Energy Management of People in Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda

Energy can be defined as “a type of positive affective arousal, which people can experience as emotion—short responses to specific events—or mood—longer-lasting affective states that need not be a response to a specific event” (Quinn and Dutton 2005, p. 36).

Energy can be both a short-term and a long-term process. Just like for instance satisfaction, people can experience long-term (basic energy level) as well as short-term effects on their energy level. Long-term draining effects can result in a burnout, and should probably be viewed as deviations from a persons’ basic energy level. Research regarding flow defined as “the way people describe their state of mind when consciousness is harmoniously ordered, and they want to pursue whatever they are doing for its own sake” (Csikszentmihalyi 1990, p. 6), shows that people can be completely focused and energetic in all domains, be it sports, games, hobbies, or work. This complete immersion in an activity is the result of the focusing of mental energy on an activity which is liked by the actor. Flow is a source of mental energy, in that it focuses attention and motivates action. However, an important reason why people often lack energy is that they have trouble determining what they really like and even if they know what activities they like best, fail to seek out these activities more often. In order to become more energetic Csikszentmihalyi (1997, p. 127) advises:

“We must then transfer some psychic energy each day from tasks that we don’t like doing, or from passive leisure, into something we never did before, or something we enjoy doing but don’t do often enough because it seems too much trouble.”

What discerns people and managers high on energy from people low on energy? Are people high on energy better in touch with their feelings, and hence make the right choices? Are they better in prioritizing and do they therefore have more energy? Or is it just because people high on energy do the things they like, and are good at, so that work does not feel like work?

Energetic people achieve their goals sooner, and enjoy the road to these goals better. Indeed better person-job fit has been related to a higher level of engagement and less burn-out (Chilton et al. 2005; for a review see Maslach et al. 2001). Also, having a clear goal is a prerequisite to the focusing of energy (Csikszentmihalyi 1997). At the same time, the behavior of energetic people can be contagious for the productivity of others in their immediate surroundings (Bakker et al. 2005).

Although some questions are answered relating to recovery and work-life balance (e.g., Sonnentag 2001, 2003), many questions relating to how we can get less drained during work hours are still not answered. The extent to which people cope with stressors, or let energy drains rule their lives is an important variable in maintaining energy, and the relationships surrounding these is an important research question (Cross et al. 2003; Cross and Parker 2004). In this respect, the notion of energy enhancers, people that energize others around them, may be an interesting starting point. How is energy spread through a network? At the same time the concept of energy enhancers may have some overlap with the concept of subjective well-being (Diener 1984), as people high on subjective well-being may also be high on energy. Research has indeed shown a positive relationship between vitality and well-being (Ryan and Frederick 1997). At the same time, being high on energy may be distinct from energizing others, although being high on energy yourself may be a requirement.

Organizational energy often starts with the energy of a few key figures (Bruch and Ghoshal 2003). Transformational leaders are traditionally considered as energizing: the idea is that transformational leaders are able to inspire others and change the way people work toward a common goal (cf. Bass 1985; Kark and Van Dijk 2007; Yukl 1998). For instance, research among 32 teams from various kinds of industries has shown that teams with a transformational leader are more likely to have a shared vision, which in turn relates to more team reflexivity (i.e., the process of reflecting on and adapting of goals, strategies, and processes) in turn enhancing team performance (Schippers et al. 2008). The behavioral component underlying the success of transformational leadership may be regulatory focus theory (Higgins 1998; Kark and Van Dijk 2007). Within this theory, two motivational orientations are discerned, promotion focus, referring to a more “risky” information processing style, while prevention focus is related to a more risk-averse and vigilant processing style (Higgins 1998). Promotion goals refer to ideals, hope, and aspirations, while prevention goals refer to duties, responsibilities, and things that ought to be done (Kark and Van Dijk 2007). People with a promotion focus are more creative problem-solvers (Friedman and Förster 2001), are more willing to take risks, and may be better able to energize people around them towards compelling goals (cf. Brockner and Higgins 2001; Crowe and Higgins 1997). Promotion focus seems a more energetic style (i.e., vision, hope), while prevention focus may be related to a de-energizing style (i.e., always seeing roadblocks and reasons why projects will fail). A transformational leadership style may very well be related to a promotion focus, while a transactional leadership style may be more related to a prevention focus, and hence transformational leaders may be better able to energize followers into action toward a common goal (Kark and Van Dijk 2007). The effects of transformational leadership may thus be mediated by the energy they create towards this common goal. Research has shown that the success of a promotion or prevention appeal is dependent on the fit between leaders and followers regulatory focus (Stam et al. 2010). Although we do not know of any research explicitly investigating the role of promotion versus prevention focus in enhancing or diminishing energy level, people with a promotion focus may be more goal oriented (e.g., possible gains) and less distracted by thoughts of what they ought to do, or ruminating about failure (e.g., possible losses), while people with a prevention focus will be more inclined to ruminate about possible losses and spend time on counterfactual thinking (Roese et al. 1999). Consequently, people with a promotion focus will be better able to focus their energy on the goal and be more productive. This may be a viable route for future research to determine the relationship between leadership, regulatory focus, and followers’ energy.

