Positivity Ratio Assessment

During the course of this assignment, this learner completed the Positivity Ratio Assessment to enhance understanding and application of positive psychology in everyday life. Throughout the assessment, as this learner was answering the questions posed it seemed as if there was a time to reflect on the past twenty-four hours. It leaves you with very real, and raw answers to questions that most people do not typically think about throughout the course of their daily lives.

Do you feel sad, embarrassed, ashamed, guilty, discouraged, happy, joyful, suspicious, prideful, or any other type of emotion during a day? The answer is yes. At some point, some day you will feel either one or a variety of many emotions during one full day—one, twenty-four period. That can feel daunting, and as this learner neared completion of the assessment it was learned that going from a Sunday into a Monday will impact emotions greatly. But why is that?

This learner first took the assessment on a Monday evening, having to recall events from Sunday evening, and Monday morning / afternoon / evening. With a positivity ratio of 1, a negativity score of 9, and a positivity score of 9 as well (Fredrickson, 2009), this learner knew something was off. The key contributing factor? Work environment.

Changing jobs and starting a new project posed by government officials who put pressure on the individuals employed in these positions, with little to no management support, will ultimately create a negative environment. Picture this: one individual (Agent 1) having been employed by the same agency for eight years, having spent time in multiple divisions with this agency; now Agent 1 has to partner with Agent 2, who becomes their lead but is also a personal friend. Agent 2 has spent three years with the agency and was last forced out of another similar position due to mistakes made on the job. You can add two other individuals who are new to the agency (Agents 3 and 4), both at a lower level of ranking than the two previously employed with the agency—now being with the agency for a total of two and a half months—but having significantly more experience within governmental agencies across the United States, both federal and state levels, than Agent 1 or Agent 2.

Given the history of the individuals, you now can look at personalities. Agent 1 refuses to see any negative until it is right in front them, including suppressing emotions and thoughts until they bubble up and over—this individual is also very closed off and does not like to discuss personal things in a professional environment. Agent 2 is a socializer and likes to talk about everything personally related to an individual, this individual will also have a hard time with direct communication and will be offended by such—this individual is also less likely to compromise in most situations, being the lead. Agent 3 communicates very directly but is also very social and likes engaging people with personal activities outside of work. This individual will react negatively if openly disrespected in any environment. Agent 4 is quieter, less likely to talk about personal issues in a professional environment and will fight for things that they are passionate about and can be frustrated if they do not feel heard when they do decide to speak up on a topic, after having done the research, or when their opinion is called upon. Agents 1 and 2 tend to naturally gravitate toward each other, while Agents 3 and 4 gravitate toward each other. However, Agents 3 and 4 (being new to the agency) want to be accepted and show their value to Agents 1 and 2.

This learner did employ a method mentioned by Barbara Fredrickson (2009) in a book titled Positivity. The first day went like this: Within the first few hours of arriving at work the place felt cold and it was hard to not already feel defeated when Agent 2 walked in the door. Having not previously been granted allowance to work from home during a pandemic, but having others granted that opportunity on the team, Agent 1 was working out of the office this day. It is hard to not see favoritism as the reasoning behind that, but focusing on, “What can I do in the office that I would not otherwise be able to do from home?” the answer was simple, one would not be able to compile employee files for the projects at hand.

Now the next issue arises, Agent 2 is documenting her ability to micromanage as they work through the project. While it is easy to get upset about the micromanaging, Agent 2 is doing the work for you by documenting everything themselves. Long term this would cause deadlines and processes to be delayed. However, being able to focus on the task at hand, regardless of how it is being done… is going to make an impact for the better. It may take you longer, but you will still achieve the desired outcome. Being able to feel grateful for your situation, will vastly improve your outcome—however, a common misconception is the saying “Fake it till you make it” or “Grin and bear it”, those will not help you succeed, you must truly be willing to shift your mentality from negative to positive (Fredrickson, 2009).

Taking the Positivity Ratio Assessment after one day of trying to focus on the good, realize that what happens and what other people do is outside of your control, leads this learner to have a positivity score of 10, a negativity score of 5, and a positivity ratio of 2 (Fredrickson, 2009). That does not seem like a significant impact, however, within five days of incorporating positive psychology into the workplace, that positivity ratio is expected to rise from a 2. This would lead this learner to believe that positive psychology, even in the simplest of details (professionally or personally) will lead to greater outcomes as this assessment will force individuals to think about how they really felt. Within those moments of picturing how you felt, it will encourage individuals to make different choices within the following twenty-four hours to have a different outcome.

References:

1) Fredrickson, B. (2009) Positivity. Random House Audio Publications.

2) Fredrickson, B. (2009) Positivity Ratio Assessment. Positivity: https://www.positivityratio.com/single.php

3) Lopez, S. J., Pedrotti, J. T., & Snyder, C. R. (2019). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical explorations of human strengths (4th ed.). Sage Publications.