An organizational analysis on thriving presented for a group project in an Organizational Behavior seminar.

1. Thriving
at San Francisco State University
Patrick Cheng, Matt DeGennaro, Daniel Maurath,
Sean White, & Kenson Wong

2. Our objective was to improve student life
at San Francisco State University through
an investigation of student thriving within
the Psychology Department assessment
of the state of the university

3. AGENDA
Preliminary Survey
Survey
Data Analysis
Recommendations
Future Research

4. Thriving
in the literature
• Over 7,000 peer reviewed articles when
thriving is entered in the ABI/INFORM
database
• How to define thriving?
• Peak performance
• Flow
• Self-actualization } All speaks to maximizing
our potential in a given
environment.

5. THRIVING
def: the psychological state in
which individuals experience both
a sense of vitality and a sense of
learning at work.
(Spreitzer et al., 2005)

6. Thriving
at work
• Split into Affective and
Cognitive elements
• Operationalized:
• Vitality
• Learning
• Discrete construct separate from engagement, vigor,
well-being, flow etc.

7. Thriving
Importance
• Fits with goals and mission of SFSU
• Predicts:
• 16 % better overall performance
• 125% less burnout
• 32% more organizational commitment
• 46% more job satisfaction

8. Thriving
Importance
• Identify areas where SFSU can improve
• Student life
• Enhanced organizational image
• Superior educational brand

9. Thriving
Importance
• Presidential Investiture:
“XLR8 – New Momentum for a New Era”
• Pulse Survey
Biannual survey on a variety of campus
issues. (link)

10. Thriving Survey
Validated Thriving Scale (Porath, 2012)
Learning Items
I find myself learning often
I continue to learn as time goes by
I see myself continually improving
I am not learning (reverse coded)
I am developing a lot as a person
Vitality Items
I feel alive and vital
I have energy and spirit
I do not feel very energetic (reverse coded)
I feel alert and awake
I am looking forward to each new day

11. Research on college-life-related
thriving will inform a critical missing
information gap between childhood
and livelihood thriving dimensions.

12. Literature Review
Preliminary Survey
Survey

13. Literature Review
What are the Factors that
Prevent or Promote
Thriving?

14. Preliminary
SurveyPaper and Pencil
2 Forms
16 Questions
Sample
38 Undergraduate Students
97% Psychology Majors
304 Answers

15. At SFSU, what has assisted
you to succeed
academically?
At SFSU, if you are having
difficulty academically, do
you know where to go for
help? And where would you
go?

16. Preliminary
SurveyFactors (Facility):
Expensive Books
Library
Lack of Sleep
Sense of Community
Class Availability
Commute Time
Academic Advisors
Faculty’s Supervision
Learning Assistance Center
SF Career Center
Quiet Environment
Mental Health Service
Safety

17. Preliminary
SurveyFactors (Facility):
Expensive Books
Library
Lack of Sleep
Sense of Community
Class Availability
Commute Time
Academic Advisors
Faculty’s Supervision
Learning Assistance Center
SF Career Center
Quiet Environment
Mental Health Service
Safety

18. Preliminary
SurveyFactors: (Students Characteristics)
Punctuality
Club Involvement
Strong Interest
High Stress
Focused
Planning
Goal-Oriented
Flow
Motivated
Actively Engaged
Leadership Ability
Creativity
Organizational Skills

19. Preliminary
SurveyFactors: (Students Characteristics)
Punctuality
Club Involvement
Strong Interest
High Stress
Focused
Planning
Goal-Oriented
Flow
Motivated
Actively Engaged
Leadership Ability
Creativity
Organizational Skills

20. Preliminary
SurveyOther Factors:
Networking with Professionals
Friends and Family
Music
Exercise
Learning something new on your own time
Nutrition
Financial Stability
Connectedness
Social Support
Perception of Success

21. Department Survey
Online via Qualtrics
Biodata and Questions on the factors
44 Questions
Thriving Scale(Porath, 2012)
10 Questions
Sample:
Undergraduates and Graduate Students

22. Demographics
Male Female Other Total
Graduate
Students
8 18 0 26
Undergraduate
Students
10 24 1 35
Total (N) 18 42 1 61

23. SFSU vs. Young Professionals
0
2 2
26
30
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SFSU
M = 4.86
SD = .70

24. 0
2 2
26
30
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SFSU
M = 4.86
SD = .70
SFSU vs. Young Professionals
d = 1.48
Norm
M = 5.96
SD = .78

25. Characteristics:
• Punctual
• Motivated
• Goal Oriented
• Engaged
• Leadership
• Creative
• Organized
Experiences:
• Learning new things often
• Always developing
themselves
• Feeling alive and vital
• Having energy and spirit
• Feeling alert and awake
• Looking forward to each
new day
Profile Of High Thriver
(rs = .30 to .51) (rs = .48 to .76)

26. School-Related Experiences
that Lead to Thriving
1. Perceiving a fair grading
system by professors
2. Having an interest in the
subject matter
3. Feeling connected with the
university
4. Perception of being
satisfied with grades1
1. Having a quiet place to
study
2. Participating in school spirit
events
3. Feeling safe on campus
4. The classes that I want to
take are available to me
1There was no statistical relationship found between thriving and actual reported GPA; (r = -.051, p = .698, n.s.)
(rs = .35 to .45) (rs = .26 to .32)

27. High Negative Responses
1. Perceiving a fair grading
system by professors
2. Having an interest in the
subject matter (10, 16%)1
3. Feeling connected with the
university (25, 41%)
4. Perception of being
satisfied with grades
5. Having a quiet place to
study (9, 15%)2
6. Participating in school spirit
events
7. Feeling safe on campus
8. The classes that I want to
take are available to me
(15, 25%)3
1I have the opportunity to take classes that interest me; 256% of these 9 students visit the library at least one a
week or more; 3New item found.
(rs = .35 to .45) (rs = .26 to .32)

28. Comparison of Groups
on Thriving
No significant difference found between:
• 35 undergraduate and 26 graduate
students.
• 18 male and 42 female students.

29. Impact of SFSU Being a
Commuter School
• 55% commuted over 30 minutes
• Slight inverse relationship
with Thriving
47minute
Average
Commute Time

30. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
NumberofStudents
Thriving Score
Thriving
N = 61
M = 4.86
SD = .70

31. Thriving Interventions
Apply to All
• No differences found for Education Level,
Gender or Commute Time

32. Member
10
Not A Member
51
Student Experience
92%
want more school
spirit events
77%
feel connected to the
university
ORGANIZATIONAL
MEMBERSHIP

33. Quiet Place to Study
for Psychology students
95% commute
72% visit library more
than 2x month

34. Class Availability
99% learned on their own time

35. Class Availability
99% learned on their own time

36. • Presidential Investiture:
“XLR8: New Momentum for a New Era”
Improve branding and image of SFSU

37. Limitations
• Small sample of Psychology
students
• Graduate Students expected to
have high GPA
• Assessing “learning” in a learning
institution

38. Future Research
• Attain more representative sample from all
majors
• Results can be used as a comparison to future
changes (SF state president trying to change
image right now)
• Expand to a longitudinal study to
examine if low thriving sustains

39. Q & A