A related personal characteristic may be personal initiative (Frese and Fay 2001), or proactive behavior (Bateman and Crant 1993). Persons high on proactive behavior are more inclined to take charge (Morrison and Phelps 1999), overcome barriers and deal proactively with demands (Frese and Fay 2001; Sonnentag 2003). Proactive behavior has been related to a reflexive style of thinking in teams (Schippers et al. 2007). Research has shown that proactive behavior is related to work recovery. A study among 147 employees of six public service organizations showed that recovery after work had a positive effect on work engagement the next day, and in turn taking initiative and pursuing learning goals at work (Sonnentag 2003). Thus, being able to rest and recover after work is important for energetic behavior in the form of taking initiative and learning during the work day.

A personality variable that may be negatively related to energy at work is neuroticism, or emotional instability. Neurotic individuals may waste a lot of energy, because they are inclined to ruminate excessively (Nolan et al. 1998; cf. Eisenberger et al. 2005), especially when they are under stress. Research among 109 out-patients suffering from unipolar depressive disorder has shown that neuroticism is related to dysfunctional ruminating and subsequent depression as reactions to stress (Lam et al. 2003). Interestingly, “analyze to understand” was the only rumination subscale not related to depression in their research (Lam et al. 2003). Other research has related neuroticism to fatigue (Calderwood 2009) and burnout (for a review see Maslach et al. 2001). This research suggests that neurotic individuals may be inclined to waste their energy in dysfunctional ruminating, leading to a lowered energy level, fatigue, and in extreme cases depression.

Other personality characteristics related to energy at work may be agreeableness, conscientiousness, and self-esteem. Workers high in conscientiousness are reliable, methodical, disciplined, and organized, while workers high on agreeableness are cooperative, helpful, and tolerant (Costa and McCrae 1992). People high on agreeableness and low on self-esteem will have trouble saying no (cf. Joseph 2000; Judge and LePine 2007). If these persons are also high on conscientiousness, they will not only have trouble saying “no” to requests, but will also most likely act on their promise (Costa and McCrae 1992). These workers may be so busy fulfilling other people’s requests, that they do not have enough time left to do the things needed for achieving their own results. Consequently, in the long-term, this may result in energy loss and burnout. Although not investigated in combination, research by Ryan and Frederick (1997) found extraversion and conscientiousness to be negatively related to vitality, and neuroticism to be positively related to vitality.

