COMPOSING THE REFLECTED BEST-SELF PORTRAIT: BUILDING ...

COMPOSING THE REFLECTED BEST-SELFPORTRAIT: BUILDING PATHWAYS FOR

BECOMING EXTRAORDINARY IN WORKORGANIZATIONS

LAURA MORGAN ROBERTSHarvard Business School

JANE E. DUTTONGRETCHEN M. SPREITZER

EMILY D. HEAPHYROBERT E. QUINN

The University of Michigan Business School

We present a theory of how individuals compose their reflected best-self portrait,which we define as a changing self-knowledge structure about who one is at one’sbest. We posit that people compose their reflected best-self portrait through socialexperiences that draw on intrapsychic and interpersonal resources. By weaving to-gether microlevel theories of personal change and macrolevel theories of humanresource development, our theory reveals an important means by which work orga-nizations affect people’s capacity to realize their potential.

Being extraordinary does not necessarily meanobtaining a position of honor or glory or even ofbecoming successful in other people’s eyes. Itmeans being true to self. It means pursuing ourfull potential (Quinn & Quinn, 2002: 35).

Being extraordinary. All of us can recall ourown extraordinary moments—those momentswhen we felt that our best-self was brought tolight, affirmed by others, and put into practice inthe world. These memories are seared into ourminds as moments or situations in which we feltalive, true to our deepest selves, and pursuingour full potential as human beings. Over time,we collect these experiences into a portrait ofwho we are when we are at our personal best.Sometimes this portrait is composed graduallyand without much conscious attention or self-awareness. Other times, work organizationsplay an active role in providing us feedback,furnishing goals, and enabling relationshipswith others in ways that make this portrait ex-

plicit and consciously changing over time.Whether implicit or explicit, stable or changing,this portrait serves as both an anchor and abeacon, a personal touchstone of who we areand a guide for who we can become. We call thisportrait the “reflected best-self” (hereafter re-ferred to as the RBS).

We choose the word “reflected” to emphasizethat this self-portrait is based on our percep-tions of how others view us. Family members,friends and acquaintances, and organizationsprovide us with feedback about who we are, andthis information is integrated into our self-concept (Cooley, 1902; Tice & Wallace, 2003). Wechoose the word “best” to refer to the strengths,contributions, and enduring talents that eachperson brings to a situation. Taken together, thismeans that through interpretations of experi-ences and interactions in the social world, eachperson composes a self-portrait of his or her ownstrengths and contributions. We posit that theprocess of composing the RBS portrait creates apathway to becoming extraordinary, in that itinvolves envisioning the self at one’s best, andthen acting on this vision to translate possibili-ties for the extraordinary into reality.

Our purpose here is to define the RBS, de-scribe how and when it changes, and articulatethe ways in which it influences individual func-

We thank Art Brief, two anonymous reviewers, the facultyand staff at the University of Michigan Business School,Brianna Barker, Robin Ely, Monica Higgins, Joshua Margolis,Leslie Perlow, Jeffrey Polzer, Ryan Quinn, Lloyd Sandelands,Neil Sendlebach, Kathleen Sutcliffe, David Thomas, KlausWeber, and Michele Williams for helpful comments on ear-lier drafts. We also thank Chad Brown for allowing us toshare his reflected best portrait.

� Academy of Management Review2005, Vol. 30, No. 4, 712–736.

712

tioning in organizations. By providing a theoret-ical account of the situational and social mech-anisms through which people compose theirRBS portraits, we shed new light on how orga-nizations can enable people to develop to theirfull potential. In so doing, we build on the prin-ciples of positive psychology (Seligman & Csik-szentmihalyi, 2000) and positive organizationalscholarship (Cameron & Caza, 2004; Cameron,Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Luthans, 2002), which aimto develop theoretical understandings of humanstrengths, virtues, and health, as opposed to thepredominant focus on weakness and pathologyin work organizations.

Our theory of how people compose the RBSportrait builds on current research regardinghow individuals change their conception of selfthrough socially embedded experiences and re-sources (Higgins & Kram, 2001; Tice & Wallace,2003). More specifically, our theory of composingthe RBS portrait sits at the crossroads of severalimportant research streams in organizationalbehavior. First, we build from theories of careerand personal change that purport that changesin self-knowledge structures are critical ele-ments in explaining how and why individualschange what they do and how they feel (Ibarra,1999; Markus & Nurius, 1986). Second, we buildon research that portrays individuals as activeparticipants in constructing their organizationalexperience through how they take initiative(Frese & Fay, 2001; Morrison & Phelps, 1999), seekinformation about themselves (Ashford, 1986),and create and draw from relationships withothers (Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003).Third, we draw on research showing that therelational context in which individuals are em-bedded has a major effect on how people defineand feel about themselves (Bradbury & Lichten-stein, 2000; Ely, 1994; Gabarro, 1987; Gersick, Bar-tunek, & Dutton, 2000; Granovetter, 1985; Kahn,1998) which, in the case of our theory, is capturedin the power of mirrored reflections.

THE REFLECTED BEST-SELF

We define the RBS as an individual’s cogni-tive representation of the qualities and charac-teristics the individual displays when at his orher best. Our definition of the RBS shares somefeatures of self-schemas. Markus defines self-schemas as “cognitive generalizations aboutthe self in particular domains, derived from past

experience, that guide the processing of self-related information contained in the individu-al’s social experiences” (1977: 64). Like self-schemas, the RBS is based on past experiencesand guides the processing of personally rele-vant information generated in the social world.For example, someone who exhibits resilienceand determination in response to being denieda job promotion, to receiving chemotherapy, andto experiencing a setback on a church buildingcampaign may include her “capacity to persistin the face of adversity” as a core component ofher RBS. However, as the previous example in-dicates, the RBS is not based on a single domainbut is a more general and encompassing con-ception of the self that cuts across multiple do-mains. Thus, we use the term RBS portrait in-stead of schema to describe this broadercognitive representation of the self.

As a positive portrayal of desirable, self-relevant characteristics, the RBS portrait alsoshares some features of the “ideal self” (the cog-nitive representation of one’s hopes, wishes, oraspirations; Higgins, 1987) and the “hoped-forpossible self” (the manifestation of enduringpersonal goals, aspirations, and motivation;Markus & Nurius, 1986). However, the RBS por-trait is distinct from the ideal self and thehoped-for possible self in that it is based onqualities and characteristics that the personcurrently has, as opposed to those the individualwishes or hopes to possess. As an example, takethis excerpt of a person’s description of his RBS,which he wrote as part of an MBA course exer-cise to integrate feedback he had received fromothers about who he is at his best:

At my best-self: I share, I strip away all that life isnot. I live large. I breathe deeply and inhale everywhisper of life. At my best-self, I challenge myselfmentally, physically, emotionally. At my best-self, I am neither at work [n]or at play, I am livingin the moment. I am a lover of life. I am a seekerof truth and beauty. I am responsible for my ownactions, my own beliefs, and my own connectionswith other people and all living creatures. At mybest-self, I am small, invisible and insignificant.People don’t see me, they don’t feel me, however,they see truth and beauty in themselves and inthe world around them that they would not havenoticed had I not been there, and they feel phys-ically, emotionally and mentally better becauseof me (Chad Brown, 2001, personal correspon-dence).

As we can see in the above statement, the RBSis a strength-based conception of the qualities

2005 713Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy, and Quinn

and characteristics that this person believes heexudes when he is at his best. This descriptionalso illustrates that the RBS is more than a cat-alog of competencies. While one’s strengths (i.e.,competencies, talents, values, personality at-tributes) lie at the core of one’s RBS, the RBSportrait also incorporates a characterization ofthe state of being at one’s best. In this state ofbeing, an individual actively employs strengthsto create value, actualize one’s potential, andfulfill one’s sense of purpose, which generates aconstructive experience (emotional, cognitive, orbehavioral) for oneself and for others. Often-times, the state of being at one’s best is charac-terized by being true to oneself (Palmer, 2000;Quinn & Quinn, 2002) or authentic (Harter, 2002)and high performing (Spreitzer, Quinn, &Fletcher, 1995).

In addition, in our theory, we look within oneindividual to learn how that person can enterhis or her best state, rather than following themore traditional, normative approach of lookingacross people to see who is the best among agroup or class. Thus, this conception of the“best” stands in contrast to evaluative measuresacross people, such as performance evaluationsthat rank order or group people within a givendistribution.

To better understand the power of the RBS inshaping human development and functioning,we focus in the next section on illustrating theprocess by which individuals compose their RBSportraits. Following this discussion of compos-ing the RBS portrait, we describe how the resultsof this process directly impact identity, well-being, and behavior in work organizations.

COMPOSING THE RBS PORTRAIT

How do people identify the personal qualitiesand characteristics that constitute their RBS por-trait? Through experiences with others, peoplegather information that enables them to build acomposite portrait of who they are at their best.This portrait is shaped by the individual’s per-ceptions, rather than an absolute “truth” of whatthe RBS is. Research supports that people’s per-ceptions of how they are viewed—not how theyare actually viewed by others—have the stron-gest impact on people’s self-concepts (Tice &Wallace, 2003). The self-concept is based on ourobservations of ourselves, our inferences aboutwho we are (gleaned from others’ behavior to-

ward us), our wishes and desires, and our eval-uations of ourselves (Stets & Burke, 2003). Thus,the RBS portrait is composed through previousexperiences in the social world, where peoplelearn how they create value.

While the RBS portrait, like self-schemas(Swann, 1985), begins to form in childhood, theprocess of composing the RBS portrait can con-tinue throughout life, as social experiences en-able people to see more clearly who they are attheir best. However, composing this portrait ofthe RBS can be challenging, especially in cur-rent work organizations. All too often, the infor-mation people get about themselves is reflectedthrough rare and imperfect mirrors.

Formal performance evaluations are the mostcommon way individuals get external feedbackabout their competencies in organizations. Per-formance evaluations are institutionalized prac-tices in which people, typically superiors butincreasingly subordinates and peers as well,grade how employees have performed along anumber of prespecified dimensions. Perfor-mance evaluations are used to justify rewardsand to define developmental opportunities forenhancing current performance and preparingfor future career possibilities. While experts rec-ommend sandwiching negative feedback withinpositive feedback (Beer, 1997), invariably, the fo-cus of a performance evaluation is on identify-ing weaknesses and combating performancedeficits (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). Becauseperformance evaluations tend to narrow atten-tion toward the negative aspects of human per-formance, they tend to provide people with mereglimpses of their RBS.

Individuals might proactively seek additionalfeedback about their sources of competencefrom significant others (Ashford, 1986). Signifi-cant others are those people whose views andopinions matter to an individual because ofpower asymmetries, resource dependence, oremotional attachment. Research suggests thatmore powerful individuals’ opinions carryweight simply because they command more at-tention (Fiske & Depret, 1996). Levinson (1985)suggests that the actions and opinions of guid-ing figures—people who embody what an indi-vidual is trying to move toward in life—are par-ticularly significant when people are undergoingtransitions. For example, Ibarra (2003) describeshow Ben Forrester’s boss (a guiding figure) pro-vided reassurance and feedback as Ben was

714 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

trying to shift from an academic to a leader-ship role in a nonprofit consulting firm. Thisboss’s opinions and questions were signifi-cant to Ben because they reflected back newpossibilities for who Ben could be, and theyprovided reassurance in a time of transition(Ibarra, 2003: 125).

