Back to work

It has been some time--I've been with my family in Illinois, working on a large outdoor theatrical production for my church. The experience was richly rewarding for each member of the family--hard work, and wonderful friends.

As we were in Nauvoo, I tried to keep observing the many people we worked with. All of them are good people, working hard to become better.

As I observed various interactions between individuals, it seems that a pattern of true caring may be one way to understand the mechanism of energizing others.

When someone really demonstrates a desire to understand another individual, both are ultimately energized.

This post is more clearly to announce that I'll be back building this blog and other materials.

Please send any suggestions, thoughts, etc. What kinds of postings would make something like this really interesting to you?

Employee Loyalty

The Chronicle of Higher Ed has a short post about faculty members leaving soon after receiving tenure at their institutions.  Tenure, in practical terms, is an assurance of employment (I know there are nuances, but that is for another discussion).  For many faculty members, this is a six-year process of intense work trying to demonstrate the value of their contribution to the institution in teaching, scholarship, and citizenship.

One person sent in a particularly interesting comment.  

"If the faculty member is good we get them cheap until someone else forces us to up the ante. Loyalty is just ruse to keep faculty on board. In my 30 years associated with 5 different universities I see little evidence at most that faculty are anything but “primary units of production”—direct quote from former dean."

Contrast that to another comment:

"When I was a tenure-track faculty member, my chair helped me with a reduced teaching load, travel funding, a mentor, and a graduate assistant. Now that I am a Dean, I do the same thing for my tenure-track faculty."

These two deans indicated two different views of the individuals they worked with.  While we don't know which, if either, of these deans would show up as energizers, we might be able to predict our own responses to them.  Which one would energize you the most?  Faculty positions are largely autonomous--as a faculty member, you do your own research, plan your own classes, generally with infrequent feedback from those in authority.  An energizer in the network might be particularly effective, since the motivation needed for continuing excellence in faculty work is generally considered to be self-generated.

Many of the roles you fill don't have specific, immediate, clear rewards attached for doing the job well.  I think of my role as a parent.  While I enjoy my children now, much of the work we do with them is done with the hope that they will grow up to be productive, happy adults.  What happens to my energy when I interact with someone who acknowledges that work?  What happens to yours?

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.