences the intensity of the
emotional reaction” (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996, p. 31) and leads to a second-
ary appraisal associated with discrete emotions. These initial and secondary ap-
praisals can occur automatically, below the threshold of conscious awareness
(Bargh, 1994). Therefore, multiple appraisals occur from events experienced at
work that generate emotions.
For example, research shows that the same event can occur to two differ-
ent people and cause stressful emotions in one of them but not in the other
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Thus, employees may automatically interpret orga-
nizational change events in ways that cause them to experience dysfunctional
attitudes such as cynicism and exhibit deviant behaviors, perhaps even with-
out conscious awareness of the connection between their thoughts and emo-
tions. On the other hand, those employees who interpret events in a positive
way, namely, with hope, optimism, efficacy, and resilience (i.e., PsyCap), may
be more likely to experience positive emotions at work even during potentially
stressful events associated with organizational change. Therefore, as shown in
Figure 1, PsyCap is proposed as a source of positive emotions.
We suggest that overall PsyCap will contribute to individual positive emo-
tions. For example, first, if employees are optimistic and efficacious, they gen-
erally possess positive expectations for goal achievement and successfully cop-
ing with change and thus experience positive feelings of confidence. Positive
emotions are in turn likely to broaden or multiply the pathways that are gener-
ated in goal pursuit (Fredrickson, 2001). If a setback or challenge occurs during
a process of change, they are likely to attribute the setback to external, one-time
circumstances and immediately consider alternative pathways to goal success,
demonstrating hope and resilience. Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) also sup-
port the position that cognitive states and abilities such as resilience precede
positive emotions and found that “high-resilient individuals tend to experience
positive emotions even amidst stress” (p. 331). As organizational transitions are
associated with higher levels of stress (Ashford, 1988), PsyCap may help main-
tain a more positive climate during such periods of change.
Martin, Jones, and Callan (2005) have recently extended Lazarus and Folk-
man’s (1984) research on stress and coping to show that employee perceptions
of organizational climate affect their appraisals and emotions, which affect their
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and absenteeism. In addition, re-
lated research in positive psychology also suggests the mediating role of posi-
tive emotions. For example, Tugade, Fredrickson, and Barrett (2004) found that
those individuals higher in resilience used positive emotions to cope during
and after stressful events. Similar results were found by Fredrickson, Tugade,
Waugh, and Larkin (2003) when studying the role of resilience in responding to
the 9/11 attacks in New York.
In sum, we posit a mediating role of positive emotions in the relationship
between PsyCap and employee attitudes and behaviors relevant to organiza-
tional change. In particular, given (a) the explanatory framework of the cogni-
tive mediation theory that proposes cognitions precede emotions; (b) previous
Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change?   57

research such as by Tugade, Fredrickson, and colleagues (2004) that support

the mediating role of positive emotions; (c) the hypothesized relationship be-
tween PsyCap and positive emotions; and (d) the hypothesized relationship be-
tween positive emotions and employee attitudes and behaviors, we expect that
positive emotions will mediate the relationship between PsyCap and the atti-
tudes and behaviors relevant to organizational change. Specifically, we derive
the following study hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: PsyCap will be positively related to positive emotions.

Hypothesis 4: Positive emotions will mediate the relationship between
PsyCap and the attitudes of engagement and cynicism and the behaviors
of organizational citizenship and deviance.

