How managers can develop their Psychological Capital in case of Global Mindset development

Table of contents

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Table of contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

1 Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
1.2 Aim and purpose of this Work
1.3 Chapter Outline

2 Literature Review
2.1 Overview
2.2 Trade change with advancing Globalization
2.3 Internationalization of companies
2.4 Definition of Global Mindset
2.5 Global Mindset and internationalization
2.6 Global Mindset Capitals
2.6.1 Global Intellectual Capital
2.6.2 Global Psychological Capital
2.6.3 Global Social Capital
2.7 Psychological capital
2.7.1 Psychological capital structure
2.7.2 Psychological capital development
2.8 Training methods of psychological capital
2.9 Limitations of literature research
2.10 Findings of Literature research

3 Methodology
3.1 Overview
3.2 Research Onion
3.3 Quantitative vs. qualitative Research Methods
3.4 Qualitative research
3.5 Expert interviews
3.6 Transcription
3.7 Interviews Questions
3.8 Grounded Theory
3.9 Qualitative Data Analysis
3.10 Coding
3.10.1 Open Coding
3.10.2 Axial Coding
3.10.3 Selective Coding
3.10.4 Theoretical saturation
3.11 Data analysis using computer supported systems
3.12 Reflection

4 Findings
4.1 Chapter Overview
4.2 Description of the Data Analysis process
4.3 RQ1 Which factors of the psychological capital are important for German managers to increase their Global Mindset?
4.4 RQ2 Does the age of a leader play a role in the development of psychological capital of Global Mindset?
4.5 RQ3 What are appropriate training measures for the promotion of psychological capital within the framework of a Global Mindset training for managers?
4.6 RQ4 Is the development of PsyCap sustained?
4.7 Discussion and findings
4.7.1 RQ1: Which factors of the psychological capital are important for German managers to increase their Global Mindset?
4.7.2 RQ2: Does the age of a leader play a role in the development of psychological capital of Global Mindset?
4.7.3 RQ3: What are appropriate training measures for the promotion of psychological capital within the framework of a Global Mindset training for managers?
4.7.4 RQ4: Is the development of PsyCap sustained?

5 Conclusion
5.1 Chapter Overview
5.2 Reliability
5.3 Summery of the results
5.4 Limitations
5.5 implications for further research
5.5.1 Implication for theorist
5.5.2 Implication for practitioners

6 Bibliography

List of Figures

Figure 1 Global Mindset - Source: (Clapp-Smith, et al., 2007, p. 16)

Figure 2 Gobal Mindset Capitals - Source: (Javidan & Walker, 2013, p. 12)

Figure 3 PsyCap Intervention Model - Source: (Luthans & M.Youssef - Morgan, 2017)

Figure 4 Research Onion - Source: (Saunders, et al., 2016, p. 13)

List of Tables

Table 1 PsyCap - Source: (Luthans & M.Youssef - Morgan, 2017)

Table 2 Training Methods - Source: (Luthans & M.Youssef - Morgan, 2017, p. 14)

Table 3 Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research Approach - Source: (Kruse, 2014, p. 36)

Table 4 RQ1 Coding - Source: Own Illustration

Table 5 RQ.2 - Soure: Own Illustration

Table 6 RQ3 - Source: Own Illustration

Table 7 RQ4 - Source: Own Illustration

Acknowledgements

I would like to start by thanking certain people who helped me mentally. In this case I would like to thank the AFUM (especially Mr. Jens Scheel), the institute for advanced education, where I have completed my studies. Right from the outset, these have trough a high degree of motivation and professional competence as well as a supporting measure in the field of scientific work.

Furthermore, I would like to be with my caretaker lecturer Dr. Jörg Hruby. Here, I have received an above-average support. The elaboration in the topic of Global Mindset would not have been possible without him. He played a central key role in the mediation of contacts from the world's scientific resources of the Global Mindset theme.

Other thanks to Professor Rachel-Clapp-Smith from the University of Nebraska. As a leading researcher in the area of psychological capital, she also supports me in the preparation of my master thesis.

I also want to thank my wife, Ikram, and my two children (Uessim and Jibril) for their many thoughts and motivation. Even though it was sometimes hard, they misled me to learn and motivated me accordingly.

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to develop suitable training measures for the area of Global Mindset development in the field of psychological capital by eliciting the experiences of German managers.

