Review status
This summary is based on the full article text.
The DOI and source URL have been verified through the official Taylor & Francis article page.
The article is an empirical scale-development and validation study published in Human Resource Development International. It uses a pragmatic mixed-method design guided by the Critical Incident Technique. The study combines qualitative categorization of employee-reported strengths, interrater reliability analysis, translation, validation, self- and other-ratings, and robustness tests across Dutch and English-speaking samples.
Research question
What types of occupational strengths do employees identify in themselves and in colleagues, and can these strengths be organized into a reliable, work-specific index?
More specifically, the article asks whether existing strengths classifications, especially the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths and the Clifton StrengthsFinder, sufficiently capture work-related strengths. When the authors find that these classifications are not fully adequate, they develop and validate a new occupational strengths index: the Behavioural Index of Occupational Strengths.
The article also asks whether self-identified strengths and other-identified strengths differ, and whether a strengths index developed in Dutch can be translated and generalized to English-speaking employees.
Hypotheses
Not specified.
The article is not structured around formal hypotheses. Instead, it is guided by research objectives and validation questions:
- whether existing strengths classifications sufficiently describe occupational strengths reported by employees;
- which work-related strengths categories emerge inductively from employee and colleague reports;
- whether the resulting categories can be reliably applied by independent raters;
- whether the index is exhaustive across additional samples;
- whether the index generalizes across Dutch and English-speaking employees;
- whether the final categories are meaningfully recognized by employees as strengths at work.
Method
The article uses an exploratory sequential mixed-method design guided by the Critical Incident Technique.
The authors begin from the problem that strengths-based HR practices require specific and accurate language for identifying employee strengths. General strengths tools such as the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths and Clifton StrengthsFinder are widely used, but may not be specific enough for workplace settings.
The article defines strengths as patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions that are energizing and lead to maximal effectiveness. The focus is not on abstract virtues alone, but on strengths employees can recognize and apply at work.
The study is organized into three main studies.
Study 1 developed the initial index using Dutch employee data. The first sample included 231 employees and 87 of their colleagues. Employees worked at least 12 hours per week and came from a broad range of sectors. The employee sample was 58% female, with an average age of 40.09 years, average tenure of 7.33 years, and average working time of 35.51 hours per week. Colleagues were 60% female, with an average age of 40.15 years. The sample covered sectors including health care, government, education, public services, finance, technology, industry, trade and retail, science, food and beverage, sports, arts, culture, tourism, and transportation.
In Study 1, employees reported their top three strengths in open text boxes. Each participant was also asked to invite a close colleague to report the participant’s strengths. This produced 693 self-identified strengths and 261 other-identified strengths, or 954 strengths in total. After spelling corrections and grouping identical terms, the authors obtained 452 unique strength quotations.
The first step in Study 1 was to test whether existing strengths classifications could categorize these occupational strengths. Two raters independently sorted all strength quotations into the VIA categories and then into the CSF categories. They also used extra categories for uncategorizable answers and specific job skills.
For the VIA classification, only 11 of 24 categories, or 46%, reached acceptable reliability. Ten categories, or 42%, did not reach acceptable reliability. Three VIA categories, Prudence, Gratitude, and Spirituality, were not assigned any quotations by either rater. Large portions of the reported occupational strengths also did not fit any VIA category: 163 quotations, or 36%, according to the first rater, and 108 quotations, or 24%, according to the second rater.
For the Clifton StrengthsFinder classification, only 10 of 34 categories, or 29%, reached acceptable reliability. Twenty-three categories, or 65%, had below-acceptable reliability coefficients. Three categories, Belief, Individualization, and Significance, were not assigned any quotations by either rater. The raters judged 66 quotations, or 15%, and 97 quotations, or 21%, respectively, as not fitting any CSF category.
Because the existing classifications did not reliably or comprehensively capture the reported occupational strengths, the authors developed a new strengths index inductively. The first two authors grouped all quotations into new categories based on similarities and differences, without imposing pre-existing category structures. Through repeated comparison, discussion, refinement, and definition writing, they developed an initial 27-category index.
The initial index was then tested by three independent raters, all organizational psychologists who were unfamiliar with the study aims. They categorized all 452 unique strength quotations into the 27 categories. Interrater reliability was assessed using Krippendorff’s alpha. Seventeen of the 27 categories, or 63%, initially reached acceptable agreement, with reliability values between 0.68 and 0.91. Categories with weaker agreement were refined, combined, or redefined. For example, Drive and Perseverance were combined, Pragmatism and Problem Solving were combined, and Independence was redefined more sharply. This produced a 23-category index.