Intra-individual combinations of conscientiousness and agreeableness may explain “high maintenance”—chronic annoying and de-energizing—behavior in the workplace (Burke and Witt 2004). This “high maintenance” behavior tends to exhaust supervisors and co-workers of their morale, energy, and time, while at the same time driving high-performing co-workers out of an organization (Grensing-Pophal 2001; Principe 1997). Research among 336 clerical workers in a production organization showed that workers with high or low conscientiousness combined with low agreeableness received higher scores on supervisor rated high maintenance behavior. In contrast, workers with a combination of high conscientiousness and high agreeableness received the lowest ratings of high maintenance behavior, and were experienced as least de-energizing (Burke and Witt 2004). This research suggests that different combinations of personality will result in energizing or de-energizing behavior. Future research could investigate the functional and dysfunctional role of personality with respect to energy. For instance, extraversion and openness to experience have not been explicitly related to energy before. Since the relation between personality and subjective well-being has been extensively researched (for reviews see (DeNeve and Cooper 1998; Diener et al. 1999), this may be a good starting point for related research regarding personal energy level and energizing behavior.

Are people high on energy also more successful in their careers (and lives)? If yes, what are those factors that determine this? To our knowledge, there is no scientific evidence showing this relationship. However, research on expert performance showed that long-term success in any discipline is determined by the actual time an individual works at his or her most important goals on a weekly basis, and that it takes 10 years of deliberate practice before a person can really excel in a specific discipline (e.g., chess; Ericsson et al. 1993). Other research has looked at the differences between “superworkers” and moderate performers. For instance, research among 40 software designers, comparing “superworkers” (who seem to be able to focus their energy toward important goals), and moderate performers, showed that high performers spent more time on local planning and feedback processing, whereas moderate performance were more engaged in analyzing requirements and verbalizing task-irrelevant cognitions, such as ruminating about possible failure (Sonnentag 1998). Similar effects have been found for expert performance (for a review see Ericsson and Lehmann 1996). Experts spend a considerable amount of energy focusing on becoming the best in their discipline, and are highly motivated by their goal. This is so much so, that they economize on social interactions, and as a consequence are often seen as self-centered during their (sports) career (Jones 2006).

Although not everyone will want to become a top performer, this research is informative in showing how one can stay energized while reaching the goals in work and life. Even when people have a clear goal, it is sometimes hard to stay focused. The question then is: how can a task focus be enhanced? Two things may play a role here: (a) The extent to which a person reflects on his/her short and long-term goals and (b) the extent to which the person reflects on the consequences of this goal for everyday actions.

The complaint of modern times is that we do not have time and that we are busy all the time. However, closer inspection of what people really do reveals that most people waste a lot of time instead of doing what they really need or want to do. For instance, research among managers of a global airline company and a large oil company, showed that that fully 90% of them wasted time and productivity, despite having well-defined objectives and goals (Bruch and Ghoshal 2002). The researchers assert that the reason for this productivity and energy loss (which they dubbed “active non-action”) is a perceived lack of personal discretion or control. Note that these were all managers, who are generally seen as having more freedom in setting their goals and ways to achieve them then subordinates. These managers mistakenly thought they had no choice in for instance canceling meetings, having to talk to people, and did not reflect on how to spend their time most effectively. In contrast, successful managers were the ones that did take initiative and acted on opportunities (Bruch and Ghoshal 2003). Only 10% of the managers in the oil company spent their time in a committed, purposeful, and reflective manner (Bruch and Ghoshal 2002). Those managers were able to focus in a proactive way: having reflected on what their goal was, they did not get sidetracked by all kinds of distractions, such as e-mail, meetings, and unforeseen demands. This suggests that workers that reflect on a most efficient use of their time will use their energy better and more effectively than those that don’t.

Indeed, performance improvement in all kinds of domains may be achieved through a process of reflexivity—reflecting upon work processes and performance (Schippers et al. 2007; West 1996, 2000). For instance, research among 73 student teams showed that teams reflecting on their performance after detrimental initial performance were able to improve final team performance (Schippers and Homan 2009). Furthermore, research among teams in hospitals, having much discretion, showed that teams that were more reflexive, were better able to deal with, and reacted more innovatively with respect to the demands of workload and demanding work facilities (Schippers et al. 2010). Together, this research suggests that reflexivity may be important in (a) realizing the real amount of discretion people has, and (b) their ability to change and refocus the situation. This may be energizing in the sense that people will try to actively change the situation, instead of a “learned helplessness” attitude (Abramson et al. 1978). In a sense, the underlying mechanism in the above findings may be that reflexivity helps in becoming aware of things that can be changed and improved, and a subsequent refocusing of energy towards this (new) goal.