Despite the value that reflected appraisalshave for enabling people to see and feel newpossibilities for themselves, norms of humilityoften constrain people’s willingness to ask oth-ers to identify their own sources of strength(Quinn & Quinn, 2002). Alternatively, peoplemonitor their own performance and make infer-ences about their competence by observing sit-uational cues and others’ responses to their be-havior (Ashford, 1986; Ibarra, 1999). As a result,people rely on a patchwork quilt of imperfectand incomplete reflections from others, oftencomposed on the fly. And given that cognitivebiases and heuristics (Bazerman, 1986; Tversky& Kahneman, 1986), along with the desire to im-press others (Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1989; Goff-man, 1959; Schlenker, 2003), often lead people tooverestimate or underestimate their perfor-mance, the sole reliance on monitoring duringeveryday interactions may not produce a sub-stantive and vivid portrait of the RBS.

Despite the challenges involved, work organi-zations can enable individuals to compose moresubstantive and vivid portraits of their RBS. Weposit that altering the kinds of social experi-ences one has can induce a substantive shift inhow one envisions oneself. As individuals learnmore about their personal strengths, limitations,and ability to add value, they are likely tochange the content of the RBS portrait by addingand subtracting qualities so that the RBS ismore closely aligned with their revelations fromthese experiences. Tice and Wallace provide thefollowing example of a content change in one’sRBS:

One day Denise’s rabbi asks her to paint a muralfor the synagogue wall. Denise is surprised whenher rabbi tells her, “We all think you are a terrificpainter. Your father and sisters brag about youall the time.” When Denise realizes that her fam-ily and friends think she is a good painter, shechanges her view of herself and starts to think ofherself as artistically talented (2003: 91).

In addition, as individuals participate in so-cial experiences that reveal their personalstrengths, the image of their RBS may become

more vivid, because it is associated with spe-cific action tendencies that supplement theirvalues, beliefs, and wishes. For example, amanager already has a vague sense that heenjoys administration and is particularly skilledat organizing major projects and events, but theexperience of receiving feedback from impor-tant people in his life causes him to put thisdimension of himself at the core of his RBS.1 HisRBS portrait includes the statement, “At my best,I create a vision and then develop the roadmapfor achieving that vision.” In the process ofheading the global reorganization task force forhis firm, he further develops this component ofhis RBS portrait by qualifying that being a vi-sionary is not an isolated, lonely process. Quitethe opposite, he realizes it is an inherently so-cial process of cocreation. As a result, he in-cludes an additional statement in his RBS por-trait: “In planning and executing, I incorporateothers’ strengths, talents, and gifts so that theywill be constantly reminded that their contribu-tions are valued.” After his experience, he has amore vivid picture of what he does and how hedoes it when he is at his best. His RBS portrait ismore deeply rooted in his personal experience.This process of changing the content or clarity ofthe RBS portrait, which we term revision, is animportant phase in the lifelong task of compos-ing the RBS portrait.

In the next section of the article, we explainhow social experiences facilitate revisions ofthe RBS portrait. We posit that revisions to theRBS portrait are catalyzed by trigger events,which we refer to as jolts. RBS revisions are mostlikely to occur when individuals who experiencejolts also possess critical socially embedded re-sources (i.e., positive affect, positive relation-ships, and personal agency) that enable them torespond to the jolts in constructive rather thandestructive ways. There is likely to be variationin the degree of change in one’s RBS that resultsfrom any given jolt, based on (1) the magnitudeof the jolt one experiences (which can rangefrom a major life event to the “straw that breaksthe camel’s back”) and (2) the level of sociallyembedded resources one possesses.

1 This example is disguised, although the facts are real.


REVISING THE RBS PORTRAIT

On a daily basis, people are exposed to manyexperiences that could potentially lead tochanges in their RBS portrait. Most of the time,no change in the RBS occurs, because manyexperiences in life are routine and fit within thecurrent image of the RBS. Only occasionally dolife events intrude on or interrupt daily routines,prompting individuals to pause and make senseof life events in a way that triggers a revision totheir RBS portrait. Sensemaking involves plac-ing life experiences into a framework in order tohelp people comprehend, understand, and ex-plain experiences in a way that gives meaning,purpose, and direction to action (Weick, 1995).Revising the RBS portrait is a sensemaking pro-cess, in that it involves deriving new self-relevant information from social experiences,imposing meaning on the information, and us-ing the information to inform one’s understand-ing of the RBS.

Surprisingly, there is a dearth of research onwhat triggers changes in self-knowledge struc-tures like the RBS, but the dominant intuition isthat schemas change as a function of some dis-continuity in the environment (Swann, 1985;Walsh, 1995). We suggest that revisions to theRBS occur when individuals undergo an “aha”experience or jolt—a discrepant or surprisingevent that causes people to pause and reflect ontheir experience (Louis, 1980). Losing a job is aclassic example of a jolt (cf. Lee & Mitchell, 2001),but jolts can also include joyful events like abirth of child or a promotion.

A jolt doesn’t have to come in the form of amajor event. Rather, jolts can vary in magnitude.A person can be jolted by a new piece of infor-mation that serves as a tipping point (Ibarra,2003) for revising his or her RBS portrait. Forexample, when a law clerk gets yet anotherpiece of positive feedback on his writing talent,this time from a federal judge, he can no longerignore his passion and skill for writing legalbriefs. Similarly, after the senior managementteam accepts her fourth marketing campaign,an associate begins to discover a pattern of suc-cess, which reveals her unique talent for cre-ative design.

Jolts trigger changes in self-knowledge struc-tures because they disrupt routines in ways thatrelease emotion (Mandler, 1984) and help peoplechange cognitive gears (Louis & Sutton, 1991).

Jolts disrupt automatic modes of informationprocessing and reliance on well-grooved waysof thinking about the self that accompany anautomatic processing mode (Bargh, 1982). AsPoole, Gioia, and Gray suggest, experiences“that generate strong emotional responses aremore likely to induce schematic change” (1989:288).

Jolts punctuate experience by unfreezing peo-ple so they can begin to move away from the oldand focus energy toward the future (Ibarra, 2003;Weick, 1995). Because they intrude or interrupt,jolts provide what Ibarra calls an “alert admis-sion” (2003: 138)—a moment when pivotal eventscatalyze change. These alert admissions or “de-fining moments” (Badaracco, 1997) trigger aneed for explanation (Louis, 1980), and they test,shape, and reveal something about how peoplethink about themselves and their capabilities.Jolts can test whether the new information re-vealed from the jolts fits with the current RBSportrait. They can also shape revision of the RBSas the individual integrates new pieces of infor-mation into the RBS portrait. Jolts can revealaspects of the RBS that have been hidden andcan provide a sharp, clear view of aspects of theRBS that were previously obscure. In short, joltsget people’s attention and jar people toward de-liberate judgments about their RBS becausethey are an occasion for sensemaking.

We propose that in work organizations joltsthat provide occasions for revising RBS portraitscome in at least four forms. While the word “jolt”may connote an experience that is negative intone, we use the term more broadly. As our pre-vious examples indicated, positive experiencescan also jog people out of routines and promptthem to think about themselves in new ways. Assuch, we talk about jolts along two key dimen-sions: (1) jolts based on challenge or based onaffirmation and (2) jolts generated by formal orinformal mechanisms (see Figure 1). By juxta-posing these two dimensions, we create a typol-ogy of jolts, which we describe in more detail inthe subsequent sections.

Challenging Jolts

Challenges require special effort and dedica-tion to overcome because they take individualsout of their routines and provide an opportunityfor action (Csikszentmihalyi, 1993). Challengesstretch individuals in new directions. To re-


spond to a challenge, one has to let go of thetried and true, be open to possibilities, seekout novelty, be curious, and be willing to takerisks. Challenges—what Bennis and Thomas(2002) call “crucibles”—move individuals totranscend the usual ways of doing things byputting them in difficult but not impossiblesituations (Tomaka, Blascovich, Kibler, &Ernst, 1997). Unlike threatening jolts that implythe real potential for failure or harm, challeng-ing jolts imply the possibility of gains and,thus, energize individuals (Tomaka, Blascov-ich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993).

Formal challenges. Often, in work organiza-tions, formal, organizationally sanctioned occa-sions provide employees with challenges thatcould prompt them to change how they seethemselves at their best. For example, when or-ganizations elevate performance targets, planjob rotations and “stretch assignments,” insti-tute managerial training or executive develop-ment programs, or provide difficult new goalsbased on individual performance evaluations,they create settings that are designed to chal-lenge employees in significant ways. Individu-als may be prompted by these situations to per-

form novel tasks, which may extend theircurrent knowledge base of their strengths andabilities to include additional self-knowledgeregarding how they perform in these new do-mains. Simultaneously, they may receive feed-back from others in their environment regardingtheir competence in this new domain. This ex-panded knowledge base of strengths and capac-ities can serve as input for revising the contentof the RBS portrait. In addition, engaging in anexperience that draws on one’s strengths andcompetencies may make the RBS portrait morevivid.

For example, Kyle Vest, a successful familypractitioner, was part of a novel medical prac-tice that encouraged physician sabbaticals (athalf pay) to explore old talents and to developnew ones. For Kyle, the sabbatical provided achance to try out his teaching talents in a novelcourse for medical students on the power of nar-ratives of healing. Kyle was astounded by thefeedback that he received from his students andother physicians regarding his effective meansof challenging students, his thoughtful portray-als of patients’ pain, and his capacity to inspireexcellence from the students. These meaningful

FIGURE 1Typology and Examples of Jolts That Spark Revisions to the Reflected Best-Self Portrait


assets were much more visible in the teachingcontext but had been hidden in his more privatemedical practice role. The teaching experiencechanged how Kyle envisioned his future possi-bilities. As a result, he negotiated a change inhis employment contract so that half of his timecould be devoted to teaching.

Thus, organizations that provide formal op-portunities for accomplishing challenging goalsand assignments may also facilitate the processof composing the RBS portrait by enabling em-ployees to revise the content or increase theclarity of their image of who they are at theirbest. In fact, if work organizations were effectivegrowers of employees’ potential, employees’work lives would be sprinkled with appropriateand well-orchestrated formal challenges (Mc-Cauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Morrow, 1994). Buttoo often organizations fail to design develop-mental opportunities so that a revision of theRBS can occur, or they offer generic opportuni-ties that fall short of meeting the needs of spe-cific individuals (McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison,1988).

Informal challenges. Jolts also occur in theform of informal challenges that arise at work,often appearing when employees least expectthem. Such occasions afford developmental op-portunities that could give rise to an alteredview of one’s RBS. For example, when a col-league is a “no show” for some important event,another employee is called on to take the col-league’s place and perform a new task (e.g.,presenting task force recommendations to theboard of directors). In a more extreme example,Ferit Sahenk, CEO of Turkish conglomerateDogus Holdings, was thrust into the senior lead-ership position of the organization when his fa-ther was diagnosed with cancer (Khurana, Car-rioga, & Johnson, 2001). In both examples, anemployee had to accept a difficult challengeand learned that he or she “has what it takes” toperform in a new task domain. Such impromptuchallenges confront individuals with occasionsin which their current capacities are stretched.These spontaneous occasions usually call fornew behavioral patterns; consequently, individ-uals may learn about limitations as well as newpossibilities for themselves that prompt a revi-sion of the content and/or clarity of their RBSportrait.