Fundamentally, the analysis is based on the individual level of Global Mindset. The new theoretical lens from psychological capital, is employed to gain new insights into further development of a global mindset through a qualitative research approach.

The qualitative approach is implemented through in-depth interviews of 10 German managers with several years of management experience from major established companies.

The results are that the training of Psycap has to be on the emotional level. Also the generation of the people has an influence on the training. Another important and new finding is that the self-reflection and individualizing of an individual promotes the sustainability process of psychological capital.

Keywords: Global Mindset, Leadership Development, Psychological Capital, Individual Global Mindset, Cross-Cultural Training, Management Learning tools.

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem Statement

The formerly localized trade has changed to a global one over the past few years. Ultimately, this has been accelerated by the revolution in information technology (Xiaohua, et al., 2016); (Clapp-Smith, 2009). Through global networking and its possibilities of communication, a transparent world market is ensured without restriction of longer durations within the information flow (Nummela, et al., 2004). Through the new affiliated economic regulations, companies are forced to tackle global competition and to expand their own competitive advantages (Javidan & Walker, 2013). The competition caused by the globalization process has led to a distortion of the company's structures so that they not only offer their products globally but also have to carry out strategic production and development processes across countries (Hruby & Hanke, 2015).

Globally-oriented companies are using production services of any kind across countries. Focus of the objectives of cross-country operating companies are cost saving through resources and efficiency based on their value chains (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2014). The basic problem is to gain a consistent and unadulterated flow of information by means of geographic separate interfaces and decentralized integration (Pankaj, 2009). Incorrect interpretations and misunderstandings interfere with the flow of information and slow down the productivity and efficiency of the entire value chain. The exchange of information as well as their further processing over different cultural circles requires a “global mindset”, which is described in broad literature as “Global Thinking and Empowerment” (Hruby, 2013).

Levy et al. (2007) describes Global mindset as “highly complex cognitive structure characterized by an openness to and articulation of multiple cultural and strategic realities on both global and local levels, and the cognitive ability to mediate and integrate across this multiplicity.”

Only with this global mindset it is possible to avoid obstacles of action and information misrepresentations in intercultural activities (Javidan & Walker, 2013). Leaders have the opportunity to expand and strengthen their global mindset and structure in order to understand complex culture-related problems and to solve them with appropriate measures (Nummela, et al., 2004). According to Javidan (2013, p. 13), companies with globally-oriented managers have a significant competitive advantage across companies without a global mindset. This is justified by the increase of efficiency within the framework of communication across different cultural circles. Thus, from this context, the key qualification of the Global Mindset as a long-term core element can be viewed as part of the global world trade, with which competitive advantages can be built up against the competitors (Mathews, 2016). In particular, large global companies are striving to integrate the Global Mindset into their development processes as part of their human resources development (Pankaj, 2009).

1.2 Aim and purpose of this Work

In the last few years, the theme of Global Handicap Competence is taken up and described by various authors (Ananthram, 2014) (Kyvik, et al., 2013) (Javidan & Walker, 2013) (Gupta, et al., 2008). This led to a variety of theoretical approaches and theories, resulting in different definitions could be derived for the term "GLOBAL MINDSET" (Nummela, et al., 2004). According to Hruby (2013, pp. 11-12), Global Mindset is largely attributed to cognitive psychology.

The resulting problem can be explained by the fact that the area of psychology is intangible and difficult to define quality of each individual (Clapp-Smith, 2009). Investigations by Javidan (2013) have resulted in an order of implementation proposals for the quantification of qualitative characteristics. Within the framework of the work of Javidan (2013), a scoring model with simplified point allocation was developed. In the Global Consultation of this schematic presentation, companies involved in the Javidan´s (2013) model are globally able to establish themselves. Nevertheless, this presentation is viewed critically in the general theoretical Landscape of the Global Mindset. This is due to the inaccurate quantification characteristics at individual level. Previous research has shown that the development of long-term global competitive advantages is in line with the Global Mindset on management level (Clapp Smith, et al., 2016).

The resulting need for consultancy to promote Global Mindset has grown exponentially in recent years. Companies strive to incorporate and manifest the right guide to the measurement and accompanying support of the global mindset of their leadership in their company (Javidan & Walker, 2013). Consultancy and executive education (development) programs currently in place are structured statically over a limited period of consulting.

