David,

Theresa Welbourne is right on the money about energy, happiness and productivity. I'd like to carry that a step further. Trying to placate the big-mouth crybabies in your work force can have a disastrous effect on the "happiness" and "energy" levels of the average, ordinary workers who are just trying to do the best job they can.

I work at a DoD facility, but our work force is nearly all civilian -- 2,500 civilian, 50 military. Morale isn't talked about here mostly because it sucks. Oh, every two years the bosses send the consultants in to "pulse" the work force on various topics, and every two years the same levels of angst show up in the survey results. But nobody ever uses the word "morale" and nobody ever does much to improve it. A vocal small percentage of the work force occupies much of management's time. When productive workers see slackers getting special attention, the effect is immediate and excruciating.

Will

Will, I agree, although you should be able to answer why most employees there seem to hate life.

Yes, I agree that some percentage of every workforce is perpetually grumpy--and always has been (check out this 1959 instructional film on the subject, link below). But There's something wrong if MOST people in the organization think life sucks and then you die. Right?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UiJ0Bz_pnIk

Oh, it's not as bad as I might've made it sound. Actually, most folks enjoy what they do here. But I deal with some electronic feedback media that is crammed full of negative stuff. I see it all the time; management also sees it, and when they react in favor of the crybabies, good workers get demoralized -- sometimes "en masse."

Will

Interestingly (or not), I just wrote about how if organizations want "energy," they should hire two-year-olds.

I've been in a group where the leadership that came in (against our recommendation) was bad, "morale" or whatever you like to call it plummeted -- and clients bailed left and right and left again, including the big one.

Frankly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or an organizational management degree) to understand that _motivated_ people are the ones you need, and motivated and miserable are not words you will find together very often.

Point taken, Diane, but it's hard to be "motivated" without also having "energy." (And vice versa.) It's easier, I think, for people to answer a regular survey question about their "energy" than their overall sense of "motivation."

Hence, I stick to Theresa Wellbourne's guns.

Here's what I've seen in several companies where I've worked: A "leader" (e.g., CEO, SVP, manager) chooses some people who become that leader's touchstone.

When the leader interacts with the touchstones, he/she asks how things are going (how employees are feeling). Along with the less-regular structured surveys like Gallup, this is how leaders form their impression of the organization's temperature. Unless they don't like what they hear. Then they ignore the touchstones.

I've personally experienced this and seen it with other people. I was a touchstone, and when I shared some feedback that I had gotten, the leader looked me hard in the eye, made a "Hmm" sound, and then thanked me while walking away. I haven't been asked for feedback in a long time.

Maybe I should have said that everyone was drinking the Kool-Aid, feeling the love, and ready to fall on their swords, if necessary, for the good of the company?

I've been a touchstone, too, Tom. Fortunately, I was with this particular company long enough that eventually I served a couple of COOs who sincerely were interested in my take (and those of other touchstones) on what folks were thinking and how they were feeling.

"Energy" is an OK word, I guess. I like how Roger D'Aprix described it in an article some years ago -- and I've used this language with clients, crediting him, and it seems to resonate with them. D'Aprix said employees choose to invest themselves in the organization or divest themselves from it. Invest/divest what? Well, their energy, their creativity, their brains, their bodies, their productivity, their "head space," whatever you want to call it. And it might be different things for different organizations.

Come to think of it, "energy" can be positive or negative. It's kind of like attitudes, behaviors, the nature of relationships between our organizations and stakeholders -- they can all be positive or negative.

But to say that someone is "investing" themselves in a cause is generally to imply a positive thing. And "divestment" sure sounds negative.

Communication can influence whether or not - and to what degree - people invest themselves in the organization or divest themselves from it.

It's probably best not to get too hung up on words, but the concept of "invest" is good. I think I am beginning to dislike "energy" because it's used as the primary characteristic employers are looking for in all-too-many recruitment ads, and my experience has been that what is perceived as "energy" in new recruits often turns out to be the kind that is not so positive, or it is not used positively.

Part of it's personal -- I'm perceived as a laid-back, low-energy introvert, and perception is reality, although the reality is I'm motivated and invested, but don't appear to be all that energetic. I haven't mastered looking "urgent."

Clearly, I need a vacation.

As a chronic napper, the word energy would never be applied to me (unless I'm sufficiently hopped up on Diet Pepsi), but I am certainly motivated most of the time.

What I look for (and can tell easily) is whether or not an employee cares about the work she does.

This is becoming fascinating.

What Welbourne measures--and I'm going to alert her to this thread so I can stop trying lamely to explain her ideas--is the CHANGES in energy level.