Appreciation Jolts

Appreciation jolts are a different type of promptto self-revision. Cooperrider and Srivastva (1999),citing Kolb (1984), describe appreciation as a formof knowing that stands in sharp contrast to criticalcomprehension:

Appreciation of immediate experience is an act ofattention, valuing and affirmation, whereas crit-ical comprehension of symbols is based on objec-tivity (which involves a priori controls of atten-tion, as in double-blind controlled experiments),dispassionate analysis, and skepticism (Kolb,1984: 104–105, in Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1999:90).

Research shows that when people are fullyaware of how others view them, their reflectedappraisals shape their self-concept (Jussim, Sof-fin, Brown, Ley, & Kohlhepp, 1992; Tice & Wal-lace, 2003). Appreciation stimulates reflectionand action because it disrupts expectations forthe future, induces positive emotion, and alsomay engage physiological changes that aregenerative and constructive, helping one movetoward a more positive image of oneself andresulting in positive action (Cooperrider & Sri-vastva, 1999).

Formal appreciation. Formal appreciationjolts are occasions in which organizations haveplanned and institutionalized opportunities toendow individuals with expressions of positiveaffirmation. Award ceremonies are the mostcommon manifestation of formal appreciationjolts. For example, when people are endowedwith an award for early career contributions,they gain information about the value they addto their field, which encourages them, in turn, toexpand their vision of the RBS. The reward in-duces positive emotion, which facilitates a per-son’s ability to see the self differently (Fredrick-son, 1998). In addition, these occasions provideindividuals with access to previously hard-to-find social resources. For example, the early ca-reer contributions award recipient may feel af-firmed in her choice of career path, energized topursue her goals with confidence, and betterable to pursue those goals because of the newpositive visibility the award has given her. As aresult, the RBS can be affirmed and clarifiedthrough formal appreciation jolts.

Formal appreciation jolts are rare in practiceand often occur as organizational members areleaving situations, eliminating the opportunity


for the individuals and their organization tobenefit from enduring changes brought about bythe formal appreciative acts. For example, re-tirement ceremonies (or festschrifts for academ-ics) provide venues for people to tell more seniorcolleagues what impact their work and actionshave had on others’ lives. Often, retirees’ reac-tions to such events are, “I had no idea peoplefelt this way about me.” Letters of recommenda-tion also describe one’s strengths, but in order tomaintain objectivity, such feedback often is notshared with the recipient of the recommenda-tion.

These formal appreciation jolts could prompta revision of how people see themselves at theirbest by providing specific information abouthow they contribute to the social system. Takethe example of Inari Kaju,2 who started a soft-ware development firm five years ago. Everyquarter he has each member of his eight-persontop management team e-mail descriptions of thethree strengths each person has exhibited dur-ing the quarterly period. The e-mails are sharedwith the whole team. Kaju has found that thispractice has kept people focused and excitedabout what the firm is accomplishing, while atthe same time helping people to become famil-iar with their own unique strengths (as seen andaffirmed by others). This practice also helps peo-ple know how strengths are distributed amongthe top management group. Kaju suggests thatthis knowledge has helped the firm adapt com-petitively, because the team knows who is the“go to person” for different challenges (becauseof demonstrated success in the past), facilitatingspeed in decision making in the present andbuilding confidence about decision making inthe future.

Informal appreciation. Organizational set-tings also afford opportunities for more im-promptu, unplanned, and spontaneous jolts thatare appreciative and informal. While rare, theseoccasions can jar and disrupt how employeessee themselves. For example, an African Amer-ican medical student described the spontaneousencouragement that he received from hospitalstaff, patients, and other members of his com-munity (Black, 2003). When African Americanhospital staff and other community members no-ticed his stethoscope or lab coat in the hospital

elevator, they expressed the pride they derivedfrom his presence. Further, when he treated anAfrican American patient, the patient expressedsincere gratitude for his respectful and consci-entious care, remarking that it felt good to knowthat the medical student was looking out for hisbest interests. These conversations surprisedthe medical student, who previously saw him-self only as an intelligent but inexperienced stu-dent. This feedback prompted him to revise hisRBS portrait; he broadened his best-self imageto include being a healer, whose successful ed-ucational pursuits and considerate patient carepositively impact the lives of many people, par-ticularly other African Americans who value in-teractions with African American physicians.

In another example, one of the authors wastreated to one such act of informal appreciation.As she described it:

Marty Johns, the head of Change ManagementTeaching Team, assembled his team designed tocreate the next generation of classes for Execu-tive Education. The team had never been face toface in a room, although the reputations of thepeople assembled preceded them. There was ex-citement in the air, with everyone anticipatingthe stretch and high standards involved in thisnew assignment. Marty began the meeting in ahighly unusual way. Rather than having every-one introduce him or herself, he began with anappreciative introduction of each person, offeringhis take on the unique talents, perspectives, andqualities of each chosen team member as a hu-man being. The introductions weren’t long, buteach adjective and example Marty offeredseemed compelling and heart felt. The descrip-tions named what Marty loved and appreciatedin each person. Each person being introducedwas visibly embarrassed when they were de-scribed, but inspired and thankful to be on theteam as they learned of the positive qualities oftheir team members. The soil for growth of theteam had been tilled with respect and positiveregard. In this simple act Marty had taken anordinary routine used when first meeting strang-ers and turned it into an extraordinary opportu-nity for informal appreciation (Dutton, 2003b).

In this case, members of the team had to re-vise their sense of self, drawing more fully onthe publicly acknowledged strengths Martynoted he saw in them. For Meg, one of the teammembers, this meant realizing that her enthusi-asm actually motivated others to get work done.For Rob, the introduction meant he needed to actin accord with Marty’s portrayal of him as acreative writer and courageous thinker. For both2 This example is disguised, although the facts are real.


Meg and Rob, the introductions deepened theirconfidence that they did have these qualitiesand committed them more fully to bring thesequalities to the team.

Research supports the relationship betweeninformal appreciation and self-perceptions de-scribed in the previous two examples. Whensignificant others perceive an individual as pos-sessing the characteristics of his or her idealself, the individual then changes his or her self-views to be more consistent with the others’ ap-praisals (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whit-ton, 1999; Malloy, Albright, Kenny, Agatstein, &Winquist, 1997; Tice & Wallace, 2003). In addi-tion, after people receive explicit positive feed-back, their self-appraisals become more favor-able (Kernis & Johnson, 1990).

Thus, appreciative and challenging jolts canbe important triggers in revising the RBS por-trait. We have provided several examples ofhow appreciative and challenging jolts can en-hance one’s positive self-construal by increas-ing the clarity and/or enriching the content ofone’s RBS portrait. It is important to acknowl-edge that not every jolt results in a revision tothe RBS, owing to the nature of the jolt, thetiming of the jolt, and, most important, how onemakes sense of the jolt.

Like self-schemas, our RBS portrait is quitestable over time. Since self-schemas are resis-tant to change, some jolts may not be strongenough to radically change one’s image of theRBS. Completing a novel yet relatively simpletask may not require a radical shift in behaviorthat could lead to self-discovery. Likewise, asingle compliment regarding a minor accom-plishment at work might not have a lasting im-pact on one’s sense of self. External factors, es-pecially the timing of the jolt, might alsointerfere with RBS revision. For example, a per-son who is not psychologically ready for achange can ignore the jolt, dismiss it as irrele-vant, or deny its validity (Ibarra, 2003).

Also, a person may not have the space or a“window of opportunity” for a revision to theRBS. As Ibarra suggests:

Reinvention . . . requires a stepping back to ob-tain a new way of seeing what is. The full emo-tional and cognitive complexity of the changeprocess can only be digested with moments ofdetachment and time for reflective observation.In the same way, time away from the everyday

grind creates the “break frame” that allows peo-ple to transition (2003: 148).

If a person is overloaded (cognitively, emotion-ally, or physically), it will be difficult for him orher to transcend the current situation to createthe space for a RBS revision.

Furthermore, a person’s life stage may alsoinfluence the extent to which he or she respondsto a jolt. Research on adult development sug-gests that at certain points in life, like midlife(Levinson, 1985), individuals are highly recep-tive to major changes, whereas at other periodsof life, individuals meet even small changeswith resistance. For these reasons, many exter-nal triggers fail to propel a person to changeself-knowledge structures, including the RBS.

Finally, individuals must make sense of joltsin a constructive manner in order to trigger RBSrevision. Often, challenging and appreciativejolts are met with a sense of fear, threat, andcynicism, rather than with a sense of possibilityfor envisioning oneself in a more positive man-ner. Individuals who focus on the negative, po-tentially punishing effects of jolts are less likelyto revise their RBS portraits than individualswho focus on the positive, potentially rewardingeffects of such experiences. For example, indi-viduals might interpret challenging jolts as sig-nificant threats to their organizational statusand focus on potential failure in new job assign-ments, rather than the possibility of success.Individuals might also question the accuracy ofaffirmative feedback they receive from others,as well as their ability to live up to others’ pos-itive expectations. In both scenarios individualswill likely resist revising their RBS portrait, evenafter experiencing challenging or appreciativejolts, because their sensemaking leads them tofocus on personal limitations rather than per-sonal strengths and contributions.

Our goal in this paper is to present a theoret-ical framework that captures how work experi-ences enhance one’s sense of self and result inrevisions to the clarity and content of the RBSportrait. Thus, we focus our theoretical attentionaway from the inhibitors and toward the keyresources that can positively shape the way in-dividuals appraise or make sense of a jolt. Weposit that certain socially embedded resourcesenable individuals to counteract the effects ofinhibitory factors (such as threat, fear, or cyni-cism) so that they can respond positively to jolts.


Socially embedded resources equip people torespond to jolts with a capacity and willingnessto see themselves differently, because theydraw or attract people to change. In the nextsection we describe how three specific re-sources play an important role in the process ofrevising RBS portrait by favorably influencingresponses to challenging and appreciative jolts.

Resources That Enable Revisions of the RBSPortrait

A central premise of our article is that sociallyembedded resources enable revisions of the RBSportrait, particularly during times surrounding ajolt. Revisions of the RBS portrait do not occureasily or often, because they involve changes inhow we think about ourselves. Before such revi-sions occur, individuals need a sense that re-sources are available to counteract the negativeresponses that may result from jolts. Psycholog-ical and physiological3 resources help individ-uals to withstand the uncertainty and fear offailure that arise from challenging jolts. Theyalso spark individuals’ desire to live up to thesocial expectations that are raised through ap-preciative jolts.

We suggest that a trio of psychological andphysiological resources—(1) positive affect, (2) asense of relational connection, and (3) personalagency—enable revision of the RBS portrait.Positive affect enhances openness and personalcapability, relational resources provide socialsupport and inspiration, and agentic resourcesprovide a sense of efficacy and guidance to fa-cilitate changes in the RBS.

To better understand why these three re-sources matter, we discuss their causal logicnext. For explanatory purposes, we artificiallytreat each resource as if it were a separatecausal force. In reality, many developmentalwork experiences tap into all three resources,activating them to work in concert to focus onand revise our sense of ourselves at our best.

Positive affective resources. The first durableresource that can enable revision of the RBS is

positive affect. By affect, we mean the emotionaland subjective feelings of individuals. Positiveaffect is composed of positive emotions, such asjoy, peace, hope, or gratitude, which are durableresources that individuals can draw on duringtimes of change, owing to their effect on individ-uals’ thought-action repertoires (Fredrickson,1998). Unlike negative emotions, which promotequick, decisive action by narrowing the array ofthoughts and actions that come to mind, thebroaden-and-build theory states that positiveemotions broaden the thought-action repertoire,creating openness to new ideas and newcourses of action (Fredrickson, 2000), such asrevising the RBS. Joy, for instance, sparks theurge to play. Interest creates the urge to explore.Contentment evokes the urge to savor and inte-grate. Thus, positive affect enables the revisionof the RBS by creating more openness to the ideaof personal change.