The Interactive Role of Mindfulness

Figure 1 shows that psychological capital predicts positive emotions, and

now we examine whether heightened awareness can affect this relationship.
Specifically, can greater mindfulness result in higher levels of positive psycho-
logical capital and emotions? Perhaps the more mindful awareness employees
have of their PsyCap and positive emotions, or lack thereof, the more it can fa-
cilitate positive attitudes and behaviors relevant to organizational changes. To
investigate this question, we tested whether mindfulness, through an interac-
tion with PsyCap, may provide further insight into this process.
Mindfulness is defined as “enhanced attention to and awareness of current
experiences or present reality” (Brown & Ryan, 2003, p. 823). To date, this con-
cept has been tied to positive psychological and physiological well-being (Baer,
2003; Carlson, Speca, Patel, & Goodey, 2004; Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Wallace & Sha-
piro, 2006) through providing greater nonjudgmental awareness of one’s in-
ternal and external environment (Germer, Siegel, & Fulton, 2005; Langer, 1997;
Sternberg, 2000; Teasdale, Segal, & Williams, 1995).
Mindfulness has been applied to organizational settings requiring high re-
liability (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld (1999) define
mindfulness as enhanced awareness of discriminatory detail of organizational
processes. Specifically, “mindful organizing” in high-reliability contexts con-
sists of greater attention to detecting failure, reluctance to simplify interpreta-
tions, more time observing operations, and more time developing resilience to
unexpected events (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006). Based on this latter point, mind-
fulness as a form of heightened attention and awareness seems likely to be re-
lated to resilience and other psychological capital components as well.
Given that mindfulness can help in “disengaging individuals from unhealthy
thoughts, habits and unhealthy behavior patterns” (Brown & Ryan, 2003, p.
823), it follows that becoming more mindful of one’s thoughts and emotional
response patterns can be a source for altering them and therefore be important
to supporting positive organizational change. For example, if an employee be-
comes more aware of a pessimistic thinking pattern regarding changes at work,
potentially through practicing greater mindfulness, this employee can use self-
58   Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans in J. of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 44 (2008)

monitoring to identify unproductive thinking habits and choose more positive

interpretations, thus reducing negative emotions over time. This reduction hap-
pens as mindfulness moves the individual from being embedded in their think-
ing to being able to step outside and observe it. As Bandura (1991) points out:
“People cannot influence their own motivation and actions very well if they do
not pay adequate attention to their own performances” (p. 250). Thus, mind-
fulness seems to be an important factor that interacts with PsyCap to influence
positive emotions that support positive organizational change, which leads us
to the final study hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Mindfulness will moderate the positive relationship between

PsyCap and positive emotions such that when PsyCap is low, mindfulness
will have a stronger relationship with positive emotions.

Method

Sample
The heterogeneous sample for this study was comprised of 132 working
adults from a wide cross-section of U.S. organizations who volunteered to par-
ticipate in a large Midwestern university–sponsored research project on moti-
vation and leadership. Participants were targeted through contacts of manage-
ment faculty and students at the university. Those who agreed to participate
were provided a link to an online secure server, where they read and approved
the informed consent form and registered their e-mail address. At this point
they were assigned a randomly generated seven-digit code for tracking, and
132 fully participated and completed all of the survey measures described in
the following section.
Participant ages ranged from 18 to 65 with a mean age of 30.4 years. They
had a mean of 10.8 years of experience and 6 years at their existing organiza-
tion. The majority of the sample was white (90.2%), with 5.3% Asian, 1% black,
1% Native American, and the rest (< 2%) not reporting ethnicity. There were
68 men and 64 women, and 32% reported working virtually from their man-
ager 50% or more of the time. Nonmanagerial employees comprised about two
thirds of the sample. Among the 35% of the sample in some supervisory role,
8.5% were in a first-level supervisory role, 13.2% were in a division or depart-
ment leadership role, 8.5% were executives, and 4.7% were business owners.
Finally, 3.8% reported completion of high school only, whereas 52.3% reported
completion of high school and some college or vocational training. Another
34.8% of participants reported a bachelor’s degree, with 7.6% reporting a mas-
ter’s degree and 1.5% reporting a PhD or equivalent.

Study Procedures
The independent and dependent variable survey measures (covered next)
were separated by time to reduce common method bias as recommended by
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) who note this temporal sep-
aration procedure “makes it impossible for the mindset of the source or rater
Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change?   59

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Scale Reliabilities

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Psychological capital (PsyCap) 4.56 0.63 .95
2. Mindfulness 4.07 0.76 .27 .91
3. Positive emotions 4.51 0.66 .70 .43 .95
4. Engagement 4.57 0.99 .50 .26 .59 .80
5. Cynicism 2.95 1.00 –.42 –.24 –.39 –.29 .95
6. Deviance 1.83 0.65 –.52 – .37 –.55 –.48 .34 .92
7. Organizational 4.04 1.00 .44 .27 .42 .52 –.30 –.33 .90
citizenship behaviors
All relationships significant at p < .01. Reliabilities in bold.

to bias the observed relationship between the predictor and criterion variable,
thus eliminating the effects of consistency motifs, implicit theories, social desir-
ability tendencies” (p. 887) and other individual attributes that may influence/
bias the responses. First, the participants completed the PsyCap, mindfulness,
and positive emotions instruments. After a week of separation the participants
logged on and completed the dependent variable instruments for cynicism, em-
ployee engagement, organizational citizenship, and deviance.