The authors then tested exhaustiveness using a second Dutch dataset. This second round included 198 employees and 62 colleagues, producing 486 self-reported and 201 other-reported strengths. After grouping and cleaning, the second dataset contained 317 distinct strengths, including 171 strengths that had not appeared in the first round. The 23-category index was sufficient to categorize the new data; no new categories emerged. After further refinement, Natural Authority and Persuasion were combined into Influence, and Strategy was renamed Vision. This produced a 23-category Dutch index.
Study 1 also compared self-identified and other-identified strengths. Across the combined Dutch data, there were 1,179 self-identified and 462 other-identified strengths, or 1,641 strengths in total. Independent sample t-tests compared whether certain categories were more likely to be reported about oneself or by colleagues.
Study 2 tested whether the index generalized to English-speaking employees. The authors recruited 176 native English-speaking employees. Participants came mainly from the United States, 73%, followed by India, 12%, the United Kingdom, 11%, Australia, 2%, and other English-speaking countries, 2%. The sample was 48% female, with an average age of 38.32 years, average tenure of 5.52 years, and average working time of 40.24 hours per week. The sample covered fourteen sectors, including technology, science, finance, education, industry, health care, culture, government and legal services, other services, food and beverage, trade and retail, transport, sports, and military.
In Study 2, participants reported three strengths about themselves and three strengths about a close colleague. This produced 528 self-identified and 528 other-identified work-related strengths, or 1,056 strengths in total. After grouping identical strengths, the dataset contained 458 unique quotations.
The Dutch index was translated into English and assessed by three English native-speaking independent raters. Fifteen of the 23 categories, or 65%, reached acceptable agreement at the initial stage, with Krippendorff’s alpha values between 0.68 and 0.97. Seven categories had weaker agreement and were refined. For example, Initiative and Assertiveness were combined into the broader category Courage, while Attentiveness was renamed Helpfulness to clarify the focus on support, care, and help. This resulted in the final 22-category Behavioural Index of Occupational Strengths.
Study 3 tested robustness and generalizability of the final BIOS categories. The English-language sample included 216 employees from the United States, 63% female, with an average age of 33.94 years, average working time of 37.95 hours per week, and average tenure of 5.52 years. The Dutch-language sample included 218 employees from the Netherlands, 51% female, with an average age of 29.72 years, average working time of 29.11 hours per week, and average tenure of 3.89 years.
Participants in Study 3 rated all 22 BIOS categories from 0 to 100, where 0 meant they did not have the strength at all and 100 meant they completely mastered the strength. They rated the categories first for themselves and then for a close colleague. The aim was to check whether each category was meaningfully recognized as a workplace strength.
The final BIOS categories are: Adaptability, Affiliation, Analytical Thinking, Charm, Communication, Coordination, Courage, Dedication, Drive, Eagerness to Learn, Empathy, Helpfulness, Independence, Influence, Inventiveness, Meticulousness, Positivity, Pragmatism, Reliability, Serenity, Sincerity, and Vision.
Results / key findings
The article’s first major finding is that existing general strengths classifications are not sufficient for detailed occupational strengths identification.
The VIA and CSF classifications left many employee-reported strengths difficult to categorize and showed weak interrater agreement for many categories. In the VIA analysis, fewer than half of the categories reached acceptable reliability, and between 24% and 36% of the reported strengths were judged uncategorizable by the raters. In the CSF analysis, only 29% of categories reached acceptable reliability, and 65% had below-acceptable reliability coefficients. This supports the authors’ argument that work-specific strengths identification needs a more precise occupational language.
The second major finding is that employee language can be used to build a work-specific strengths index.
The authors developed the BIOS from real strengths reported by employees and colleagues, rather than imposing a deductive category system. This matters because work-related strengths may include practical, relational, organizational, and behavioural strengths that general character inventories do not capture clearly.
The final BIOS contains 22 occupational strengths categories. Table 1 gives concise definitions for each category. Examples include Adaptability, defined as being able to adjust easily, learn quickly, and be flexible and versatile; Coordination, defined as being able to organize, plan, structure, or arrange things well; Pragmatism, defined as being practical, down to earth, and able to efficiently recognize and solve problems; and Vision, defined as being able to think strategically, see the bigger picture, and envision the future.
The third major finding is that self-identified and other-identified strengths are not identical.
In Study 1, Adaptability and Coordination were reported significantly more often about the self than by colleagues. Adaptability was identified 55 times by participants about themselves and only five times by colleagues, t = 4.59, p < .001. Coordination was identified 75 times about the self and 14 times by colleagues, t = 3.12, p = .002. Analytical Thinking also leaned toward more self-identification, with 101 self-identifications and 28 colleague identifications, t = 1.82, p = .069.
By contrast, Drive and Charm were reported significantly more often by colleagues than about the self. Drive was identified 116 times by colleagues and 61 times by participants about themselves, t = -3.03, p = .003. Charm was identified 17 times by colleagues and 19 times by participants about themselves, but proportionally appeared more often in other-ratings, t = -2.18, p = .03.