According to current theorists, the psychological capital is important in this developmental context (Luthans, et al., 2007). Nevertheless, this has been largely neglected in the research so that a high research need arises here. Rather, this context of the psychological chapter has to be researched to understand the connections of the Global Mindset theory and to realign complex connections (Gülen, et al., 2015).

According to the general psychological theory, developments in this area are indispensable over a longer period. This is not consistent with current short-term executive or management development programs (Luthans & M.Youssef - Morgan, 2017).

The deals with this elaboration, according to development measures which can be integrated into the corporate structures. In particular, the focus will be on the individual promotion of Psychological capital as part of Global Mindset development. Numerous previous studies and elaborations are linked here and any gaps in theory are taken up (Mathews, 2016).

This paper is contributed to the work of Psychologycal Capital from Fred Luthans (Luthans & M.Youssef - Morgan, 2017). The studies by Luthans et al. (2007) show the importance of skills to promote the Psychologic Capital of the Global Mindset, but there is a lack of studies in the training measures to promote them (Gülen, et al., 2015); (Luthans & M.Youssef - Morgan, 2017); (Luthans, et al., 2010) ; (Maznevski & Lane, 2004).

Also, the Framework of the Training solutions is not clear (Javidan & Bowen, 2013). The Empirical qualitative study is carried out with the help of qualitative interviews with 10 executives who are active globally oriented companies. The author is limited to the range of medium-sized companies in Germany, where managers of the middle management level are used. The primary data that can be determined are thus limited to German globally operating companies. This lends the generated output to German companies. An implementation to other companies abroad is not possible. Rather, in the future primary data surveys, data must also be used to compare these and, if necessary, to show differences. The goal is to generate a new qualitative data consistency and derive from these theories. With the help of the "grounded theory" and its tools this is implemented. It is intended to provide the basis for a quantitative subsequent exploration of this particular segment.

The overall general research question of this thesis is to answer:

“How can managers develop their psychological capital”. Further specific research questions are elaborated after first interviews and emerged during this field study.

It is important to research largely in the field of psychological capital, since it is only in this way that the connections of the Global Mindset can be clearly defended. The exploration of psychological capital is the key factor for the implementation of the Global Mindset theory into the practical environment (Clapp-Smith, et al., 2007). If the connections can be shown without gaps, these training measures can be derived.

It can be shown that the results of this work are important for subsequent studies; the results for the German international companies are also of great importance since they can influence the results of their work. As a third group, which can make an important contribution to the results of the research work, training institutes are the context Global Mindset teachings. These can take up and further develop the approach to their gaps.

From this overall core research question, four sub-questions have emerged during the research project according to research gaps found in current studies. The following specific research questions are to be clarified within this elaboration:

RQ1: Which factors of the psychological capital are important for German managers to increase their Global Mindset?

RQ2: Does the age of a leader play a key role in the development of psychological capital of Global Mindset?

RQ3: What are appropriate training measures for the promotion of psychological capital within the framework of a Global Mindset training for managers?

RQ4: Is the development of PsyCap sustained?

1.3 Chapter Outline

The 2nd chapter contain a literary overview of the current knowledge of research in the field of Global Mindset. Furthermore, a more detailed insight into the research field Psychological capital is presented.

The 3rd chapter deals with the methodology of the research work. The qualitative approach is emphasize. Data collection described grounded theory and its application and justification is outlined.

In chapter 4, the findings from the data collection are reproduced and illustrated in detail. Furthermore, there are original interview excerpts of data collection. As of chapter 4, a discussion will be held on data collection.

In chapter 5 the conclusion takes place. In addition to the summarization of the findings, the implementation of the theory for future research fields as well as the practical implementation and Limitations can be found in the followed subchapters.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Overview

This chapter deals with the presentation of recent literature in the context of Global Mindset. The literature review covers the relevance and implementation of the Global Mindset in companies and the structural composition of Global Mindset. Emphasis is placed on the Global Mindset Psychological Capital and the use of developmental measures in the literature.

2.2 Trade change with advancing Globalization

According to the British economist Adam Smith, companies in one nation should focus on their core competences and trade with other parties in order to promote the prosperity of the nations. From this theoretical approach the modern economy developed with its global trade. Due to the logistical possibilities and networked infrastructure, this process is progressing steadily. From 1960 to 2008, the real world export of wares increased to a factor of 15.6. Production of the world's goods rose by a factor of 5.8%. An average of 5.9% of exports are expected every year (UNCTAD, 2017). The trend was interrupted 2008 by the Global Economic Crisis. After a recovery in the market, exports reached a record value of US $ 19 trillion in 2014 (World Trade Organization, 2017). This is the ever-closer growing global economy that is linked to every corner of the earth. Traders are now forced to follow this trend and adapt themselves to the needs of other cultures in order to participate successfully in the globalization world trade (Xiaohua, et al., 2016).