In addition, Fredrickson (2000) proposes that acritical outcome of the broadened thought-action repertoire is increased personal capabil-ity and knowledge. The playfulness that comesfrom joy, for instance, builds personal skills andcapability. The exploration that comes from in-terest creates knowledge and intellectual com-plexity. And the savoring that comes from con-tentment produces self-insight and alters worldviews (Fredrickson, 2000). As such, the broaden-and-build theory suggests that positive emo-tions are resources that build enduring capabil-ity and knowledge, which also enable revisionsof the RBS. We suggest that experiences at workthat engage positive emotions are more likely tocontribute to the revision of the RBS in terms ofreflecting domains of additional competenceand talent, along with broadening the self-conception of strengths and positive contribu-tions.

The resources brought to bear by positiveemotions are particularly important during joltexperiences, because they work to undo the de-structive effects of negative emotions, such asenabling the body to return to baseline levels ofphysiological activation after experiencing achallenge (Fredrickson, 2000). Laboratory exper-iments have demonstrated that evoking positiveemotions during times of distress is the mostefficient way to quell or “undo” the lingeringaftereffects of negative emotions (Fredrickson &Levenson, 1998; Fredrickson, Mancuso, Brani-gan, & Tugade, 2000). Following experiences of

3 While physiological research is new to organizationalbehavior, researchers working at the interface of the socialand medical sciences use physiological measures to under-stand the mechanisms explaining the powerful effects ofpositive affect and interpersonal relationships (see Heaphy& Dutton, 2004).


negative emotions, one can cultivate positiveemotions to speed the return to cardiovascularnormalcy and to fuel resilient coping. In themidst of a jolt, positive emotions aid resilientresponses so that people bounce back to precri-sis levels of functioning more quickly. In fact,prior research suggests that when jolt experi-ences are combined with a strong base of posi-tive affect, we may see the most potential forrevisions of the RBS, because the positive emo-tions increase individual receptivity to and mo-tivation for personal growth (McCauley et al.,1994). In contrast, without the positive affect, anydistress accompanying a jolt is likely to inter-fere with a willingness to open oneself up tonew skills and capabilities. The discomfort of ajolt may mask the potential for revising the RBS,since the individual can become defensive andseek a fast solution to overcome the discomfort(McCauley et al., 1994).

In summary, positive affect provides an im-portant resource for enabling individuals to re-vise their RBS portrait because it opens them tothe possibility of revising the RBS and buildspersonal capability and knowledge.

Relational resources. The second durable re-source that can enable a revision of the RBSportrait is positive interpersonal relationships.We assume that all human beings have a needto develop and maintain enduring personal con-nections with others, and these connections ofaffirmative belonging are sources of support(Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

The positive impact of supportive relation-ships is well documented in the literature onsocial support (e.g., Uchino, Cacioppo, & Keicolt-Glacer, 1996) and high-quality connections (e.g.,Dutton, 2003b; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). Support-ive relationships provide security and safety forindividuals to process and affirm a clearersense of their own possibility. They may do thisin part by inducing physiological changes thatenable individuals to bounce back from pastnegative experiences, such as releases of oxy-tocin and endogenous opiad peptides, loweredblood pressure and allostatic load (Adler, 2002;Seeman, Singer, Rowe, Horwitz, & McEwan,1997), and a strengthened immune system (Co-hen, 2001; Ornish, 1998). Being in relationshipswith others can also buffer people from futuresetbacks and stressors in their lives (Cohen &Wills, 1985), allowing them to devote more men-tal energy to their own sense of possibility

rather than potential failure, thus enabling re-vision of the RBS.

Research on holding environments at work(Kahn, 2001) and on healing connections moregenerally (Miller & Stiver, 1997) affirms the rolethat positive connections play in supporting aperson’s revision of the RBS. Drawing on studiesof infants and the importance of secure attach-ments (Bowlby, 1988), as well as the power ofeffective caregiving relationships (Winnicott,1965), Kahn (2001) argues that holding environ-ments are critical interpersonal resources thatindividuals draw on in anxiety-provoking worksituations. Safe relationships “hold” peoplewhile they recover from stressors and, thus, en-able them to move forward to a clearer sense ofpossibility (Kahn, 2001). Friends, mentors, andother close connections act as significant otherswho help to reduce the emotional angst of beingconfronted with an alternative view of oneself.When these connections with significant othersare secure attachments, individuals feel com-fortable in branching out in new directions andembracing new identities. These significant oth-ers can offer inclusion and provide a securebase (Ibarra, 2003), helping people evolve to-ward their best-self. Without them, individualsmay be more reticent to change. These sorts ofrelational resources are particularly relevantduring jolt experiences (McCauley et al., 1994)and during transition points or life stages whenan individual may be more open to others’ feed-back and help (Levinson, 1985).

In organizations, developmental relationshipsconstitute a specific type of relationship thatprovides important resources for making senseof and responding to jolts. A person may haveone such relationship or a “constellation” of de-velopmental relationships (Higgins & Kram,2001). When a protege experiences a jolt, a de-velopmental relationship can provide the con-text to make sense of what the jolt means fromsomeone with a different, often more senior po-sition in the organization, and it can provideideas as well as support for how to revise theRBS. In addition, a mentor can provide socialand emotional support to help the protege inte-grate his or her identities through counseling,acceptance, confirmation, and friendship (Kram,1985). In essence, developmental relationshipscan assist the protege in interpreting a jolt, mak-ing it intelligible and actionable.


In summary, relational resources are impor-tant enablers, because they provide support forindividuals to feel comfortable embracing thepersonal change that underlies revisions of theRBS portrait.

Agentic resources. Personal agency is thethird psychological resource that enables therevision of the RBS portrait. Agency refers topeople’s capacity to exercise control over theirown thought processes, motivation, and actions(Bandura, 1989). Agentic resources are those be-liefs, guides, and external motivators that facil-itate personal action and fuel one’s intention torevise the RBS. They include a sense of self-efficacy in revising the RBS portrait, as well asconstructive guidance about how to revise it.Examples of these enabling forces are dis-cussed below.

Agentic resources encompass the sense ofself-efficacy—the belief that one can success-fully execute the behavior required for produc-ing desired outcomes (Bandura, 1989). When in-dividuals feel self-efficacious, they see theirbehavior and identity as not completely shapedby external forces; instead, they see themselvesas being able to make things happen by theirown action. With self-efficacy, individuals feelpotent and capable of revising the RBS portraitin several ways. First, the fundamental beliefthat a person can make things happen in signif-icant ways alleviates the tendency to avoidrisks or to avoid trying new things. Second, self-efficacy determines how much effort people willexert and how long they will persevere in theface of obstacles such as jolts. Self-efficacyhelps people recover quickly from failures andsetbacks before losing faith in their capabilities.Thus, when employees are confronted by jolts atwork, but agentic resources are present, theirsense of heightened capacity to respond encour-ages revision of the RBS portrait.

Agentic resources also influence how peopleenvision themselves and their future and, thus,guide changes to the RBS through the notion ofhope. Hopeful people have an understanding ofthe will—that is, efficacy beliefs that a hoped-for goal can be achieved—and the way—that is,a plan to achieve the hoped-for goal (Snyder etal., 1991). Research shows that without hope hu-mans are paralyzed and unable to change inany meaningful way. But with hope people act,change, and achieve (Stotland, 1969). Thus, a

sense of hope also enables a sense of the “way,”thereby providing constructive guidance aboutchanging the content or clarity of one’s RBS por-trait. When individuals possess a large degreeof agency, they set higher personal goals, pro-viding a positive guide for revising the RBS por-trait. On the contrary, low levels of agency mayinduce the visualization of failure scenarios,where individuals dwell on what can go wrong(Bandura, 1989), which leads them to focus ontheir deficits rather than their strengths.

In summary, agentic resources enable revi-sions of the RBS portrait because they createfeelings of personal efficacy, as well as provideconstructive guidance about how to change theRBS portrait.

The multiplicative effects of jolts and re-sources. This trio of resources works in concertto enable the revision of the RBS by reducing thedestructive elements and increasing the con-structive elements of jolts. For example, an ap-preciative jolt is usually associated with posi-tive emotions and a sense of belongingness(e.g., one feels valued by others, and this engen-ders positive emotions). Similarly, a challengingjolt is usually associated with an increasedsense of personal agency (e.g., one learns thatone is able to effect change in the social system).

In work organizations, it is rare, but not im-possible, to experience such a combination ofjolts and to have sufficient amounts of the trio ofresources that are powerful enough to yield sig-nificant revisions of the RBS portrait. A primeexample of this combination is an interventionthat was developed several years ago with theexplicit aim of helping executives to composetheir RBS portrait (Quinn, Dutton, & Spreitzer,2003; Quinn & Quinn, 2002). In the intervention aperson requests written feedback from signifi-cant others describing the person at his or hervery best. The person asks between ten andthirty friends, family members, and coworkers,who the person feels know him or her well andwill provide honest opinions, to provide best-self feedback. The descriptions usually includedetailed stories and examples of the personwhen he or she is making a distinct and extraor-dinary contribution—of when and how he or shecreates the most value for the system. No nega-tive feedback is solicited. Once the person hasreceived the individual responses, he or she


compiles them and searches for themes that de-scribe the individual at his or her very best. Thepattern that emerges across the feedback fromthe individuals is a sketch of the individual’sRBS portrait. Often there are surprises; some-times the tasks or domains that the person be-lieves are areas of competence don’t emerge asa primary theme of contribution. At other times astoryteller may relate an experience that madea difference to him or her, about which the feed-back recipient was completely unaware.

Our research suggests that collecting thiscomposite of RBS sketches from a variety of peo-ple from different realms of one’s life is a pow-erful, integrative, and creative act. It is also agenerative act, in the sense of creating a socialproduct that constructs oneself in the world in aparticular way, and this construction, in turn,creates a trajectory for future action that propelsone in a direction that affirms rather than deniesone’s sense of unique possibility in the world. Insum, this formal appreciative jolt is imbued withpositive affect, relational connectedness, andpersonal agency so that the recipient of thefeedback is able to revise his or her RBS portraitand advance along a trajectory toward becom-ing extraordinary.

One who is extraordinary can be considered apositive deviant, because he or she exemplifiesqualities and behavior that exceed standard ornormal expectations. Extraordinary people, likeextraordinary events, are remarkable; their ac-tions are difficult to ignore because they have amajor, positive impact on individuals, systems,organizations, and the environment. Socialchange agents, like Martin Luther King, Jr.,Jesus, and Gandhi, were extraordinary leaders(Quinn, 2000).

Although they often lack notoriety and orga-nizational rewards, many current organizationalmembers are extraordinary; they, too, approachtheir role with the intention of improving effi-ciency and quality of work life for those theysupport by leveraging their strengths. This tra-jectory toward becoming extraordinary ischarted by expanding knowledge about one’sRBS and putting this knowledge into practicewith increasing regularity. In the final section ofthis article, we make an explicit link betweencomposing the RBS portrait and becoming ex-traordinary.