This acknowledges that everyone has a different one--and Wellbourne even acknowledges that energy levels can be too high, leading to burnout--but measures departmental, divisional, and corporatewide energy levels AS THEY RISE AND FALL.

Clearly, we don't want everybody in the organization with the same amount of energy level, or even the same amount of investment. (Can you imagine a mail room guy with as many ideas as a marketing VP? He'd drive everybody nuts, just like the marketing VP does.)

These are some of the subtleties, I think, that "employee engagement" consultants don't acknowledge thoroughly or readily enough.

Well, that's what makes a great leader. Someone who recognizes the unique characteristics of each person and knows how to tap into them for maximum good.

I'm famous!!!!!!

I agree that "morale" doesn't cut it.

I don't like "energy" for all the reasons that David finally came around to. I've worked in places with huge amounts of negative energy. I've also worked with people full of positive energy who made me want to slap them.

I was going to suggest "enthusiasm," but "investment" is even better. A job is like a marriage, I think. You're not madly in love with your spouse 24/7. Sometimes spouses leave their socks on the floor or say things that hurt. But if, in general, you know your spouse listens to you, values you, and does his or her best to be a good partner, you're gonna stick with that person. Even at moments when you're less than "enthusiastic"--say, a cocktail-party, lampshade-headed-spouse kind of moment--you're still "invested" in the marriage.

It's just the same with a job. Management doesn't have to be perfect (well, those perpetual whiners would disagree), but they have to consistently and openly TRY to be good managers, with everything that entails. They need company cred. If they have that, employees will forgive a lot of silly decisions.

Sweet Jesus, Wellbourne, where are you to defend "energy"?

(Seriously, Jane et all, I absolutely agree with everything you've said. I just think investment is impossible to measure--because often it looks like disgruntlement, while asshole-ism often looks like energy.)

Okay, you're really really REALLY making me want to find out how your Theresa Wellbourne measures employee "energy" or even the "change" in "energy."

You have your assignment, David.

What's the baseline for energy? How do you determine the charge (positive or negative) and quantify the change up or down? What is the optimum amount so that the change is measured against a baseline and the optimum amount? This should be fascinating. :)

As for the perpetual whiners, just discount them, along with the perpetual happy people. It's the middle that matters.

Theresa swears she's on her way ......

David, thanks for the energy talk. The energy work comes from over 18 years of research on what predicts long term firm performance and individual performance. Performance (in firms going through change at least) is not about being happy; the key to success is being optimally energized. Energy = internal drive motivation, sense of urgency to move forward. Energy is unique is that you can have too much of it, and that happens to be part of its uniqueness and lends to the ability to predict (not correlate but predict) outcomes. When I assess energy, I ask a few things about energy: (1) on a 0 to 10 scale, where 10 is burnout .. too much energy ...you have so much going on you can't replenish ... and (2) where on energy are you most productive. Then the predictive metrics come from the gap between ideal energy (there are occupational differences by the way) and most productive energy. Also, variance over time is predictive. It looks a lot like concepts from total quality management - find an optimal level and minimize variance (or like your target heart rate). Lots of science around it - more articles than anyone can want (academic and practitioner) at www.eepulse.com.

Folks, I told you Welbourne was smart.

I know what I'LL be doing this weekend....

Interesting. I'm just trying to figure out why David Murray is so fascinated by this. Last I heard, he was all about great journalism and feeding the souls of the people. Since when is he about anything so theoretical and academic as this?

Robert, I had exactly the same thought, remembering a very recent Shades of Gray rant about a "typical corporate squarehead" at Johnson & Johnson who wanted her ad agency to delve more deeply into research.... Maybe David's been golfing without his visor again.

Still, there's a lot of ore to be mined at Theresa Welbourne's site.

Robert, it pleases me to no end that after 15 years of our association I continue to show you new sides of my sun-dappled intellect.

While I object to much square-headed talk of "behavior change" and soulless discussion of "employee engagement," I do wish there were regular and simple ways to show management how various parts of the workforce are feeling and reacting.

Welbourne's method intrigues me more than any others I've seen, and her academic rigor is a big plus because it gives her system credibility with the propeller heads we all report to.

Wow -- I walk away for a couple of days and the thread explodes with great stuff. Earlier comments above mention a mailroom guy with great ideas, and others talk about leaders. It reminded me that in any organization there are tons of "unofficial" leaders. These are the people others turn to when they get less-than-satisfactory answers from their official leaders. Sometimes they are the individuals who speak up on unpopular issues, catching the attention of everyone above and below them on the food chain. Often, they are the ones CEOs go to when they want true, unfiltered answers. In other words, CEOs can have their acknowledged touchstones and their secret ones as well.

Will