This finding supports the value of including colleague feedback in strengths identification. Some strengths may be easier for others to see than for the person to recognize in themselves.
The fourth major finding is that the BIOS generalized reasonably well from Dutch to English-speaking employees.
In Study 2, most of the categories developed in Dutch were also meaningful for English-speaking employees. However, the translation and reliability testing revealed where category definitions needed refinement. For example, Courage emerged by combining Initiative and Assertiveness because English raters found confidence, bravery, initiative, and speaking up difficult to separate reliably. Helpfulness emerged after Attentiveness was found too ambiguous.
The fifth major finding is that the final 22 categories were meaningfully recognized in both Dutch and English samples.
In Study 3, average self-identification scores for the English BIOS ranged from 64.74 to 86.71 on a 0–100 scale. Average self-identification scores for the Dutch BIOS ranged from 64.86 to 82.80. This means no category was close to being irrelevant or unrecognized.
The highest-rated self-identified strengths in both languages were Eagerness to Learn, Reliability, and Sincerity. In the English sample, Eagerness to Learn had the highest mean score, M = 86.71, SD = 13.49; Sincerity was M = 85.56, SD = 14.94; and Reliability was M = 84.96, SD = 15.71. In the Dutch sample, Reliability was M = 82.80, SD = 15.75; Sincerity was M = 82.42, SD = 14.96; and Eagerness to Learn was M = 81.11, SD = 15.47.
The lowest-rated self-identified categories in both languages were Influence and Courage. In the English sample, Influence was M = 64.74, SD = 22.08, and Courage was M = 64.85, SD = 22.27. In the Dutch sample, Influence was M = 64.86, SD = 19.63, and Courage was M = 65.25, SD = 19.86. These scores are still above the midpoint of the scale, meaning they were not irrelevant, but they were less commonly endorsed as strong personal strengths.
The sixth major finding is that each final BIOS category appeared among participants’ top five strengths in both language versions.
In the English version, every category appeared in participants’ top five self-identified strengths at least 26 times, or 12%, and at most 118 times, or 55%. For other-identified strengths, every category appeared in the top five at least 36 times, or 17%, and at most 103 times, or 48%.
In the Dutch version, every category appeared in participants’ top five self-identified strengths at least 26 times, or 12%, and at most 118 times, or 55%. For colleague ratings, every category appeared in the top five at least 38 times, or 17%, and at most 95 times, or 44%.
This supports the robustness of the final 22 categories. None of the categories appeared to be merely theoretical or rarely used.
The seventh major finding is that the BIOS does not reduce employees into a few fixed strength types.
The authors attempted exploratory factor analyses to see whether the BIOS categories formed stable higher-order groups, but they did not find a consistent structure across datasets. They interpret this as evidence that strengths can appear in many combinations and that employees should not be forced into one fixed strengths type.
Overall, the article concludes that the BIOS provides a practical and empirically grounded language for identifying occupational strengths. It is not meant to replace detailed HR judgment, but to support more specific strengths-based dialogue in performance appraisal, training, career development, and talent-related conversations.
Practical implications
For managers and HR professionals, the article’s main implication is that strengths-based HR needs specific language.
It is not enough to tell employees to “use their strengths” if they do not know what those strengths are or cannot describe them clearly. The BIOS gives managers, employees, and HR professionals a shared vocabulary for discussing work-related strengths in concrete behavioural terms.
The article is especially relevant for performance appraisal. Traditional appraisal systems often focus on deficiencies, weaknesses, and gaps. The authors argue that strengths-based feedback can improve motivation, development, and engagement when it is specific and accurate. The BIOS can help supervisors move beyond vague praise and identify concrete strengths such as Coordination, Pragmatism, Sincerity, Empathy, Communication, or Vision.
The BIOS can also support training and career development. Employees may use it to identify strengths they want to apply more often, develop further, or align with future roles. HR professionals can use it to design development conversations around what energizes employees and where they are most effective.
The article also has implications for talent acquisition and retention. If organizations understand employees’ occupational strengths more clearly, they can better match people to roles, teams, projects, and career paths. This can support person-job fit and may reduce the risk of employees feeling underused.
The inclusion of other-identified strengths is practically important. Employees may underestimate strengths that colleagues clearly see. Managers can therefore use the BIOS in peer feedback, team workshops, coaching sessions, or development conversations where employees compare self-perception with colleague perception.
For teams, the BIOS can make strengths visible across members. This is useful in project work and agile work, where teams benefit from knowing who brings which strengths. For example, one employee may contribute Vision and Inventiveness, another may contribute Meticulousness and Reliability, while another may contribute Affiliation and Communication.