Measures
Psychological capital was measured by the 24-item PsyCap questionnaire or
PCQ (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007; Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007). This instru-
ment includes 6 items for each of the four components of hope, efficacy, resil-
ience, and optimism measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale. Sample items are
as follows: efficacy—“I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work
area;” hope—“If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many
ways to get out of it;” resilience—“I usually take stressful things at work in
stride;” and optimism—“When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually
expect the best.” Reliability coefficients for all the components were greater
than .70, as was the overall PsyCap instrument, which was .95 (see Table 1 for
the reliabilities of all study measures). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was also conducted on the PsyCap instrument using maximum likelihood tech-
niques. Previous research has shown strong factor-analytic fit for the PsyCap
questionnaire across multiple samples (e.g., Avey et al., 2006; Luthans, Avolio,
et al., 2007). Similar to these findings, in our study the PCQ yielded adequate fit
in terms of indices (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .93, root mean square error
of approximation [RMSEA] = .07) with all items loading greater than .70 and no
cross-loading items.
Mindfulness was measured using the instrument developed by Brown and
Ryan (2003), where ratings for 15 items were set on a 6-point scale ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. A sample item from this scale is: “I find my-
self doing things without paying attention.” The reliability coefficient for the
mindfulness instrument was also acceptable (.91).
60   Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans in J. of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 44 (2008)

Finally, consistent with research by Tugade and Frederickson (2004), we

used Watson, Clark and Tellegen’s (1988) Positive and Negative Affect Sched-
ule (PANAS) scale to measure positive emotions. For these analyses, given
the explicit focus on positive emotions (PA), we only used the positive emo-
tions listed in the scale, which included interested, excited, strong, enthusiastic,
proud, alert, inspired, determined, attentive, and active. Participants rated the
frequency they experienced each particular emotion over the last week. This
represents a sample of the individual’s emotions that is relatively recent, not
fixed (e.g., the last year), and not so immediate that a one-time event or day
would extremely skew the data (e.g., the last day). The reliability coefficient for
positive emotions as measured by the PA scale was acceptable at .95.
The dependent variables measured at Time 2 in this study included both at-
titudinal (emotional engagement and cynicism) and behavioral (individual or-
ganizational citizenship and workplace deviance) scales. Emotional engage-
ment was measured with the scale developed by May and colleagues (May,
Gilson, & Harter, 2004). This scale demonstrated adequate reliability (.80), and
a sample item is: “I really put my heart into my job.” Cynicism was measured
by a 12-item instrument developed by Wanous, Reichers, and Austin (2000).
This scale demonstrated adequate reliability (.95), and a sample item from this
scale is: “Most of the programs that are supposed to solve problems around
here won’t do much good.”
Individual organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBI) were measured by
Lee and Allen’s (2002) eight-item OCBI scale, which demonstrated adequate re-
liability in this study (.90). A sample item is: “I go out of my way to make new
employees feel welcome in the work group.” Finally, deviance behaviors were
measured by Fox and Spector’s (1999) counterproductive work behaviors scale.
This scale asks respondents to rate the extent to which the individual has en-
gaged in deviant behaviors (a=.92). We used the minor organizational and the
minor personal dimensions of this scale. A sample item from the minor per-
sonal scale is “withheld work related information from a co-worker,” and a
sample item from the minor organizational scale is “purposely wasted com-
pany materials/supplies.”

Results

Means, standard deviations, and item correlations for study variables are
shown in Table 1. Hypothesis 1 was that employees’ positive emotions would
be positively related to their emotional engagement and negatively related to
their cynicism. For these analyses we used hierarchical regression where the
covariates of age, gender, tenure, job level, and education were entered into
Step 1 and positive emotions were entered into Step 2. The purpose was to see
the independent effects of positive emotions on both attitudes. As seen in Table
2, when entering positive emotions into the regression model, it predicted sig-
nificant variance beyond the covariates. In each case, the model in Step 2 shows
positive emotions related positively with engagement and negativity with cyn-
icism. Therefore, there was full support for Hypothesis 1.
Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change?   61

Table 2. Effect of Positive Emotions on Attitudes and Behaviors Relevant to Positive Orga-
nizational Change
Engagement Cynicism Citizenship Deviance
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
β β β β β β β β
Age –.045 .001 –.419* –.449* –.221 –.186 –.059 –.104
Gender .089 .045 –.096 –.067 .254** .221* –.232* –.189*
Tenure .097 .033 .364* .405* .292 .244 –.054 .010
Job level .193 .107 .035 .064 –.020 –.054 –.025 .018
Education .274** .150 –.277** –.198* .242* .150 –.206* –.086
Positive emotions .531** –.342** .394** –.519**
ΔR2 .256** .106** .141** .245**
* p < .05 ; ** p < .01.

Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive relationship between positive emotions

and organizational citizenship behaviors and a negative relationship with
workplace deviance behaviors. Similar to the test of Hypothesis 1, hierarchi-
cal regression was used with the covariates of age, gender, tenure, job level,
and education in Step 1, followed by positive emotions in Step 2. As hypothe-
sized, positive emotions accounted for significant incremental variance in each
model and were positively related to citizenship behaviors and negatively re-
lated to workplace deviance behaviors as shown in Table 2. Thus, full support
was found for Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between PsyCap and positive
emotions. As evident in Table 4, PsyCap predicted positive emotions above
and beyond the control variables used in the study. Thus, we found full sup-
port for Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4 indicated positive emotions acted as a mediator between
PsyCap and the employee attitudes and behaviors. Baron and Kenny (1986)
posit that mediation is supported if each of the following is demonstrated: (a)
The first regression equation shows that the independent variable relates to the
dependent variable, (b) the second equation shows that the independent vari-
able relates to the mediating variable, and (c) the third regression shows that
the mediating variable relates to the dependent variable and the relationship of
the independent variable with the dependent variable is significantly lower in
magnitude in the third equation than in the second. Support for full mediation
can be argued when the independent variable does not relate to the dependent
variable when the mediating variable is added to the equation.
Support for the second condition, that the independent variable of PsyCap
is related to positive emotions, was found in testing Hypothesis 3 (see Table 4).
Therefore, we performed regression analyses to determine the extent to which
the independent variable PsyCap was related to the attitudes and behaviors
and in Step 2 of the regression model, the extent to which positive emotions ne-
gated or minimized that relationship.
62   Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans in J. of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 44 (2008)

Table 3. Mediating Effect of Positive Emotions on Attitudes and Behaviors Rele-

vant to Positive Organizational Change
Engagement Cynicism Citizenship Deviance
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
β β β β β β β β β β β β
Education –.045 –.021 .001 –.419* –.442* –.448* –.221 –.200 –.187 –.059 –.084 –.103
Gender .089 .017 .032 –.096 –.028 –.033 .254* .190* .199* –.232* –.155 –.167*
Age .097 .026 .023 .364 .430* .431* .292 .229 .227 –.054 .023 .026
Job level .153 .111 .103 .035 .074 .077 –.020 –.057 –.062 –.025 .019 .026
Tenure .274* .189* .145 –.277* –.198* –.185* .242* .168 .142 –.206* –.116 –.078
Psychological .429* .118 –.401** –.306* .379** .199 –.461** –.192
capital (PsyCap)
Positive emotions .452* –.138 .262* –.391**

* p < .05 ; ** p < .01.

As shown in Table 3, the results of the analyses for Hypothesis 4 were

mixed. When entered into Step 3 of the regression model, positive emotions
were related to engagement and negated the previously significant relationship
between PsyCap and engagement. Therefore, positive emotions were found to
fully mediate the relationship between PsyCap and engagement. In contrast,
positive emotions did not negate the significant negative relationship between
PsyCap and cynicism, and neither were positive emotions significantly nega-
tively related to cynicism with PsyCap in the regression model. Thus, PsyCap
was shown to have an independent effect on cynicism apart from positive emo-
tions. Given that cynicism is an attitude that is recognized to be made up of
both cognitive and affective components (Dean et al., 1998), the empirical ev-
idence suggests that the cognitive component of this attitude primarily drives
the negative relationship between PsyCap and cynicism.
For the final two outcomes in the study, citizenship and deviance behaviors,
positive emotions were found to fully mediate their relationship with PsyCap.
In each case, Step 2 shows PsyCap to be a significant predictor, then in Step
3 positive emotions were found to negate that relationship and emerge as the
stronger and significant predictor of both citizenship and deviance behaviors.
Hypothesis 5 was that mindfulness would moderate the relationship be-
tween PsyCap and positive emotions. Thus, we calculated an interaction term
(using centered terms) and included it in the hierarchical analyses. In addition,
we included education, gender, age, job level, and tenure as covariates in our
analyses. As evident by the results shown in Table 4, we found full support for
Hypothesis 5; however, the interaction effect was different than we expected.
The graph in Figure 2 plots high and low levels of mindfulness and PsyCap
according to procedures in Aiken and West (1991). Specifically, the interaction
effects were examined using standard deviations above and below the mean
and by selecting values for high and low levels of each variable (i.e., 2 for low
and 6 for high); the latter results are presented in Figure 2. As depicted by this
graph, mindfulness significantly (β =–.15; p <.05) interacts with PsyCap to pre-
Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change?   63