THE RBS AND BECOMING EXTRAORDINARY

Our theory of the RBS proposes that there arethree pathways by which the RBS portrait helpsemployees to become extraordinary: (1) expand-ing the constellation of possible selves, (2) facil-itating social architecting, and (3) enhancingpersonal expressiveness. The core premise ofeach pathway is that individuals’ self-construc-tions guide their future actions through intra-psychic and social processes (Fiske & Taylor,1984; Gioia & Poole, 1984). Taken together, thesethree pathways encompass an increased preva-lence of extraordinary thoughts about one’sidentity, extraordinary actions that shape thesocial system, and extraordinary feelings ofwell-being. In turn, these thoughts, actions, andfeelings (re)generate resources that enablethese individuals (and many other organization-al members) to advance along the trajectory ofbecoming extraordinary (see Figure 2).

RBS and Possible Selves

When employees revise their portrait of whothey are at their best, they necessarily paint newpossibilities for their future. These possibilitiesare captured in their constellation of possibleselves. As defined by Markus and Nurius (1986),possible selves refer to the selves that a personcould become, would like to become, or is afraidof becoming. For example, consider the case of aprofessor who revised her RBS portrait to in-clude her newfound capability as an executiveeducation teacher. Previously, she had only con-sidered herself as one who was effective atteaching master’s and undergraduate students.This change in her RBS fundamentally trans-formed her sense of what she could become. Herconstellation of possible selves expanded to ac-commodate new future work domains, and shestarted to see new possibilities for incorporatingthese talents in her vision of herself. She tooknew risks and tackled new tasks. She sought outnew opportunities for executive teaching, evenflying to another university to do so. She alsowrote a book that drew on her research but thatcould be used exclusively with executives. Atthe same time, she noticed that revising her RBSportrait also affected her vision of what she wasunlikely to become: a teacher whom executivesexperienced as stifling and disengaging.


Research on possible selves suggests thatthese shifts in how one sees future possibilitiesare consequential. They shape how people ap-proach future tasks by sparking anticipationand simulations of task performance (Cross &Markus, 1994). Possible selves help people focuson specific thoughts and feelings that affecttheir ability to accomplish relevant tasks (Ingle-hart, Markus, & Brown, 1988). The more vivid andelaborated the possible self is in a particulardomain, the more powerful its link to a person’sperformance will be in that domain (Cross &Markus, 1994).

In the context of work organizations, Ibarra(1999) illustrates the power of possible selves inshaping people’s career trajectories. She arguesand demonstrates empirically that possibleselves serve as filters for identity change: theymotivate people to make changes so that thepossible self can become a reality. Her work isparticularly relevant, since it suggests that asindividuals embark on career transitions, theirpossible selves capture images of the type ofprofessional they aspire to become. These im-ages of hoped-for possible selves shape profes-sionals’ capacity to successfully construct and

project images of competence and credibility tokey constituents (i.e., colleagues and clients). Inthe professions Ibarra studied—investmentbankers and management consultants—craft-ing a viable professional image was critical foreventual career success.

Because the RBS portrait (who one is at one’sbest) and possible selves (who one can become)are both elements of the self-concept, they areexperientially and cognitively intertwined.However, we think it is important to distinguishthe two schemata types in order to test how,separately and in unison, they help individualsmake behavioral adjustments that propel themalong the pathway of becoming extraordinary.

RBS and Social Architecting

As people acquire a clearer sense of theircompetencies, this self-knowledge endows themwith sensibilities about the types of contextsthat best facilitate the expression of and appre-ciation for these strengths. In addition, as peo-ple revise their RBS portrait, they are better ableto detect and design situations that help themstrengthen their RBS. These sensibilities allow

FIGURE 2Composing the Reflected Best-Self Portrait


people to be better architects of the connections,the places, and the tasks that enable their ex-traordinariness. Thus, we call individuals’ pro-active selection of settings, people, and tasksthat draw on their strengths “social architect-ing.”

The idea that individuals engage in socialarchitecting is well established in psychologyand sociology (e.g., McCall & Simmons, 1978;Schlenker, 1985) and is implied by some modelsthat portray individuals as proactive agents intheir own self-development (Ashford & Tsui,1991) and in the design of their jobs (Wrzes-niewski & Dutton, 2001). These views portrayindividuals as active crafters of their social en-vironments in ways that support and sustaindesired views of themselves. For example,Dweck, Higgins, and Grant-Pillow (2003) foundthat visions of the ideal self result in an overallpromotion focus whereby people create goalsthat relate to their aspirations, advancement,and accomplishments. Schlenker, in his modelof identity formation, argues that “people striveto create environments in both their own mindsand the real world that support, validate, andselect desirable identity images” (1985: 89). TheRBS portrait is clearly a desirable identity im-age that is grounded in feedback and reflectionsfrom others. Composing a clearer and more sub-stantive RBS portrait allows people to be bettersocial architects, in that they control their owndestinies and constructively shape their futuresby shaping the contexts of which they are a part.

A critical part of social architecting involvesforming connections with individuals who en-able the RBS to thrive. Research on how individ-uals craft jobs that enhance self-meaning illus-trates this point. For example, in a study of howhospital cleaners enact their job differently,Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) found thatcleaners who enjoyed the work and saw it as atype of “calling” (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Ro-zin, & Schwartz, 1997) perceived themselves attheir best as healers and hope providers, play-ing a critical role in patients’ recovery and care.Cleaners in this group actively architected thecontext by building relationships not only withpatients but also with patients’ families andfriends—relationships that served to affirm andenact their RBS as healer. In this case, the clean-ers were architecting the relationships in con-text to derive affirmative meaning and to createjobs that were more satisfying and fulfilling.

This example illustrates Wrzesniewski and Dut-ton’s claim that people are often “agentic archi-tects of their own jobs” (2001: 194). We add totheir formulation the idea that if individuals ar-chitect the context in ways that play to their RBSportrait, they create a pathway toward becom-ing extraordinary.

Similarly, social architecting may involve re-arranging one’s time and tasks so that one isinvolved in tasks that draw on one’s strengths.For example, in the story of the professor whocame to see that she could enact her RBS moreoften as an engaging teacher of executives, thisRBS revision fueled her choices to spend moretime teaching executives and less time teachingmaster’s and undergraduate students. Thistransformation was clearcut and visible to herand to others. More subtle were the gradualinvestments that she made in conversations andconnections with other executives that helpedher to communicate more effectively with exec-utives in her classes and in her writing. Shegradually created a different landscape oflearning that deepened her knowledge and ex-perience base. In turn, she strengthened hercompetence in teaching to an executive educa-tion audience. Thus, she traveled in big andlittle steps toward being extraordinary by archi-tecting the context that simultaneously lever-aged and strengthened her RBS.

RBS and Personal Expressiveness

When people revise the RBS portrait, they domore than cognitively change what they see aspossible. Our theory suggests that changes inthe RBS portrait also alter how people feel aboutwho they are becoming, which creates a senseof vibrancy and energy that fuels travel towardbeing extraordinary.

To capture the feelings that accompany theprocess of composing the RBS portrait, we drawfrom psychological work on optimal functioning,in particular the idea of personal expressive-ness (Waterman, 1993). Personal expressivenessrefers to a state of well-being in which peopleare living in accord with the “daimon” or trueself (Ryan & Deci, 2001). This state of well-being,known as personal expressiveness, is associ-ated with a set of feelings that indicate someoneis “intensely alive and authentic” (Ryan & Deci,2001: 146).


Waterman argues that this state is capturedby six indicators: (1) an unusually intense in-volvement in an undertaking, (2) a feeling of aspecial fit or meshing with an activity that is notcharacteristic of most daily tasks, (3) a feeling ofbeing alive, (4) a feeling of being complete orfulfilled while engaged in activity, (5) an impres-sion that this is what the person is meant to do,and (6) a feeling that this is who one really is(Waterman, 1993: 679). A focus on the importanceof this form of eudaimonic well-being has alsobeen emphasized by psychologists studyingpsychological well-being and health across thelife span (Ryff & Singer, 1998, 2000). Their theoryof human flourishing also emphasizes the im-portance of people’s psychological sense thatthey are realizing their potential, and they linkthis state to healthy functioning of physiologicalsystems.

As people receive more reflections of who theyare at their best, their RBS portrait becomesmore substantive and more vivid. We proposethat this revision of the RBS portrait is associ-ated with a heightened sense of personal ex-pressiveness. As individuals compose a moreelaborated and vivid RBS portrait, they are bet-ter able to identify goals that are aligned withtheir true self (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Whenthese self-concordant goals are acted on, theycontribute to a heightened sense of personalexpressiveness.

Further, as the RBS portrait becomes more fo-cused and elaborated, individuals acquire agreater sense of relatedness to others, whichfuels great personal expressiveness. In compos-ing the RBS portrait, individuals develop in-creased clarity regarding how they add value totheir social context, which also strengthens theirsense of purpose and identification (Stets &Burke, 2003; Stryker, 1980) with other people whoshare that social context. A variety of studiesdocument the association of greater relatednessand attachment to a heightened sense of well-being (see Dutton & Heaphy, 2003, for a sum-mary; see also Higgins & Thomas, 2001).

Finally, as individuals compose their RBS por-trait, they are likely to become better able tocope with stress. Revising the RBS portrait en-hances one’s sense of self, and self-enhance-ment has been linked empirically to healthierphysiological and neuroendocrine functioning(Taylor, Kemeny, Reed, Bower, & Gruenewald,2000). Self-enhancement is correlated with lower

cardiovascular responses to stress, more rapidcardiovascular recovery, and lower baselinecortisol levels, which help individuals amelio-rate damaging biological responses to thestressful conditions they may face (Taylor, Ler-ner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003).

In sum, the RBS portrait is associated with arange of outcomes that individually and collec-tively equip individuals to move down the pathtoward becoming extraordinary. The link be-tween the RBS and possible selves creates acognitive image of a desired future state thathelps guide an individual’s path. The RBS alsofurnishes individuals with a portrait of what ispossible that helps them architect situationsthat bring the portrait to life. Finally, the RBSportrait leads to personal expressiveness, whichgives individuals affective resources that cannourish them as they move down that path to-ward becoming extraordinary.

COMPLICATING THE THEORETICALFRAMEWORK IN FUTURE RESEARCH

We have sketched a basic model of how socialcontext and individual behavior may work to-gether to propel an individual’s growth and de-velopment through the composition and revisionof the RBS portrait. Our theoretical story hasnecessarily simplified a complex developmen-tal and situated process. However, we see theo-retical complications of the story as invitationsto conduct important theoretical and empiricalextensions in the future. Four complicationsserve as invitations to future research: (1) thetiming of jolts, (2) the quality of one’s relation-ship with feedback givers, (3) the degree of dis-crepancy between others’ reflections and one’sown image of the RBS, and (4) the influence ofthe macro social context on RBS composition.

In this paper we have described the mecha-nisms that enable the revision of the RBS por-trait. We invite further research that considersmechanisms that limit or expand the likelihoodthat a jolt will trigger a positive change in theRBS portrait. Barriers to RBS revision may arisefrom the individual, the organization, or theirinteraction, complicating the growth trajectoryof individuals through the RBS revision process.

For example, as we noted earlier, one’s stagein life or career may affect the revision process.When people are aware that they are at a tran-sitional period (Levinson, 1985), such as a


midlife transition or adaptation to a new role(Ibarra, 1999), they may be particularly open tothe information and potential a jolt provides.However, when the transition occurs in a poten-tially threatening organizational context, peoplemay see a jolt experience as jeopardizing a ten-uous position within the organization. For exam-ple, an associate who is being considered forpartner at her firm may be quite overwhelmedwith feelings of uncertainty and doubt. Insteadof viewing a challenging assignment as a de-velopmental opportunity, she may consider itthe final test of her competence, making hermore vulnerable to “choking under pressure”(Baumeister & Showers, 1986), rather than seeinga new opportunity to exercise and develop herstrengths. Thus, one such potential barrier torevision may be the timing of the jolt in relationto one’s location in a developmental trajectory.

