DIV 5013 Module 2 Team Strengths Identification and Application Example

The Reconciler, the Teacher and the Vendor Whisperer: Finding and Using Strengths on a Payroll Team

Student Name

American College of Education

DIV5013: People-Centered Leadership

Module 2 Assignment

Instructor Name

October 16, 2028

Introduction

The first module set a direction for the payroll and accounts payable team I manage at a Louisville health system: keep the accuracy standards but lead with more attention to people. A practical place to start is strengths. Under the previous approach, everyone processed the same mix of work and was measured the same way, so what people did best went unnoticed unless it caused a problem. This paper describes how the team's strengths were identified, how roles and assignments will change to use them, how essential but unpopular work will still be covered and how the effects will be measured.

Why Strengths

Research on strengths at work is encouraging, with caveats. Harzer and Ruch (2013), studying employees across occupations, found that people who could apply four or more of their signature character strengths at work reported more positive experiences at work, including a stronger sense of calling, than those who applied fewer. Meyers et al. (2013), reviewing positive psychology interventions in organizations, found that interventions focused on strengths and positive experiences were associated with improved wellbeing and, in some studies, with performance, though the quality of evidence varied. The lesson for a manager is that helping people use what they do best is worth trying, as long as the effects are measured rather than assumed.

Three Sources of Evidence

Strengths were drawn from three separate sources, which kept any one perspective from outweighing the others. Each team member completed a free online survey based on the widely used classification of character strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and shared their top five results with me if they wished; 29 of 34 did. Each person was also asked to name, anonymously, up to three colleagues they go to for particular kinds of help and why. And I reviewed a year of work records, including error corrections, vendor dispute resolutions and the training of new hires, to see who had quietly taken on which kinds of work. The combination showed both what people believe about themselves and what colleagues and records show.

What the Evidence Showed

Clear patterns emerged. One payroll specialist was named by nine colleagues as the person who untangles reconciliation problems, matching the records, which showed this specialist resolving most complex payroll variances. A second specialist, whose top survey strength was love of learning, had trained five of the last six new hires informally. An accounts payable clerk named by colleagues as the person who calms angry vendors had resolved more vendor disputes than anyone else, with notably fewer escalations. Others showed strengths in spotting patterns in data, in organizing closing checklists and in explaining payroll rules to nurses and physicians who call with questions.

Reshaping Roles

The strengths will reshape roles in four ways. The reconciliation specialist will become the team's designated variance lead, handling complex reconciliations for two days a week and coaching others on them. The specialist who trains new hires will become the formal onboarding lead, with time set aside and a written training plan. The clerk who calms vendors will handle escalated vendor disputes and help write standard responses. And the specialist who explains payroll rules well will lead a monthly drop-in session for hospital staff, reducing repeat calls. Each change is partial, so these employees still do core processing and keep their skills current.

Pairs and Development

Strengths can also be shared. Each newer team member will be paired with a colleague whose strength complements their development needs, such as pairing a new hire who struggles with reconciliations with the variance lead for one session a week. In one-on-ones, I will ask each person how they used a strength that week and what they would like to try next. Development plans will include at least one goal that builds on a strength and one that addresses a gap, so that strengths are not used as a reason to avoid growth in other areas.

Covering the Work Nobody Prefers

A strengths approach must still get all the work done. Some tasks, such as routine invoice entry during month-end peaks and correcting the same data errors from the same departments, are not anyone's strength. Those tasks will be shared through a rotation so that no one carries them permanently, and the team will look for process fixes, such as asking the departments that cause repeat errors to change their forms. Strengths guide who does the work they do best, but coverage and fairness remain rules, not afterthoughts.

Respecting Privacy and Choice

Strengths information is personal, so its use has limits. Survey results were shared with me only by choice, will not appear in performance reviews and will not be posted publicly. Peer nominations were reported to individuals only as themes, without names. People offered new roles can decline them without penalty. And the approach avoids labeling: a strength is something a person does well now, not a fixed identity that limits what they may try.

Strengths and Fairness

A strengths approach can feel unfair if only a few people receive visible new roles. To prevent that, every team member, not only the four new leads, will have at least one strength named in a one-on-one and one way to use it more within their current work, such as reviewing closing checklists for someone strong in organization or handling a portion of vendor questions for someone who enjoys problem solving. Lead roles will be reviewed annually and opened to others who want them. The point is not to sort the team into stars and support staff, but to help each person do more of what they do best.

Early Reactions

The first month brought encouraging signs and one caution. The variance lead cleared a backlog of eleven unresolved reconciliations in two weeks and began a short weekly session on common variance patterns that four colleagues attend voluntarily. The onboarding lead drafted a training checklist that the newest hire said made the first weeks far less confusing. The caution came from two experienced processors who wondered aloud whether the new roles meant some people would get the interesting work while others kept the routine work. I responded by publishing the rotation for unpopular tasks, showing that the new leads remain in it, and by inviting anyone interested in a lead role to say so at their next one-on-one. Three people did.

Measures

Four measures will show whether the approach helps. The engagement survey item on having the opportunity to do what one does best will be tracked at the next survey. Time for new hires to work independently, now about four months, should fall with formal onboarding. Vendor escalations to me and repeat calls from hospital staff should decline. And the payroll error rate, 0.4 per thousand checks, must not rise. If the measures improve while accuracy holds, the approach will extend to more roles next year.

Conclusion

Using a strengths survey, peer nominations and work records, the team's strengths became visible: reconciliation, teaching, calming vendors and explaining rules among them. Roles, pairs and development will be reshaped around those strengths, unpopular work will rotate fairly and privacy will be protected. Research suggests that applying strengths at work can improve experience and, sometimes, performance, and four measures will show whether it does here.

References

Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2013). The application of signature character strengths and positive experiences at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 965-983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9364-0

Meyers, M. C., van Woerkom, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2013). The added value of the positive: A literature review of positive psychology interventions in organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(5), 618-632. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.694689

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.