The article also warns against overly generic strengths tools in occupational settings. General character strengths inventories can still be useful, but they may miss occupational nuance. Work-specific categories such as Coordination, Meticulousness, Pragmatism, Helpfulness, and Vision may be more directly actionable in HR conversations.
For practitioners, useful diagnostic questions include:
- Do employees know which strengths energize them and make them effective at work?
- Are performance appraisals focused only on weaknesses, or do they include specific strengths-based feedback?
- Do managers have a clear language for discussing occupational strengths?
- Are colleague perspectives included when identifying strengths?
- Are employees encouraged to apply strengths in daily tasks, projects, and career development?
- Are strengths used for role design, team composition, training, and retention?
- Does the organization rely on generic strengths tools when a work-specific index would be more useful?
- Are strengths conversations specific enough to guide concrete behaviour?
Theoretical implications
The article contributes to human resource development by creating a validated, work-specific strengths taxonomy.
Existing strengths research often uses broad character classifications. Moore, van Mierlo, and Bakker show that workplace strengths require more occupational specificity. This helps bridge positive organizational psychology and practical HR development.
The study also contributes methodologically. The BIOS was not built deductively from existing theory alone. It was developed inductively from employee and colleague reports, then refined through reliability testing, translation, validation, and robustness checks. This gives the index stronger grounding in actual employee language.
The article also contributes to strengths-based HRM. Strengths-based approaches often argue that employees perform and develop better when their strengths are recognized and used. The BIOS supports this literature by providing a concrete tool for identifying the strengths that employees may bring to work.
The study also contributes to self-other knowledge research. By including colleague-reported strengths, the authors show that self-perception and other-perception are not identical. This supports the idea that strengths identification may be more accurate and useful when it includes interpersonal feedback.
The article further contributes by showing that occupational strengths do not necessarily form stable higher-order types. Employees may have unique constellations of strengths rather than belonging to a small set of predefined profiles. This supports a more flexible and individualized approach to strengths development.
Finally, the article strengthens the link between strengths, performance feedback, learning, and development. It provides a practical foundation for future research on whether strengths identification through the BIOS improves outcomes such as work engagement, performance, well-being, job satisfaction, absenteeism, creativity, and retention.
Limitations
The article develops and validates the BIOS as a strengths identification index, but it does not test whether using the BIOS improves performance, well-being, engagement, or retention in an intervention study.
The samples are broad but not fully stratified. The authors note that online participation may have underrepresented some blue-collar workers and specific sectors.
The study focuses mainly on Dutch and English-language samples. Although the English samples included participants from several English-speaking countries, the final robustness test focuses on the United States and the Netherlands. Further validation is needed in other languages and cultural contexts.
The BIOS is based on self- and other-reported strengths. These reports are useful for identifying perceived strengths, but they are not direct behavioural observations or objective performance measures.
The colleague-report method changed across studies. In Study 1, actual colleagues were invited to report strengths. In Study 2, participants reported strengths about a close colleague themselves. This improves response rates but creates a different kind of other-rating.
The article does not provide a stable higher-order factor structure for the BIOS. This supports the idea of individualized strengths constellations, but it also means the BIOS should not be interpreted as a simple personality-type model.
The study tests category recognition and reliability, but it does not establish the predictive validity of each individual BIOS category for specific job outcomes.
Future research
Future research could test the BIOS in intervention studies. Researchers could examine whether employees who identify and apply BIOS strengths experience higher work engagement, job satisfaction, well-being, performance, creativity, and lower absenteeism.
Studies could compare strengths-based performance appraisal using the BIOS with traditional appraisal systems focused mainly on weaknesses or competency gaps.
Future research could test whether manager-led BIOS conversations improve the quality of feedback, employee motivation, perceived support, and development planning.
Researchers could validate the BIOS in more languages and countries. Because the index is language-sensitive, careful translation and reliability testing would be needed.
Future studies could examine whether certain BIOS strengths are especially useful in particular roles, teams, industries, or work contexts. For example, Coordination may matter more in project management, Empathy in care roles, Meticulousness in quality-control work, and Vision in strategic roles.
Another useful direction would be to study team-level strengths constellations. Teams may perform better when members understand and combine complementary strengths.
Researchers could also examine self-other differences in more depth. Future studies could test whether certain strengths are consistently easier for colleagues to recognize than for employees to self-identify.
Future research could connect BIOS strengths to job crafting. Employees may benefit from redesigning tasks or seeking projects that allow them to use their strongest occupational strengths more often.
Researchers could also examine whether using the BIOS supports employee retention by helping employees feel seen, valued, and better matched to work opportunities.
Finally, future studies could explore how the BIOS interacts with people analytics, career development platforms, learning systems, and AI-supported HR tools while avoiding overly rigid strengths labelling.