Another possibility is that people may nothave the individual capacity or social resourcesto integrate the jolt experience if they have justrevised their RBS. For example, after the associ-ate described above is promoted, she may turnher attention away from her work life as a re-spite from an intense period of work, missing orbypassing jolt experiences that might alter herRBS, simply because her attention is divertedelsewhere and her individual and social re-sources may be low. In future research scholarsneed to consider how this process unfolds dif-ferently for people at different developmentalstages.

A second complication involves considerationof how reflections from different people havemore or less impact on the revision of the RBS.Our analysis suggests that variance in otherpeople’s structural and emotional significanceaffects the degree to which their reflections areincorporated into the self-revision process. Fu-ture research might test how the connectionquality between people affects the level of im-pact of reflected appraisals on the RBS revisionprocess.

For example, if the relationship between twopeople is marked by authenticity and mutuality,then one person’s reflected appraisal mightstrongly impact the other’s RBS portrait, becauseboth people experience the connection as one inwhich they are fully known and understood bythe other and in which they can engage in fullerself-disclosure (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Miller &Stiver, 1997). If a relationship lacks authenticity

and mutuality, then cynicism and lack of trustmay lead individuals to discount the positivefeedback that they receive from significant oth-ers and to view the feedback as insincere, inac-curate, or irrelevant to their identity. Researchshows that individuals are prone to focus onnegative information (e.g., competency gaps)and to subvert positive information (e.g.,strengths), given that negative emotions oftentend to have a stronger impact on psychologicalfunctioning than positive emotions (Baumeister,Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). Imaginethe subordinate whose boss tells him he did afantastic job with his recent quarterly report,after demeaning and threatening him for weeksabout completing the report on time. The likeli-hood that the subordinate will incorporate thisfeedback into his RBS portrait is extremely low.

In addition, the level of identification thatsomeone feels with a person providing a reflec-tion should affect its level of impact on the self-revision process (Ibarra, 2003). For example, rolemodels, mentors, or people with whom one iden-tifies are likely to affect the revision of the RBSportrait more strongly. Identification with amentor means that an individual already seeshim/herself as similar to the mentor and projectsmovement toward more similarity in the future(Thomas, 1989). This form of connection may en-able an individual to integrate RBS feedbackmore easily from someone with whom the indi-vidual identifies than from someone with whomhe or she identifies less. By identifying witheach other, individuals may come to know them-selves through their relationships with one an-other (Kaplan, 1984).

At the same time, there are instances in whicha high-quality connection with a feedback givermight actually inhibit, rather than enable, therevision of the RBS. For example, Ibarra (2003)argues that changes in self-identity often re-quire new connections, because old connections(particularly strong connections) may bind peo-ple to old ways of viewing themselves. The qual-ity of the connection may be considered both apotential enabling mechanism and a potentialinterfering mechanism for revising the RBS.Thus, a fruitful direction for future research in-volves developing and testing how the qualitiesof the connection that one has with feedbackgivers shape the RBS revision process. Thiselaboration would help to illustrate how the RBS


revision process is deeply affected by the struc-ture of relationships in which one is embedded.

A third complication involves specifying theextent to which inaccurate or inconsistent per-ceptions of reflected appraisals affect the im-pact of an appreciative jolt on the RBS. It isimportant to acknowledge that people may sendeach other inaccurate information about theirstrengths and capabilities. For example, somepeople might use stereotypical images of socialidentity groups to form the basis of their as-sumptions about who one should be at one’sbest (e.g., women as nurturing, men as forcefuland commanding during a crisis), and they mayimpose such expectations on others (see Acker,1990; Darley & Fazio, 1980; Snyder & Stukas, 1999)rather than share feedback about who one actu-ally is at one’s best. In future research scholarsshould investigate whether there is an optimaldegree of positive discrepancy between one’scurrent RBS portrait and the feedback one re-ceives from one’s social context regarding one’sRBS.

Even though a jolt inherently implies a dis-crepancy or disruption, when one receives feed-back that is too discrepant from the self-concept,one is unlikely to incorporate this feedback intoone’s self-schema (Kenny & DePaulo, 1993;Swann, 1987). Yet revision of the RBS hinges onlearning new information about one’s strengthsand capabilities. If one were only to receiveinformation that confirmed one’s current portraitof the RBS, this portrait would become morerigid and narrow, rather than more vivid, sub-stantive, or expansive.

Research shows that individuals are able tolive with contradictions in their self-concept,given that they are only aware of a small part ofself-knowledge (i.e., the phenomenal self) at anypoint in time (Baumeister, 1999). They can alsosustain a small number of positive illusions (i.e.,beliefs about the self that are not necessarilytrue), because such illusions afford heightenedmotivation and persistence (Taylor & Brown,1988). In fact, research suggests that the desirefor self-enhancement or favorable informationabout oneself is stronger than the desire for con-sistent or accurate knowledge about oneself, atleast for most individuals (Baumeister, 1999).These distinctions suggest that it is important toexamine the extent to which enhancing yet dis-crepant reflected appraisals spark revisions tothe RBS portrait. The above cited research on

self-verifying versus self-enhancing feedback il-lustrates the need for specification of the condi-tions under which an individual will internalizeversus reject social information about his or herRBS.

Finally, a fourth complication involves elabo-rating and testing how the organizational con-text affects revisions to the RBS portrait. In ourmodel we have focused on the power of jolts andresources in explaining the level of change inself-knowledge, but numerous opportunities forextension are possible. For instance, research-ers could examine how reward systems and or-ganizational culture affect the content andstructure of people’s RBS, as well as shape howthey change over time. For example, some orga-nizations institutionalize practices (such as re-ward schemes or appreciation rituals) that makedeveloping and “growing” their employees animportant activity. In these kinds of organiza-tional contexts, people receive frequent andelaborate feedback about the value that theycontribute to others and to the work of the orga-nization. The care-enabling infrastructure ofsuch contexts cultivates a care-conducive cul-ture that promotes employee growth and self-redefinition (McAllister & Bigley, 2002).

In these kinds of contexts, changes in self-knowledge that are consistent with a revisedRBS are likely to be a normal and expected partof being an organizational member. At St. Luke’sof London, for example, people assume “Every-one is brilliant” and “It’s a matter of findingtheir place and allowing them to reach theirpotential” (Lewin & Regine, 2000: 261). At Veri-fone, growing people and growing the businessare assumed to go hand in hand (Lewin &Regine, 2000). In both of these organizations, af-firmative practices embedded in formal rewardsystems and reinforced by informal norms ofinterpersonal treatment can make upward revi-sions of the RBS a natural part of being an or-ganizational member.

Just as features of organizational contextscould enhance the likelihood of a positive RBSportrait, characteristics of organizational con-texts could directly diminish the possibility ofthis form of self-development. For example, inorganizational contexts where it is unsafe tolearn from mistakes (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2002),where individualistic achievement trumps col-lective achievement, and where silence as op-posed to voice is the norm and expected practice


(Morrison & Milliken, 2000), the conditions forrevision of the RBS portrait work against thetrajectory of becoming extraordinary. In thesekinds of contexts, individuals generally are en-couraged to conform to uniform standards of“best” and are discouraged from drawing ontheir personal best-self to make unique contri-butions to the organization. In addition, joltsmay be rare, and socially embedded resourcesthat enable an RBS revision might be in shortsupply, short-circuiting the possibility of posi-tive self-growth through the RBS revision pro-cess. In future research scholars should en-deavor to build testable hypotheses about whatorganizational features create the context andprocess for self-development that move peoplein the direction of becoming extraordinary.

DEVELOPING METHODOLOGIES FOR FUTURERESEARCH

To extend theoretical and empirical accountsof how RBS portraits are composed and revisedin organizations, researchers must develop ap-propriate methodologies to capture the nature ofthe RBS and changes in the RBS. First, research-ers must develop measures that capture thestructure and content of the RBS. Eliciting thisnewly conceptualized cognitive construct frompeople will require using innovative quantita-tive and qualitative methods to examine howdiverse groups of people think about themselvesat their best. Researchers will need to createreflection and narrative exercises that help in-dividuals document their RBS portraits in writ-ing. The next useful step might be to identifywhether there is a common structure among in-dividuals’ RBS portraits by conducting contentanalyses of several RBS portraits. Such analysesshould capture aspects of the RBS that are com-mon across portraits, without losing the uniquecombination of qualities and experiences thatmake the RBS distinctive within individuals.

Further, the theory we present in this articlerepresents a dynamic process of individuals’ ac-tive composition of the RBS. As such, we arepresented with a need for methods that can rep-resent changes in an individual’s construal ofthe RBS over time. One way of approaching thisproblem might be to capture participants’ no-tions of the self through descriptive measures,such as “I am” statements (Kuhn & McPartland,1954), or through relational mapping (Josselson,

1996) before and after a jolt intervention, andanalyzing the differences between the portray-als of the RBS. We also propose that jolts canvary in magnitude, from a subtle comment orsmile to a grand event in a public forum. Thisimplies that one should also measure the mag-nitude of change in the RBS portrait, rangingfrom incremental changes to radical transfor-mations, in response to minor versus major jolts.Such methods may help researchers to under-stand how jolts of particular magnitudes and/orqualities produce systematic changes in RBSportraits.

A third area for methodological developmentinvolves finding valid ways to measure the re-sources available to an individual at the time heor she faces new information and images of whohe or she is at his or her best. Our theory sug-gests that emotional, relational, and agentic re-sources act alone and in combination to enablethe revision of self-knowledge about one’s RBS.Experimental studies may provide a controlledmethod for studying the effects of resources onthe RBS revision process by inducing theamount and type of resources available to anindividual when he or she confronts a jolt. Re-search could also pursue a nonexperimentalroute, using a combination of quantitative, qual-itative, and ethnographic approaches to dis-cover how the perceived presence of resourcesavailable to an individual when he or she isexposed to positive self-relevant information in-fluences subsequent revisions to the RBS por-trait.

CONCLUSION: A COLLECTIVE JOURNEYTOWARD BECOMING EXTRAORDINARY

In this article we have proposed a theory ofhow social context enables individual develop-ment in work organizations. In particular, wehave described a process by which social expe-riences (i.e., jolts) and socially embedded re-sources (i.e., positive affect, positive interper-sonal relationships, and personal agency) sparkand nourish positive shifts in how people envi-sion their own sources of strength, competence,and added value. These revisions to the RBSportrait promote positive changes in identity,action, and well-being and advance individualsalong a trajectory toward becoming extraordi-nary—the state in which they fully enact theirRBS.


Our theory of the RBS portrait helps organiza-tional researchers to see the links between the-ories of personal identity and career change inorganizations (e.g., Higgins, 2001; Hill, 2003;Ibarra, 1999, 2003) and theories of resource-based views of the firm (Barney, 1991). In partic-ular, our theory helps researchers see how themicrocontext inside organizations contributes tothe creation of difficult-to-imitate, rare, andvaluable organizational resources in the form ofindividuals striving, growing, and developingthemselves in ways that move them toward ex-cellence and extraordinariness. We see realpromise in helping to uncover some of the mi-crodynamics through which strategic human re-sources are built and sustained. We view theRBS (and the processes that create and directthis important knowledge structure) as a key-stone in the sustainable development of strate-gic human resources that contribute to an orga-nization’s capacity to compete effectively overtime.