2.3 Internationalization of companies

Within the framework of globalization, companies strive to defend their local market shares and to build international market shares. This applies not only to larger but also to medium-sized enterprises. Increasingly, the process of internationalization, where production costs are reduced, are increasingly reducing the cost and increasing the competitive advantage (Javidan & Walker, 2013). Companies then focus on their core competences and carry them onto the domestic market. The journey abroad can be represented over 3 main routes. These are simplified foreign trade transactions, cooperation’s on foreign markets and market forms of working with capital participation (Meffert, et al., 2008). In the case of German medium-sized companies, companies have been successful with joint ventures through cooperative ventures abroad (Körngertner, 2009). Companies must therefore think globally and act locally with different strategies in these markets. The focus of the companies is usually the establishment of a Global Brandt (Ghemawat & Vantrappen, 2015). Through the internationalization process, companies must act intercultural and manage business processes from the local home market. Managers of these companies must understand intercultural relationships and take appropriate measures. This complex structure of thought information is to be recorded, processed, and generated in a cross cultural manner (Hruby, 2013)

2.4 Definition of Global Mindset

In recent literature, many definitions can be derived under the term Global Mindset (Gupta, et al., 2008). The Global Mindset is presented as a multidimensional construct (Javidan, et al., 2010). In addition, the concept of global mindset is approaching on different levels of analysis (Clapp Smith, et al., 2016). These levels are the individual Global Mindset, Global Mindset at the group level, Global Mindset in industrial branches, and Global Mindset at organizational or corporate level (Hruby, 2013). A number of publications have been published in recent years due to the importance of this topic (Ananthram, 2014). In the following, different definitions of publications and authors are given.

According to Javidan and Bowen (2013, p. 24) Global Mindset can be defined as: “The set of individual qualities and attributes that help a manager influence individuals, groups and organizations who are from other parts of the world”.

Levy et al. (2007, p. 3) describes Global Mindset as “highly complex cognitive structure characterized by an openness to and articulation of multiple cultural and strategic realities on both global and local levels, and the cognitive ability to mediate and integrate across this multiplicity.”

Hruby and Hanke (2015, p. 2) defined Global Mindset as the ability to understand different cultures and combine these with each other.

Nummela et al. (2004, p. 24) position a global mindset as a balance between having an international orientated behavior and outlook, with the manager’s ability to “adjust to different environments and cultures”.

Rogers and Blonski (2010, p.9) describes global mindset as “enables people to embrace complexity and paradox”.

The structure of the global mindset extends as in Fig. 1 in a composite of trigger moments, cognitive complexity, PsyCap, individual characteristics and cultural intelligence, which are dependent on each other (Clapp-Smith, et al., 2007, p. 4).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 1 Global Mindset - Source: (Clapp-Smith, et al., 2007, p. 16)

According to various recognized studies, the conclusion was that 56% considered the Global Mindset as motivation-based support and 40% as an actual adjustment of the resource behavior (Andresen & Bergdolt, 2016).

Clapp-Smith et al. (2007) describes that the construct Global Mindset is based on an action and thought pattern that can be attributed to complex environmental influences at a global level.

2.5 Global Mindset and internationalization

According to Kyvik et al. (2013) there are some companies inside an international orientation industry who fail in their internationalization process and other comparable firms do not. The competency bound to a global mindset of managers is of great importance for the internationalization of companies (Numella, et al., 2004). On the contrary, this competence is attributed to the successes in the internationalization of companies.

Studies have shown that companies with non-native CEO’s are developing faster outside their own domestic market. Companies in United Kingdom, Netherlands, Australia and Switzerland have the best cosmopolitan outlook on the top management level. In average Japan has the lowest number of companies with non-native CEO’s (Kyvik, et al., 2013). The behavior of managers in foreign markets, in particular the delegation of employees, can be represented as a critical success factor (Vantrappen & Ghemawat, 2015).

Managers with a global mindset understand the foreign markets and can take a look at the various differences in action. Furthermore, social and psychological competences, which are part of the Global Mindset, are implemented (Kyvik, et al., 2013).

