Correlates of Positive Psychological Capital: A Synthesis of the Empirical Research Published between January 2000 and January 2010

ABSTRACTThis paper aimed to analyze and synthesize the empirical literature on positive psychological capital (PsyCap) published between January 2000 and January 2010, in order to identify': the correlates of PsyCap at the individual, group and organizational level; the variable status of PsyCap in relation to other variables, and the instruments used to measure PsyCap. The selected studies were analyzed using quantitative content analysis. The results are presented for each level of analysis: individual, group and organizational. It. was found that, most of the studies investigated PsyCap at the individual level (12 studies providing 16 independent samples; 88.89%), while only 11.11% (2 studies providing 2 independent samples) examined this concept at the group level. None of the selected studies investigated PsyCap at the organizational level. Although PsyCap was researched as a predictor for a wide range of work-related outcomes such as performance, behavioral, attitudinal, intentional, affective and health-related outcomes, the most studied outcome at the individual and group level of analysis was performance, mainly job performance. Furthermore, all the studies included subjective measures of PsyCap. Based on these findings several implications and future research were presented.KEYWORDS: positive psychological capital, correlates, positive organizational behavior, synthesisIn an unpredictable context, one strategy that an organization can use for an efficient organizational change management consists in the maximization of its" human resources" potential (Cascio & Cappelli, 2009; Ferguson & Reio, Jr., 2010; Luthans & Youssef, 2004). The introduction of human resources in the equation of organizational performance and competitive advantage offers a new perspective on what the organizational capital is. Compared to traditional physical, structural and financial resources, employees as human resources are not easily replicated by an organization's existing competitors (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004; Toor & Ofori, 2010). Thus, employees constitute a valuable form of capital for their organizations (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Barney, 1991, 1995; Barney & Wright, 1997). Although human and social capital are widely recognized and studied, psychological capital received less attention (Larson & Luthans, 2006). It refers to "who you are" and "what you can become in terms of positive development' (Avolio & Luthans, 2006). This form of capital is distinct from human, social and financial capital that reflect "what you know" in terms of knowledge, skills, abilities and experience (Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009), "who you know", and respectively "what you have" (Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008).Initially, the concept of psychological capital was used in the economic literature by Goldsmith, Veum, and Darity (1997, p. 821) to describe "personal attributes that may affect productivity". It was conceptualized more in terms of self- esteem: "Many of the features of a person's psychological capital are reflected in a person's self-view or sense of self-esteem" (Goldsmith, Darity, & Veum, 1998, p. 15). Studies within this perspective investigated it in relation to productivity and the financial wages (Goldsmith, Darity, & Veum, 1997; Kossek, Huber, & Lerner, 2003). But, in the last decade, the concept of psychological capital started to be intensively studied in the field of positive psychology, mainly in the positive organizational behavior approach (POB) but with a different conceptualization (Luthans, 2002a, b).To distinguish between the POB and other scientific positive approaches and common sense descriptors, the promoters of POB field proposed four criteria that must be met by a concept to be included in this approach (Larson & Luthans, 2006; Luthans, 2007; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007; Youssef & Luthans, 2007):(a) to be based on a solid theory and research, and on valid measurements - to distinguish POB from the common sense literature)(b) to have a relative uniqueness in the organizational behavior field - to distinguish POB from the other concepts of organizational behavior literature, such as core self-evaluation (Judge & Bono, 2001)(c) to be a state-like resource open to development and change - to distinguish POB from the positive organizational scholarship (Cameron & Caza, 2004)(d) to have a positive impact on work performance (Luthans, 2002a, b). …