@ARTICLE{33704756_218051322_2018, 
	author = {Tatiana Ivanova and Dmitry Leontiev and Evgeny Osin and Elena Rasskazova and Natalia Kosheleva}, 
	keywords = {, psychological well-being, activity performance, positive psychologypersonality potential},
	title = {Contemporary Issues in the Research of Personality Resources at Work},
	journal = {Organizational Psychology},
	year = {2018},
	volume = {8},
	number = {1},
	pages = {85-121},
	url = {https://orgpsyjournal.hse.ru/en/2018-8-1/218051322.html},
	publisher = {},
	abstract = {The paper presents a theoretical analysis of the concept of personality resources understoodas non-specific individual psychological characteristics that facilitate activity performance and wellbeing. Based on the resource theory by S. Hobfoll and the personality potential theory by D. Leontiev, we propose a classification of personality resources and discuss some of these variables that have enjoyed particular research attention in empirical studies (hardiness, resilience, sense of coherence, optimism, self-esteem, self-efficacy, tolerance for ambiguity). We present a brief review of the studies showing the effects of personality resources at work and offer a critical analysis of four integral personality resource theories, including those popular in organizational psychology (core self-evaluations,psychological capital., self-regulation competence, personality potential). Based on the theoreticalanalysis, we specify several issues in this research area: ambiguity with respect to the "object" of personality resources and to the criteria of their efficacy, the problem of general vs. specific functionsof personality resources, the problem of their structural and systemic organization, the problem of stability vs. plasticity of personality resources, as well as individual and environmental factors and mechanisms underlying the dynamics of personality resources and their effective utilization in activity. We discuss some methodological possibilities of developing future studies aimed to confront theseissues. The theoretical review indicates the need for a general personality resource theory to resolve theexisting contradictions, as well as the need for more systematic empirical studies focusing on groups ofpersonality resources, rather than on single variables, and accounting for the situational context. The findings reveal new perspectives for future personality resource studies in the organizational domain.},
	annote = {The paper presents a theoretical analysis of the concept of personality resources understoodas non-specific individual psychological characteristics that facilitate activity performance and wellbeing. Based on the resource theory by S. Hobfoll and the personality potential theory by D. Leontiev, we propose a classification of personality resources and discuss some of these variables that have enjoyed particular research attention in empirical studies (hardiness, resilience, sense of coherence, optimism, self-esteem, self-efficacy, tolerance for ambiguity). We present a brief review of the studies showing the effects of personality resources at work and offer a critical analysis of four integral personality resource theories, including those popular in organizational psychology (core self-evaluations,psychological capital., self-regulation competence, personality potential). Based on the theoreticalanalysis, we specify several issues in this research area: ambiguity with respect to the "object" of personality resources and to the criteria of their efficacy, the problem of general vs. specific functionsof personality resources, the problem of their structural and systemic organization, the problem of stability vs. plasticity of personality resources, as well as individual and environmental factors and mechanisms underlying the dynamics of personality resources and their effective utilization in activity. We discuss some methodological possibilities of developing future studies aimed to confront theseissues. The theoretical review indicates the need for a general personality resource theory to resolve theexisting contradictions, as well as the need for more systematic empirical studies focusing on groups ofpersonality resources, rather than on single variables, and accounting for the situational context. The findings reveal new perspectives for future personality resource studies in the organizational domain.}
}