Table 4. Interactive Effect of Mindfulness on Psychological Capital (PsyCap) and

Positive Emotions
Positive Emotions
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
β β β
Age –.097 –.065 –.056
Gender –.092 –.047 –.047
Tenure .123 –.020 –.016
Job level .099 .058 .059
Education .227* .055 .058
PsyCap .640** .690**
Mindfulness .250** .226*
PsyCap × Mindfulness –.152*
ΔR2 .473** .020*
* p < .05 ; ** p < .01.

dict positive emotions such that the relationship between mindfulness and
positive emotions is stronger when PsyCap is lower. However, when PsyCap
is high, mindfulness does not have a significant effect on positive emotions.
Therefore, the compensatory effect of mindfulness on positive emotions occurs
only when PsyCap is low. A test of the simple slopes confirms that the relation-
ship between PsyCap and positive emotions is significantly different than zero
at the levels of mindfulness examined (t tests significant at p <.001).

Post Hoc Analyses

Subsequent to all hypotheses tests, we conducted two post hoc analyses to
better determine both psychometric properties and inference for directionality
of the tested model. Specifically, despite the theoretical and empirically vali-
dated distinction between positive emotions and PsyCap, given the high cor-
relation between PsyCap and positive emotions in this study, we conducted a
confirmatory factor analysis to better distinguish these two constructs in terms
of measurement. Each item was fit to its latent variable using maximum likeli-
hood techniques in structural equation modeling (using Mplus 3.1). Fit indices
for the CFA were generally acceptable (CFI =.93, RMSEA =.06, standardized
root mean square residual [SRMR] =.05), suggesting that despite a strong cor-
relation, measurement of the constructs was generally discriminatory and pro-
vides further construct validity support.
A second post hoc analysis was also conducted to test competing theoreti-
cal models. First, although we leveraged Lazarus’s cognitive mediation theory
to describe the relationship between PsyCap and positive emotions, other re-
searchers have suggested that perhaps emotions precede cognitions (e.g., Gole-
man, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Given that the research design applied in this
study was not experimental and thus cannot account for ordering effects of
phenomena, we utilized path analysis in structural equation modeling to com-
pare the two models.
64   Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans in J. of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 44 (2008)

Figure 2: Interaction of Psychological Capital (PsyCap) and Mindfulness on Posi-

tive Emotions (Interaction is significant at p < .05.)

First, we modeled the data as the theoretical model as shown in Figure 1.

This model yielded significant paths consistent with the regression models and
generally acceptable model fit indices (CFI = .95, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .08).
Next, we fit the data to a model beginning with positive emotions leading to
PsyCap (with the mindfulness interaction) and PsyCap leading to the attitudes
and behaviors. This model produced a slightly less optimal fit than the hypoth-
esized model (CFI = .90, RMSEA = .15, SRMR = .10). The two models were com-
pared using a chi-square difference significance test, which indicated that the
hypothesized model with PsyCap leading to positive emotions was a signifi-
cantly better fit to the data than a model beginning with positive emotions and
leading to PsyCap (Δχ2 = 17.5, p < .01). Although this model comparison does
not demonstrate that PsyCap “caused” positive emotions, it does demonstrate
that the optimal fit of the data in this case was a model with PsyCap leading to
positive emotions and positive emotions leading to the attitudinal and behav-
ioral variables.