Instead of considering human capital as afixed asset, we describe the dynamic process ofcreating social contexts where individuals areable to evolve in the direction of their capabilityand potential (Coleman, 1988; Schultz, 1961).More traditional notions of human resourcemanagement are based on two assumptions: (1)organizations benefit by effectively using thehuman resources they acquire, which suggeststhat they attempt to employ the “best” individu-als, and (2) organizations benefit from identify-ing and eliminating personal weaknesses inemployees. In this paper we present an addi-tional means of human resource management:creating contexts that maximize the possibilityfor employees to envision and enact their best-self. In contrast to normative methods of humanresource management, such as traditional per-formance evaluations, which encourage lookingacross employees to see who is the “best,” ourtheory of the RBS aligns with developmentaltheories that highlight means of building hu-man capital through enhancing employees’skills, talents, and performance. Thus, it is im-portant to be clear that while organizations canuse the RBS portrait for employee development,it is not intended to be a new method of evalu-ating people. Instead, we discuss the strategichuman resource capacity inherent in helpingpeople discover who they are when they are attheir personal best.

Implicit in our theory of the RBS is the as-sumption that organizations cannot maximizetheir strategic human resource capacity with asolitary focus on eliminating limitations andweaknesses; organizations must also focus onbuilding the strengths that reside within theiremployees, systems, and structures (Clifton &Harter, 2003). In line with the Gallup Organiza-tion’s research on human strengths (Bucking-ham & Clifton, 2001; Clifton & Harter, 2003), weposit that organizations experience the greatestgains in human development when they investin what people do best naturally. We do notencourage organizations to ignore weaknesses,but we do suggest that organizations will bemore likely to achieve excellence (via customerloyalty, employee retention, and productivity)when they focus and build on employees’strengths, with only a secondary focus on under-standing and managing weaknesses (Clifton &Harter, 2003). Changes in the RBS portrait overtime provide one explanatory theory for under-standing why a strength-based approach to em-ployee development is effective from an individ-ual’s point of view.

We do not consider the resources that enabledevelopment to be limited or depleting (e.g.,money, time, promotions); instead, we describesocially embedded resources that are regener-ated through human development (e.g., positiveemotions, positive relationships, personalagency). This view of socially embedded re-sources parallels descriptions of social and hu-man capital as resources that are generatedthrough use but that depreciate with nonuse(see Adler & Kwon, 2002, for a review). As indi-viduals discover their core competencies anddraw on these competencies to add value totheir social system, the system is enriched, andthe core competencies of the organization (Pra-halad & Hamel, 1990) are transformed.

In this way, the theory of RBS compositionmaps a microlevel process for individual growththat may result in upward spirals of increasingcollective capability and potentiality in organi-zations. However, it is important to note thatalthough revising the RBS portrait enhances in-dividuals’ identity, well-being, and action, thesechanges may not always benefit the organiza-tion. If, for example, employees discover thatthey are unable to actualize their RBS withintheir current organization, they may seek em-ployment with other organizations that will pro-


vide opportunities for them to enact their RBSmore frequently.

This theory of RBS composition also has im-plications for managing change in organiza-tions. We describe both personal and social fac-tors that enable the composition of the RBSportrait—the individual and the organizationcocreate the context for change through psycho-logical, relational, and physical resources. In sodoing, we paint a picture of individuals as hav-ing personal agency; they proactively negotiatetheir work identities to determine who they areand what they do. This perspective builds onresearch on job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,2001), self-development (Ashford & Tsui, 1991),feedback seeking (Ashford, 1986; Ashford, Blatt,& VandeWalle, 2003), and identity construction(Ashforth, 2001; Ibarra, 1999; Rafaeli, Dutton, Har-quail, & Mackie-Lewis, 1997) in organizations.

Yet work organizations also expand or con-strain the possibilities for being extraordinary.They do this by both affecting the pattern of joltsthat confront individuals and by affording ordenying the resources that contribute to revisingthe RBS portrait. Creating workplaces wherepeople can be authentic or “fully there” (Kahn,1990, 1992) involves not only facilitating self-discovery to discover true sources of strengthand competence but also allowing these sourcesof strength and competence to flourish. Ratherthan expecting mediocre performance, organi-zations that operate by setting stretch goals aspart of their business strategy might also expectextraordinary contributions from employees.Thus, our theory suggests that leaders mightcreate high-performing organizations (Collins,2001; Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Tichy & Sherman,1993) by creating high-performing individuals(Spreitzer et al., 1995).

For example, consider two organizations thatvary systematically in the degree to which theirculture values developing employees as part ofthe core ideology. One organization, vitality.com, sees passion, growth, development, andlong-term tenure with the organization as desir-able and normal. The other organization, trans-action.com, values individuals’ direct and regu-lar contributions to the bottom line and isunconcerned about development and long-termemployment. Work organizations that have cul-tures (values, norms, and shared beliefs) thatpromote employee development are more likelyto have more formal and appreciative jolts (such

as the RBS intervention), and when employeesface challenges, they are more likely to haveaccess to critical resources (e.g., positive affect,positive relationships, and personal agency) forself-revision. In these kinds of organizations, wewould expect individuals to flourish as a resultof continual revisions of the RBS portrait. Whilehypothetical, this contrast invites theoreticaland empirical exploration of what features ofwork organizations enable individuals’ move-ment toward becoming extraordinary.

Becoming extraordinary is about a pursuit ofpotential—a never-ending journey with newjoys to uncover. The journey of becoming ex-traordinary is ongoing and evolves over time,with no discernible final end state. By under-standing how individuals continually evolveinto the RBS, without comparing them to otherindividuals, we can determine how to generateextraordinary contributions and performance inwork organizations. The theoretical quest to un-derstand and empirically test how organization-al contexts help individuals thrive is a directanswer to the call for more studies that extendthe field of positive organizational scholarship(Cameron et al., 2003; Dutton, 2003a; Spreitzer,Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant, in press).As such, we encourage the continued pursuit oftheory and data that help to uncover pathwaystoward becoming extraordinary in work organi-zations.

REFERENCES

Acker, J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of genderedorganizations. Gender and Society, 4: 139–158.

Adler, H. M. 2002. The sociophysiology of caring in the doc-tor-patient relationship. Journal of General InternalMedicine, 17: 883–890.

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects fora new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27:17–40.

Ashford, S. J. 1986. Feedback-seeking in individual adapta-tion: A resource perspective. Academy of ManagementJournal, 29: 465–487.

Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. 2003. Reflections onthe looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Manage-ment, 29: 773–799.

Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. 1991. Self-regulation for manage-rial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking.Academy of Management Journal, 34: 251–280.

Ashforth, B. E. 2001. Role transitions in organizational life: An


identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates.

Badaracco, J. L. 1997. Defining moments: When managersmust choose between right and right. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Bandura, A. 1989. Human agency in social cognitive theory.American Psychologist, 44: 1175–1184.

Bargh, J. A. 1982. Attention and automaticity in processing ofself-relevant information. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 43: 425–436.

Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitiveadvantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99–120.

Baumeister, R. F. 1999. The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, &G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4thed.): 680–740. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psy-chology, 5: 323–370.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong:Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamentalhuman motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497–529.

Baumeister, R. F., & Showers, C. J. 1986. A review of paradox-ical performance effects: Choking under pressure insports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psy-chology, 16: 361–383.

Bazerman, M. 1986. Why negotiations go wrong. PsychologyToday, 20(6): 54–58.

Beer, M. 1997. Conducting a performance appraisal inter-view. Teaching note No. 9-497-058. Boston: Harvard Busi-ness School Case Services.

Bennis, W., & Thomas, R. J. 2002. Geeks and geezers: How era,values, and defining moments shape leaders. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Black, K. 2003. Exploring obstacles to and opportunities forprofessional success among underrepresented minoritymedical students. Master’s thesis, John Hopkins Schoolof Public Health, Baltimore.

Bowlby, J. 1988. The secure base. New York: Basic Books.

Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. 2000. Relationality inorganizational research: Exploring the space between.Organization Science, 11: 551–564.

Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. 2001. Now, discover yourstrengths. New York: The Free Press.

Cameron, K., & Caza, A. 2004 Introductions: Contributions tothe discipline of positive organizational scholarship.American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6): 1–9.

Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. E. 2003. Foundations ofpositive organizational scholarship. In K. Cameron,J. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizationalscholarship: 3–13. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. 2003. Investing in strengths. InK. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positiveorganizational scholarship: 111–121. San Francisco: Ber-rett-Koehler.

Cohen, S. 2001. Social relationships and the susceptibility tothe common cold. In C. Ryff & B. Singer (Eds.), Emotion,

social relationships, and health: 221–232. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. 1985. Stress, social support and thebuffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98: 310–357.

Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of humancapital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement):S95–S120.

Collins, J. 2001. Good to great: Why some companies makethe leap and others don’t. New York: Harper Business.

Cooley, C. H. 1902. Human nature and the social order. NewYork: Scribners.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. 1999. Appreciative inquiryin organizational life. In D. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen,D. Whitney, & T. F. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry:Rethinking human organization toward a positive the-ory of change: 55–98. Champaign, IL: Stipes.

Cross, S., & Markus, H. 1994. Self-schemas, possible selves,and competent performance. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 86: 423–438.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1993. The evolving self: A psychologyfor the third millennium. New York: Harper Collins.

Darley, J., & Fazio, R. 1980. Expectancy confirmation pro-cesses arising in the social interaction sequence. Amer-ican Psychologist, 35: 867–881.

Drigotas, S., Rusbult, C., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W.1999. Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behav-ioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77: 293–323.

Dutton, J. E. 2003a. Breathing life into organizational studies.Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 1–19.

Dutton, J. E. 2003b. Energizing your workplace: Building andsustaining high quality relationships at work. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. 2003. The power of high qualityconnections at work. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. E.Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foun-dations of a new discipline: 263–278. San Francisco: Ber-rett-Koehler.

Dweck, C. S., Higgins, E. T., & Grant-Pillow, H. 2003. Self-systems give unique meaning to self variables. In M. R.Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and iden-tity: 239–252. New York: Guilford Press.

Ely, R. J. 1994. The effects of organizational demographicsand social identity on relationships among professionalwomen. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 203–238.

Fiske, S., & Depret, E. 1996. Control, interdependence & pow-er: Understanding social cognition in its social context.In W. Stroebe & W. Hewtone (Eds.), European Review ofSocial Psychology, vol. 7: 31–61. New York: Wiley.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1984. Social cognition. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. What good are positive emotions?Review of General Psychology, 2: 300–319.

Fredrickson, B. L. 2000. Cultivating positive emotions to op-


timize health and well-being. Prevention and Treatment,3. Accessed at http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume3/pre0030001a.html.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. 1998. Positive emotionsspeed recovery from the cardiovascular sequelae ofnegative emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 12: 191–220.

Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M.2000. The undoing effect of positive emotions. Motivation& Emotion, 24: 237–258.

Frese, M., & Fay, D. 2001. Personal initiative: An active per-formance concept for work in the 21st century. Researchin Organizational Behavior, 23: 133–187.

Gabarro, J. 1987. The development of working relationships.In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behav-ior: 172–189. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gersick, C. J. G., Bartunek, J., & Dutton, J. E. 2000. Learningfrom academia: The importance of relationships in pro-fessional life. Academy of Management Journal, 43:1026–1044.

