Try This Experiment

Try this, and then post a comment to share how it works.  Think of three people you are likely to have interactions with in the very near future.  What is the main purpose or context of your relationship?  Coworkers? Family? Neighbors?  What will be the likely "main" topic of discussion, or the reason for the interaction?  

Now, think of an interest or project of each of the three people you have chosen outside the main context of your interaction.  Commit to asking each of the three about that outside interest or project as part of your interaction.

After the interaction, write down some of your observations of their responses to you, and reflect on your own level of energy after the interaction.

What did you learn? 

Here's an example:  I'm going to meet with a faculty colleague to talk about redesigning a course syllabus.  I know this colleague has been working on a show with some children, so I'll ask her specifically how it's been.

Fear Energizes Me

I mentioned my research topic to a friend the other day who immediately and enthusiastically replied, "I know just what you mean--I'm an energizer in my work!" He then explained in some detail how he had become a significant irritant in his work unit with what he perceived to be great success.

As you read this, I know you can think of many examples of times when fear, intimidation, coercion, or other negative motivations have been effective. Dr. Roy Baumeister wrote a significant article in The Review of General Psychology called "Bad is Stronger Than Good." There is no question about the immediate and motivating impact of strong and negative stimuli. However, if we think of each interaction we have with another individual as one piece of a large building project, we can start to see the long-term damage that negative interactions inflict on relationships and organizations.

I think of it this way. When I am motivated by fear or other negative impulses (de-energizing), I am essentially trying to avoid negative consequences. In other words, I'm not trying to excel, I'm trying to avoid failure or punishment.

On the other hand, when I am motivated by hope, compassion, courage and other positive impulses (energizing), I am planning for a future of growth and improvement.

Is there a place for fear? Certainly. But if my objective is long-term energy and growth for myself and others in my group or organization, my definition of an "energizer" must be focused on individuals perceived by others as positive, building, and encouraging.

Are we the same in all of our groups?

Someone posted a question that needed to be its own post:  Can an individual be an energizer in one kind of situation or group, and a deenergizer in another?

Nice! I love this question...while my research can't give the answer, one simple way to think about this would be to consider that each individual is a member of more than one group or organization. Let's take some extreme examples. Let's suppose Shirley is a doctor in a trauma center. Many would agree that this can be a high-stress environment. Further, most associations are not by choice, but by assignment. However, if we were to analyze the energy network in the trauma center, we may find that Shirley is a hub. Or not.

Shirley might also be a member of her local PTA. She may 1) behave similarly to the way she behaves in the trauma center; OR 2) take a totally different approach to her interactions with others in the PTA. It becomes easy to see how people in the PTA may have a different experience with Shirley in terms of her energizing capacity than those in the trauma center.

Another question might be: How likely is it that one individual is consistently perceived as an energizer, neutral, or a deenergizer across the groups she/he belongs to? 

In other words, do I have a similar effect or contribution to the energy of all the organizations I am a member of?

Is this subject too soft?

Some might read this and think that the idea of energy is too soft, ambiguous to take seriously if we want to improve a group or organization.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  What kinds of people are most important to organizational success?  People with information? Influence? It turns out that people who energize others are at the center of predictably high areas of productivity--Rob Cross, Wayne Baker, and others have found that these energizers and the networks around them are as much as 4 times more likely to predict high productivity than other perspectives of organizational networks.

Starting to sound interesting?  Think of the people you know, and how you feel after an interaction with them.  Each individual feels something after an interaction with another, and those feelings can become very powerful.

What Kind of People Are Energizers?

When I ask people this question, their first response usually refers to someone who is an extravert (Jung typology) or an activator (Gallup Strength) (although one colleague suggested that an energizer may be the one with the strongest socio-political leverage to make work happen--however, as I mentioned in the previous post, this approach might get work done, but ultimately drains energy from the relationships and doesn't have lasting capacity for excellence).

These kind of responses indicate that when I ask the question, people are responding as observers, rather than participants.  With further probing it becomes clear that the question is referring to how an individual's energy is after an interaction with another.  

For example, write down five people whom you interact with regularly, then answer this question for each of them:  After an interaction with _______, how is your energy?  Most of us find when we do this that personality types may not be a predictor of an energizer.  So the question becomes, what are the attributes of these people, the energizers?  This is the emphasis of my current research.

Case of a Deenergizing Exchange

Let's say my friend Shawn has been planning to hold a meeting in the conference room.  He's made the arrangements and communicated with everyone who regularly uses the conference room.  When he enters the room for his meeting, Carol is there, and says that she'll be 20 minutes over.  Shawn says, "I'm sorry, Carol, but we need to begin our meeting now, and you indicated in your email that you would be willing to move at this time."  Visibly upset, Carol says, "This is very unprofessional, and unfair to my clients, who need to see some consistency from this organization." 

Most of us would recognize that this is not a positive interaction.  But what has happened to each person's energy after the interchange?  We might describe each of them as energized during the interaction as their emotions make them defend their positions.  However, the very specific kind of energy that generates lasting positive results is the energy that an individual feels after an interaction.  Both Carol and Shawn are drained after their emotions settle, and their abilities to perform are diminished.  Additionally, without some kind of reparations, each are now likely to avoid the other in the future, unless work responsibilities require them to interact.

One interaction doesn't necessarily define a person as deenergizing.  But over time and many interactions, patterns emerge, and each of us knows who we are most likely to want to have an interaction with in any group or organization.  Extend this over the network, and we'll find pockets of mutually energizing relationships, filled with energizers, and the most productive areas of an organization.

What is energy?

When I'm referring to energy, I'm not talking strictly about the physics definition, the capacity to do work.  However, it is related in a very real way.  Remember?  After an interchange with _________, how do you feel about your energy?  As you consider this, you are probably thinking of your motivation, your confidence, your positive feelings about your work or other activities.

Physical energy systems in the human body are depleted as you do the work--the more you do, the more you need rest and fuel to regain your energy.  The energy we're talking about here works on a different kind of economics--one person can give another energy, and in doing so gain more themselves!

As you consider your associates, friends, and family, you might consider the question of whether they are energizers, not by simply thinking of them, but thinking of how you and others respond after interactions with them.  

Welcome!

After you have an interaction with _________, do you feel energized, neutral, or deenergized?  If you were to ask each member of your group or organization this question about the other members, you'd be able to generate an energy "map," and the map would show that there are some very dense clusters of energy, and some more diffuse areas.  You could also generate a "deenergy map," which would show how people are connected to deenergizing individuals.

You'd also likely find a very interesting and important connection:  Those dense clusters of individuals who energize each other are the most productive areas of the group!

As you read this, it certainly sounds like common sense, but there aren't many groups that focus on this phenomenon as a key to success.

My objective is to share stories and research that will provide tools for accomplishing these things:

1. Recognizing how really powerful and predictive these "energized clusters" are of success.
2. Understanding what it means to be an energizer for others.
3. Understanding what it takes to become an energizer--and do it!