Discussion

Employee resistance is commonly recognized as one of the biggest obsta-

cles and threats to organizations attempting to change to keep up or ahead of
evolving internal and external conditions. The results of this study suggest em-
ployees’ positive psychological capital and positive emotions may be impor-
tant in countering potential dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors relevant for
organizational change. Specifically, the positive resources of employees (i.e.,
PsyCap and emotions) may combat the negative reactions (i.e., cynicism and
deviance) often associated with organizational change. Taking a positive ap-
proach, this study also found that employees’ positive resources are associated
with desired attitudes (emotional engagement) and behaviors (organizational
Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change?   65

citizenship) that previous research has shown to directly and indirectly facili-
tate and enhance positive organizational change. In other words, in answering
the question posed in the title of the article, positive employees’ psychological
capital and emotions may indeed be an important contribution to positive or-
ganizational change.
In addition, employees’ awareness of their thoughts and feelings, namely,
mindfulness, was found to interact with PsyCap to predict positive emotions. In
the observed interaction, when PsyCap is low, high mindfulness seems to com-
pensate for this and individuals may still experience more positive emotions. It is
important to note that this effect is stronger at low levels of PsyCap, suggesting
that mindful employees have greater opportunity to become aware of thinking
patterns that challenge their ability to be hopeful, efficacious, optimistic, and re-
silient at work, especially during times of organizational change. Such awareness
may lead employees to intentionally choose more hopeful, efficacious, optimistic,
and resilient ways of dealing with stress and resistance to change.
Besides the impact that employee positivity through PsyCap and emotions
has on attitudes and behaviors relevant to positive organizational change and
the moderating role of mindfulness, another major finding from the study is
the mediating role positive emotions seems to play in the relationship between
PsyCap and the attitudes and behaviors. Given that research to date has mainly
considered the direct effects of PsyCap on employee work outcomes (e.g., Lu-
thans, Avolio, et al., 2007; Luthans et al., 2005), mediating mechanisms are just
starting to be explored to better understand how PsyCap may affect outcomes
in the workplace. Results from this study suggest that positive emotions may
mediate the relationship between PsyCap and at least the attitudes of cynicism
and engagement and the behaviors of citizenship and deviance. In other words,
employees who are higher in PsyCap are likely to have more positive emotions
and subsequently be more engaged and less cynical and also exhibit more or-
ganizational citizenship and less deviant behaviors. In addition, the results also
seem to indicate that PsyCap has a stronger direct and independent effect on
employee cynicism than the indirect effect of PsyCap through positive emo-
tions. Future research could replicate and extend these findings by examining
this meditational model over time during specific organizational discontinuous
events and incremental change processes (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996).
Finally, the study’s findings build more evidence supporting a cognitive
mediation theory (see Lazarus, 1993, for overview; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996)
of employee emotions in the workplace. That is, employees’ psychological be-
liefs, expectancies, and appraisals (i.e., hope, efficacy, optimism, resilience, or
PsyCap) may be a good potential source of positive emotions and subsequent
employee attitudes and behaviors related to positive organizational change.

Study Limitations
As with any empirical study, there are methodological limitations that need
to be recognized. First, no causal conclusions can be drawn. Specifically, nei-
ther experimental manipulation nor random assignment was part of the study
design. Thus, causal effects between PsyCap and positive emotions and be-
66   Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans in J. of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 44 (2008)

tween positive emotions and the identified attitudes and behaviors cannot be
determined. For example, one alternative explanation from this study’s find-
ings could be that employees highly engaged in their work leads them to have
more positive emotions.
In addition to the direction of causality limitation is that the same source was
used to gather data on both independent and dependent variables. Podsakoff
and colleagues (2003) note that this common source bias can lead to inflated rela-
tionships. Thus, this study followed their recommendations to separate data col-
lection of variables over time. This procedure can help minimize but obviously
does not eliminate this limitation. However, recently some organizational re-
search methodologists have argued that the threat of common method variance
may not be as big a problem as once assumed (see Spector, 2006).