Giacalone, R., & Rosenfeld, P. 1989. Impression managementin the organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Gioia, D. A., & Poole, P. P. 1984. Scripts in organizationalbehavior. Academy of Management Review, 9: 449–459.

Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life.New York: Anchor Books Doubleday.

Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure:The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of So-ciology, 91: 481–510.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. 1994. Competing for the future.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Harter, S. 2002. Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.),Handbook of positive psychology: 382–394. New York:Oxford University Press.

Heaphy, E., & Dutton, J. 2004. Embodied connection: Under-standing the physiological effects of positive connec-tions at work. Working paper, University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.

Higgins, E. T. 1987. Self-discrepancy: A theory relating selfand affect. Psychological Review, 94: 319–340.

Higgins, M. C. 2001. Changing careers: The effects of socialcontext. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 595–618.

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. 2001. Reconceptualizing mentoringat work: A developmental perspective. Academy of Man-agement Review, 26: 264–288.

Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. 2001. Constellations and ca-reers: Toward understanding the effects of multiple de-velopmental relationships. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 22: 223–247.

Hill, L. 2003. Becoming a manager (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Ibarra, H. 1999. Provisional selves: Experimenting with im-age and identity in professional adaptation. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 44: 764–791.

Ibarra, H. 2003. Working identity: Unconventional strategies

for reinventing your career. Cambridge, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Inglehart, M. R., Markus, H., & Brown, D. R. 1988. The effectsof possible selves on academic achievement: A panelstudy. Paper presented at the International Congress ofPsychology, Sydney, Australia.

Josselson, R. 1996. The space between us: Exploring the di-mensions of human relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Jussim, L., Soffin, S., Brown, R., Ley, J., & Kohlhepp, K. 1992.Understanding reactions to feedback by integratingideas from symbolic interactionism and cognitive eval-uation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 62: 402–421.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal en-gagement and disengagement at work. Academy ofManagement Journal, 33: 692–724.

Kahn, W. A. 1992. To be fully there: Psychological presence atwork. Human Relations, 45: 321–349.

Kahn, W. A. 1998. Relational systems at work. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 20: 39–76.

Kahn, W. A. 2001. Holding environments at work. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 37(3): 260–279.

Kaplan, L. 1984. Adolescence: A farewell to childhood. NewYork: Simon and Schuster.

Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. 1993. Do people know howothers view them? An empirical and theoretical account.Psychological Bulletin, 114: 145–161.

Kernis, M., & Johnson, E. 1990. Current and typical self-appraisals: Differential responsiveness to evaluativefeedback and implications for emotions. Journal of Re-search in Personality, 24: 241–257.

Khurana, R., Carrioga, G., & Johnson, S. 2001. Taking chargeat Dogus Holding. Case no. 9-402–009. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Case Services.

Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as thesource of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kram, K. 1985. Mentoring at work: Developmental relation-ships in organizational life. Glenville, IL: Scott, Fores-man.

Kuhn, M., & McPartland, T. 1954. An empirical investigationof self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19: 68–76.

Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 2001. The unfolding model ofvoluntary turnover and job embeddedness: Foundationsfor a comprehensive theory of attachment. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 23: 189–246.

Levinson, D. J. 1985. The seasons of a man’s life. New York:Knopf.

Lewin, R., & Regine, B., 2000. The soul at work. New York:Simon and Schuster.

Louis, M. 1980. Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomersexperience in entering unfamiliar organizational set-tings: Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 226–251.

Louis, M., & Sutton, R. 1991. Switching cognitive gears: From


habits of mind to active thinking. Human Relations, 44:55–76.

Luthans, F. 2002. The need for and meaning of positive or-ganizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 23: 695–706.

Malloy, T., Albright, L., Kenny, D., Agatstein, F., & Winquist,L. 1997. Interpersonal perception and metaperception innonoverlapping social groups. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 72: 390–398.

Mandler, G. 1984. Mind and body: Psychology of emotion andstress. New York: Norton.

Markus, H. 1977. Self-schemata and processing informationabout the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 35: 63–78.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. 1986. Possible selves. AmericanPsychologist, 41: 954–969.

McAllister, D. J., & Bigley, G. A. 2002. Work context and thedefinition of self: How organizational care influencesorganizational-based self-esteem. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 45: 894–904.

McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. 1978. Identities and interac-tions: An examination of human associations in every-day life. New York: Free Press.

McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. 1988. Thelessons of experience: How successful executives de-velop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

McCauley, D. C., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E.1994. Assessing the developmental components of man-agerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 544–560.

Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. P. 1997. The healing connection: Howwomen form relationships in therapy and life. Boston:Beacon Press.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. 2000. Organizational silence:A barrier to change and development in a pluralisticworld. Academy of Management Review, 25: 706–725.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work:Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academyof Management Journal, 42: 403–419.

Ornish, D. 1998. Love and survival: The scientific basis for thehealing power of intimacy. New York: Harper Collins.

Palmer, P. J. 2000. Let your life speak. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Poole, P. P, Gioia, D. A., & Gray, B. 1989. Influence modes,schema change and organizational transformation.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25: 271–289.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of thecorporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3): 79–92.

Quinn, R. E. 2000. Change the world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Quinn, R. E., Dutton, J., & Spreitzer, G. 2003. Reflected best-self feedback exercise: Assignment and instructions toparticipants. Product number 001B. Ann Arbor: Univer-sity of Michigan Regents, Positive Organizational Schol-arship Research Group.

Quinn, R. E., & Quinn, G. T. 2002. Letters to Garrett. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rafaeli, A., Dutton, J., Harquail, C. V., & Mackie-Lewis, S.1997. Navigating by attire: The use of dress by femaleadministrative employees. Academy of ManagementJournal, 40: 9–45.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2001. On happiness and humanpotential: A review of research on hedonic and eudai-monic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 141–166.

Ryff, C., & Singer, B. 1998. Human health: New directions forthe next millennium. Psychological Inquiry, 9: 69–85.

Ryff, C., & Singer, B. 2000. Interpersonal flourishing: A posi-tive health agenda for the new millennium. Personalityand Social Psychology Review, 4: 30–44.

Schlenker, B. R. 1985. Identity and self-identification. In B. R.Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life: 65–99. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Schlenker, B. R. 2003. Self-presentation. In M. R. Leary & J. P.Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity: 492–518.New York: Guilford Press.

Schultz, T. W. 1961. Investment in human capital. AmericanEconomic Review, 51: 1–17.

Seeman, T. E., Singer, B. H., Rowe, J. W., Horwitz, R. I., &McEwan, B. S. 1997. The price of adaptation: Allostaticload and its health consequences: MacArthur studies ofsuccessful aging. Archives of Internal Medicine, 157:2259–2268.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000. Positivepsychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55:5–14.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. 1999. Goal striving, need satis-faction and longitudinal well-being: The self-concor-dance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 76: 482–497.

Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A.,Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Oshinoubu, L., Gibb, J., Lan-gelle, C., & Harney, P. 1991. The will and the ways:Development and validation of an individual-differ-ences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 60: 570–585.

Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. J. 1999. Interpersonal processes:The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioralactivities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psy-chology, 50: 273–303.

Stotland, E. 1969. The psychology of hope: An integration ofexperimental, clinical and social approaches. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spreitzer, G., Quinn, R. E., & Fletcher, J. 1995: Excavating thepaths of meaning, renewal, and empowerment: A typol-ogy of managerial high-performance myths. Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 4: 16–39.

Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant,E. In press. Enabling human thriving at work. Organi-zation Science.

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. 2003. A sociological approach to selfand identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Hand-book of self and identity: 128–152. New York: GuilfordPress.


Stryker, S. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A social structuralversion. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

Swann, W. B. 1985. The self as architect of social reality. InB. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life: 100–125. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Swann, W. B. 1987. Identity negotiation: Where two roadsmeet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,53(Special Issue): 1038–1051.

Taylor, S., & Brown, J. D. 1988. Illusion and well-being: Asocial psychological perspective on mental health. Psy-chological Bulletin, 103: 193–210.

Taylor, S., Kemeny, M., Reed, G., Bower, J., & Gruenewald, T.2000. Psychological resources, positive illusions, andhealth. American Psychologist, 55: 99–109.

Taylor, S., Lerner, J., Sherman, D., Sage, R., & McDowell, N.2003. Are enhancing self-cognitions associated withhealthy or unhealthy biological profiles? Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 85: 605–615.

Thomas, D. A. 1989. Mentoring and irrationality: The role ofracial taboos. Human Resource Management, 28: 279–290.

Tice, D. M., & Wallace, H. 2003. The reflected self: Creatingyourself as (you think) others see you. In M. R. Leary &J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity: 91–105. New York: Guilford Press.

Tichy, N., & Sherman, S. 1993. Control your destiny or some-one else will. New York: Wiley.

Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R. M., & Leitten, C. L. 1993.Subjective, physiological, and behavioral effects ofthreat and challenge appraisals. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 65: 248–260.

Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kibler, J., & Ernst, J. M. 1997. Cog-nitive and physiological antecedents of threat and chal-lenge appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 73: 63–72.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1986. Judgment under uncer-tainty: Heuristics and biases. In H. R. Arkes & K. R.Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: Aninterdisciplinary reader: 38–55. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. 1996. Therelationship between social support and physiologicalprocesses: A review with emphasis on underlying mech-anisms and implications for health. Psychological Bul-letin, 119: 488–531.

Walsh, J. P. 1995. Managerial and organizational cognition:Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Sci-ence, 6: 280–321.

Waterman, A. S. 1993. Two conceptions of happiness: Con-trasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and he-donic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 64: 678–691.

Weick, K., & Sutcliffe, K. 2002. Managing the unexpected:Ensuring high performance in an age of complexity. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Winnicott, D. W. 1965. The maturational processes and thefacilitating environment. New York: International Uni-versity Press.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Crafting a job: Revi-sioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad-emy of Management Review, 26: 179–201.

Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J., & Debebe, G. 2003. Interpersonalsensemaking and the meaning of work. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 25: 95–135.

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B.1997. Jobs, careers and callings: People’s relations totheir work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31: 21–33.

Laura Morgan Roberts is an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the HarvardBusiness School. She received her Ph.D. in organizational psychology from The Uni-versity of Michigan. Her research focuses on authenticity, professional identity devel-opment, image management, and cross-cultural competence in diverse organizations.

Jane E. Dutton is the William Russell Kelly Professor of Business Administration at theRoss School of Business at The University of Michigan. She received her Ph.D. fromNorthwestern University. Her current research focuses on compassion at work, thriv-ing, high-quality connections, and organizing for resilience.

Gretchen M. Spreitzer is a professor at the Ross School of Business at The Universityof Michigan, where she also received her Ph.D. She is part of the Center for PositiveOrganizational Scholarship, where her research focuses on thriving at work, em-ployee empowerment, and leadership development, particularly during change.

Emily D. Heaphy is a doctoral candidate in management and organization at the RossSchool of Business at The University of Michigan. Her research focuses on howpeoples’ relationships at work, emotions, and bodies interact to affect how theyperform their work roles.

Robert E. Quinn holds the Margaret Elliot Tracy Collegiate Chair at The University ofMichigan and is a professor of organization and management in the Ross School ofBusiness. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati. His research inter-ests are in the area of change and leadership.


COMPOSING THE REFLECTED BEST-SELF PORTRAIT: BUILDING ...

Documents

Transcript of COMPOSING THE REFLECTED BEST-SELF PORTRAIT: BUILDING ...