2.6 Global Mindset Capitals

According to the Najafi Global Mindset Institute as shown in Figure. 2, the Global Mindset is divided into 3 capitals. Each Capital divided into three dimensions. The capital interacts with each other and influent them accordingly.These capitals are the Global Intellectual Capital, Global Psychological Capital and the Global Social Capital (Javidan & Walker, 2013).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 2 Gobal Mindset Capitals - Source: (Javidan & Walker, 2013, p. 12)

2.6.1 Global Intellectual Capital

The ability of an individual to become a citizen can be attributed to intellectual capital. It can be described as the ability and the existing knowledge to understand cross-cultural connections (Javidan & Bowen, 2013). As described in the previous chapter, the Intellectual Capital consists of 3 dimensions, which in turn are subdivided into 3 subcategories.

The global business savvy is the existing knowledge of the global industry, global competition and marketing strategies and supplier options in other parts of the world (Javidan & Bowen, 2013). It is the knowledge that can be attributed to the business environment.

The cosmopolitan outlook is knowledge about cultures, history and political positions of other parts of the world. This sub-dimension also includes a continuous flow of information to keep up-to-date.

According to Javidan and Walker (2013), the cognitive complexity can be regarded as the intelligence in the Global Mindset. Analytical patterns of thought and simple information processing as well as an understanding of abstract cultural ideas (Javidan & Walker, 2013).

2.6.2 Global Psychological Capital

As described in the preceding section 2.5, the psychological capital is a part of the Global Mindset structure. Rather, it forms the basis of the structure, since it directly affects the other 2 adjacent dimensions. The motivation property can be called a critical variable. In the context of a Global Mindset development, the focus is on the desire and learning of a different culture (Javidan & Bowen, 2013). The psychological capital is divided into 3 dimensions. These are passion for diversity, quest for adventures and self-assurance.

Passion of Diversity is the openness of other cultures and their recognition. In addition, the focus is on communicative readiness with people traveling on other cultures. Traveling to foreign regions as well as staying abroad are also part of this (Javidan & Bowen, 2013).

In the dimension Quest for Adventures, motivations can be presented for cross-country risk-taking. The interest and the intrinsic motivation, derived from for the purpose of confronting challenges, can be shown in this area as a core variable (Javidan & Walker, 2013).

The last dimension is the Self-assurance item. The willingness to integrate and adjust can be seen here as a driving force. Furthermore, the faith in the things to be done plays an important role (Levy, et al., 2007). Tasks with an optimistic approach for solutions round off this last segment. Leaving your own comfort zone and integrating yourself into an uncomfortable zone is an important element that is also present in this spectrum (Javidan & Walker, 2013).

This chapter is attributed to the most difficult developmental measure, as it affects the boundaries of individuals (Javidan, et al., 2010).

2.6.3 Global Social Capital

The final dimension of the Global Mindset structure is social capital. The behavior and inclination to individual subjects is the core of this dimension. The social capital can be divided into three dimensions. These are intercultural empathy, interpersonal impact and diplomacy (Javidan & Bowen, 2013).

Understanding of the intercultural empathy is the emotional connection to other people with a different cultural background. The cohesion and the interaction of different cultural-dependent behavioral patterns of business relations is also considered here. The recording of personal expressions and their interpretation forms a critical core size (Javidan & Walker, 2013).

The interpersonal impact reflects the comprehension and the negotiation skills of an individual. The network building of an international pool of influential contacts is an important element here (Javidan & Bowen, 2013).

The focus in the last area of the diplomacy is represented as a representative property. This also includes the understanding, listening and the integration of different perspectives (Javidan & Walker, 2013).

The creation of trust forms the main substance of the social capital objectives (Javidan, et al., 2010). Business relations will need to be accorded a high degree of trust in order to maintain them.

Since the structure of the Global Mindset is based on psychological capital, the author chose this as a focus for further research on literature. On this level, training measures can be implemented and manifested on an individual basis in order to strengthen the consensus Global Mindset as a whole structure (Clapp Smith, et al., 2016).