Future Research and Practical Implications

Future research needs to continue to explore the nomological network of
psychological capital, mindfulness, emotions, and other related positive con-
structs in the context of organizational change. The integration of positive
psychology into the field of organizational behavior has provided ample op-
portunities for researchers to learn how to leverage individual-level positive
constructs for improved organization- level outcomes (e.g., see Cameron, 2003;
Youssef & Luthans, 2005). Furthermore, future research should consider the
role of additional mediators and moderators as well as the role of differing or-
ganizational-level and cultural contextual factors that influence employee psy-
chological capital and positive emotions and how they manifest and impact
performance and macro-level organizational change.
Future research should also focus on experimental studies to establish the
causal, directional impact of psychological capital and positive emotions.
Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) emphasize that positive emotions enhance re-
silience, and so it is likely that emotions, once manifested, may in turn influ-
ence one’s subsequent thinking/ cognition (Albarracin & Kumkale, 2003; Fri-
jda, Manstead, & Bem, 2006). However, we agree with Lazarus’s (1991, 1993)
and Fredrickson’s (2001) conclusions that cognition (i.e., perceptions, interpre-
tations, appraisals, beliefs) is a starting point and initiator for emotions. Re-
search on initial event categorization and stereotyping helps explain why peo-
ple are often not aware of the automatic cognitive appraisals that precede their
emotions (e.g., see Bargh, 1994, for a review).
Finally, examining the long-term interactive effects and developmental op-
portunities for psychological capital, positive emotions, and mindfulness pro-
vides practical implications for developing more positive workplaces. For ex-
ample, there is beginning evidence that PsyCap can be developed in short
training interventions (e.g., see Luthans et al., 2006; Luthans et al., in press). The
results of the current study would indicate that such training may be effective
to facilitate positive organizational changes. In addition, based on the nature
of the interaction of PsyCap and mindfulness, it seems that developing mind-
fulness at work, namely, heightened awareness of current thoughts and feel-
ings, can also facilitate positive emotions. Thus, mindfulness may contribute to
understanding the process by which the core construct of PsyCap affects em-
ployee attitudes and behaviors relevant to positive organizational change and
Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change?   67

how PsyCap can be developed. Although this study only tested the relation-
ships between two measurable positive constructs on relevant attitudes and be-
haviors, the findings provide beginning support that positive employees may
indeed be a very important ingredient in positive organizational change.

References

Abrahamson, E. (2000). Change without pain. Harvard Business Review, 78(4), 75-79.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Albarracin, D., & Kumkale, G. T. (2003). Affect as information in persuasion: A model of affect
identification and discounting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 453-469.
Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449-460.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and re-
search in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293-315.
Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 19-36.
Avey, J. B., Patera, J. L., & West, B. J. (2006). Positive psychological capital: A new approach for
understanding absenteeism. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 42-60.
Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical re-
view. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, 10, 125-143.
Bakker, A. B., van Emmerik, H., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and engagement
in work teams. Work and Occupations, 33, 464-489.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory and self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Hand-
book of social cognition (pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psy-
chological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M. T., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personal-
ity: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects
of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74, 1773-1801.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Re-
view of Psychology, 53, 279-307.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psy-
chological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-848.
Cameron, K. S. (2003). Organizational virtuousness and performance. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dut-
ton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 48-65). San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the discipline of positive organizational schol-
arship. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 731-739.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). (2003). Positive organizational scholarship.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Carlson, L. E., Speca, M., Patel, K. D., & Goodey, E. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction in
relation to quality of life, mood, symptoms of stress and levels of cortisol, dehydroepiandros-
terone sulfate (DHEAS) and melatonin in breast and prostate cancer outpatients. Psychoneu-
roendocrinology, 29, 448-471.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. S. (2002). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of
positive psychology (pp. 231-243). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cascio, W. F. (2002). Strategies for responsible restructuring. Academy of Management Executive,
16(3), 80-91.
Chuang, S. C. (2007). Sadder but wiser or happier and smarter? A demonstration of judgment and
decision-making. Journal of Psychology, 141, 63-76.
68   Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans in J. of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 44 (2008)

Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 23, 341-352.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 915-931.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2,
300-319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-
build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003a). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In K. S. Cam-
eron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241-261). San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003b). The value of positive emotions. American Scientist, 91, 330-335.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1998). Positive emotions speed recovery from the cardio-
vascular sequelae of negative emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 191-220.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human
flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678-686.
Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing effect of
positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24, 237-258.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive
emotions in a crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist at-
tacks on the United States on September 11th (2001). Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 84, 365-376.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H., Manstead, A. S. R., & Bem, S. (2006). Emotions and beliefs. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Germer, C. K., Siegel, R. D., & Fulton, P. R. (2005). Mindfulness and psychotherapy. New York:
Guilford.
Gittell, J. H., Cameron, K., Lim, S., & Rivas, V. (2006). Relationships, layoffs, and organizational
resilience: Airline industry responses to September 11. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci-
ence, 42, 300-329.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emo-
tional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Izard, C. E. (1993). Four systems for emotion activation: Cognitive and noncognitive processes.
Psychological Review, 100, 68-90.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clini-
cal Psychology: Science & Practice, 10, 144-156.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Jour-
nal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207-222.
Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing outlooks.
Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1-21.
Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Emotions and interpersonal relationships: Toward a person-centered con-
ceptualization of emotions and coping. Journal of Personality, 74, 9-46.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The
role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.
Lord, R. G., Klimoski, R. J., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the
structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Or-
ganizational Behavior, 23, 695-706.
Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological
strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57-72.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological capital
development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 387-393.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. L. (in press). Experimental analysis of a Web-based inter-
vention to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning and
Education.
Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change?   69

Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Psychological capital: Measurement
and relationship with performance and job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541-572.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., & Li, W. (2005). The psychological capital of Chinese work-
ers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and Organization Review, 1,
247-269.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital man-
age- ment. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 143-160.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Man-
agement, 33, 321-349.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human
competitive edge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does hap-
piness lead to success. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.
Martin, A. J., Jones, E. S., & Callan, V. J. (2005). The role of psychological climate in facilitating ad-
justment during organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy-
chology, 14, 263-289.
Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez
(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74-88). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupa-
tional & Organizational Psychology, 77, 11-37.
Mishra, K. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1998). Preserving employee morale during down-
sizing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 83-95.
Nelson, D., & Cooper, C. (Eds.). (2007). Positive organizational behavior: Accentuating the posi-
tive at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
O’Toole, J. (1995). Leading change: Overcoming the ideology of comfort and the tyranny of cus-
tom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Payne, R. L., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Emotions at work: Theory, research and applications in man-
agement. New York: John Wiley.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. C., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Porras, J. I., & Silvers, R. C. (1994). Organizational development and transformation. In W. L.
French, C. H. Bell, & R. A. Zawacki (Eds.), Organizational development and transformation:
Managing effective change (pp. 82-110). New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Pugh, S. D., Skarlicki, D. P., & Passell, B. S. (2003). After the fall: Layoff victims’ trust and cynicism
in re-employment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 201-212.
Quick, J. C., & Quick, J. D. (2004). Healthy, happy, productive work. Organizational Dynamics,
33, 329-337.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about
organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48-59.
Roberts, L. M. (2006). Shifting the lens on organizational life: The added value of positive scholar-
ship. Academy of Management Review, 31, 292-305.
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional
state. Psychological Review, 69, 379-399.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informa-
tive and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45, 513-523.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism. New York: Pocket Books.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. American Psychologist,
55, 5-14.
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249-276.
Snyder, C. R., Irving, L. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1991). Hope and health. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.),
Handbook of social and clinical psychology (pp. 285-305). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
70   Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans in J. of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 44 (2008)

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organi-
zational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.
Stajkovic, A. S. & Luthans, F. (1998a). Self-self efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.
Stajkovic, A. S. & Luthans, F. (1998b). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Going beyond tra-
ditional motivational and behavioral approaches. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 62-74.
Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolntsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organiza-
tional change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 429-459.
Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-but-
wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304-331.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable out-
comes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51-71.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Images of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 11-26.
Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 86-92.
Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z., & Williams, J. M. G. (1995). How does cognitive therapy prevent depres-
sive relapse and why should attentional control (mindfulness) training help? Behavior Re-
search and Therapy, 33, 25-39.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce
back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,
320-333.
Tugade, M. M., Fredrickson, B. L., & Barrett, L. (2004). Psychological resilience and positive emo-
tional granularity. Journal of Personality, 72, 1161-1190.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary
and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.
Wallace, B. A., & Shapiro, S. L. (2006). Mental balance and well-being. American Psychologist, 61,
690-701.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change: Mea-
surement, antecedents, and correlates. Group and Organization Management, 25, 132-153.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1063-1070.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50, 361-386.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in
an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Or-
ganization Science, 17, 514-524.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of
collective mindfulness. In B. M. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(pp. 81-123). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come. Jour-
nal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 437-442.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2004). The role of psychological well-being in job performance.
Organizational Dynamics, 33, 338-351.
Wright, T. A., & Staw, B. M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: Two longitudinal tests
of the happy-productive worker thesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1-23.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2005). Resiliency development of organizations, leaders and em-
ployees: Multi-level theory building for sustained performance. In W. Gardner, B. J. Avolio,
& F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice. Origins, effects, and de-
velopment (pp. 303-343). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
 ◘◘◘◘◘

James B. Avey is an assistant professor of management in the Department of

Management, Central Washington University.

Tara S. Wernsing is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Management,

Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Fred Luthans is the George Holmes Distinguished Professor of Management,

Department of Management, Gallup Leadership Institute, University of
Nebraska–Lincoln.