2.7 Psychological capital

In addition to the existing human capital and social capital constructions, Luthans et al . (2004) have also developed a psychological capital that can be measured on an individual basis and implemented in the company area as a competitive advantage (Gülen et al., 2015). In recent years, some publications and research results have been published in the area of psychological capital. These indicate that the PsyCap is a core construct of different elements and that this model can be applied on an individual and organizational basis (Luthans, et al., 2010). In addition to the 4 elementary elements presented by Luthans et al. (2004), differentiated elements are presented in more detailed literature (Luthans & M.Youssef - Morgan, 2017); (Clapp Smith, et al., 2016); (Clapp Smith, et al., 2016) ; (Gülen, et al., 2015) ; (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2014); (Javidan & Walker, 2013); (B. Avey, et al., 2011). All studies; (Clapp-Smith, et al., 2007); (Luthans, et al., 2007) work with different elements. The identification, confirmation of these elements is assigned a high priority for future research and practice implementing tools and thus forms the first research question RQ1.

Luthans et al. (2007, p. 3) defined PsyCap as:

“an individual’s positive psychological state of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success”.

Rather, the theoretical model is not based on a static construct with a determinative factor "What is an individual" but rather "What can become an individual ” (Luthans, et al., 2007). In research experiments it was shown that the output of an employee performance is directly related to the PsyCap dimensions (B. Avey, et al., 2011). In the final analysis, it has not yet been clarified whether the PsyCap structures are similar or diverse in different individual humanity areas. Are there differences in the quantity and the generated output of PsyCap in local or global active people? This question has not been clearly answered in the literature (Vogelgesang, et al., 2014). Furthermore the approach of the further development possibilities in the area PsyCap finds a low range of further training models (Luthans, et al., 2006). According to Vogelsang et al. (2014) further investigations should continue to explore development tools for PsyCap development. The RQ3 was developed from this approach. Here, further research must allow a deeper insight.

2.7.1 Psychological capital structure

Various models for the PsyCap structure are described in the literature. The basis of the descriptions is based on any models based on a core construct (Avey, Luthans and Jensen, 2009). On the basis of the low literature on this segment, the author rejects the theories of F. Luthans, since in the past few years most of the publications have been published. Furthermore, in the area of Global Mindset research, different authors leaned on Luthan's theories, since these could be implemented in the Global Mindset - theories. Luthans presented the PsyCap model as a multidimensional structure (Clapp Smith, et al., 2016). It is based on the resources of hope, efficacy, resilience and optimism. The definitions of these elements can be found in Table 1.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 1 PsyCap - Source: (Luthans & M.Youssef - Morgan, 2017)

These resources have a direct influence on each other and can be developed through internal and external controls. The development of one of these elements has a direct influence on the others. It can also be described as a multilevel – motivational based change model (Gülen, et al., 2015).

2.7.2 Psychological capital development

Previous research have proposed that PsyCap is a state like construct, and it’s open to develop and change (Gülen, et al., 2015). In recent literature, only a few training models can be found in the PsyCap development area. Rather, the focus on human resources will be further developed, such as Goal-setting, group learning processes and exercises. The focus is on the PsyCap core features of Hope, Efficacy, Optimism and Resilience (Luthans, 2012). In practice, the trend is also attributable to motivation exercises since here connections to output improvement in the area of a positive PsyCap have been established. Stuck structures in individuals leave open the question of whether the progress of the age will shift the state like construction to the trait like construction and become more difficult to develop (Luthans, et al., 2006). This has not been taken into account in all studies therefore the approach to researching the context must be re-examined. From this approach the RQ2 formed. Since the core elements of the PsyCap are firmly anchored on the emotional level, training measures are applied to smaller groups or even to individual sessions. It is important that the feedstock of the group participants or the moderator, which is regulated by the meetings, is influenced by the development. Through impulses and further suggestions such problems are circumvented when a task is stopped (Avey, et al., 2009). In confirmed studies in the field of PsyCap development, the measured PsyCap was increased from 2% to 5% with a 3-hour face-to-face coaching (Luthans, 2012). However, this should be regarded critically since it is only a time-point recording. Emotional thrills and moods have shown in other studies that these have also a direct influence on the PsyCap.

PsyCap training is not about learning certain skills, as it is for example In other training measures, but the development of a positive complex thinking structure of an individual. The development of the individual PsyCap and their training measures are subject to several critical criteria. These are supposed to replace existing patterns of thought over time and manifest new patterns of thought (Vogelgesang, et al., 2014). This process requires a good working atmosphere and a sense of belonging to the group. Furthermore, the students have to accept the learning process and there must be a willingness to change (Luthans & M.Youssef - Morgan, 2017).

[...]