Energy could be measured by asking people what kind of work gives them most satisfaction, how often they perform these tasks, how well they achieve their goals, and how much time they spend on recovery from work, including physical activities. Also, how energetic people feel, and how involved they are during work hours, and how much energy drains they experience at work. We discussed the possible role of leadership in this respect. Recent research regarding leadership suggests that servant leadership, with its’ focus on others instead of the organization (Nuijten 2009; Stone et al. 2004; van Dierendonck and Nuijten in press), may also be a viable route for future research in relation to unleashing followers energy. On the basis of the above review, future research could explore (a) what discerns people high on energy from people low on energy? (b) are people high on energy/well-balanced also more successful in their careers (and lives)? and, if yes, (c) what are effective tools that can help, and (d) how can an intervention be developed to make sure that, in principle, everyone can reach this success (not just the “lucky few” who happened to reach this).

Summarizing, in the above we have raised several questions that future research could help to answer. These include:

Next to research looking at determinants and outcomes of energy, as was outlined above, the effects of possible interventions should be assessed. As Maslach et al. (2001) noted limitations in study design, especially the lack of control groups and longitudinal studies limits the extent to which research findings regarding the effect of interventions can be interpreted. Future research could incorporate the level of energy both before and after an intervention, and especially the long-term effects of such interventions. Below, we will describe what is known about energy enhancing interventions, and describe what an effective intervention could look like.

Several practical tools could be helpful in preserving energy during the work day. Some questions that research could answer are: What are the most effective tools that can help in energy management? For instance, does the use of formalized tools such as Outlook, to-do lists, add or detract from workplace stress? Does the practice of “blocking one’s calendar out”, so that others cannot put surprise meetings on, work in this respect? Is there a “perfect combination” of tools one can use, and if yes, which one works best?¹

On the basis of the experience of the second author, who is an experienced trainer in energy and time-management, three main practices can be discerned that work well: (1) Planning according to result areas, (2) reflect on long-term goals, and (3) physical fitness.

How can we develop an intervention to make sure that, in principle, everyone can reach this state of “high energy”, or refocusing of energy to become more productive? Although there is some evidence with respect to burnout, showing that an intervention aimed at restoring equity can be successful, especially when support from co-workers and supervisors is high (van Dierendonck et al. 1998), research investigating the effects of “energy management” interventions is scarce. We refer to energy management interventions in a broad sense, such as time-management courses, health interventions, and similar interventions that can have as a (main or side) goal to enhance energy. Most interventions are aimed at only one or two aspects (for a review see van der Hek and Plomp 1997). Research regarding the use of time management techniques such as setting goals and priorities, making lists and schedules, and a preference for organization, were shown to be helpful in reducing tension and increasing job satisfaction, although a relation with job performance was not found (Macan 1994). Furthermore, time management techniques seemed effective in reducing stress due to work–family conflict (Adams and Jex 1999). A recent meta-analysis of stress-management studies revealed that cognitive-behavioral interventions were more successful in reducing stress, than for instance relaxation and meditation (Richardson and Rothstein 2008). Surprisingly, combining different interventions led to a reduced effect size. Also, longer programs were not more effective than shorter programs (Richardson and Rothstein 2008). However, more research is needed to test the combined effects of different combinations of interventions, such as time-management, relaxation, and physical exercise in enhancing energy. Most of the research done so far, is aimed at reducing stress or the negative effects of burnout, while interventions specifically aimed at enhancing or maintaining energy are scarce (for an example of burnout prevention and engagement enhancement interventions, see Leiter and Maslach 2000). This may in part be two sides of the same coin, although the overlap may not be perfect, as was found for the relation between burnout and engagement (cf. Schaufeli and Bakker 2004). In their study, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) found that burnout and engagement shared between 10 and 25 percent of variance, both were in part predicted by different variables, and also differed with respect to outcomes. This may have important consequences for the effectiveness of interventions, depending on what the goal of the intervention is; either reducing/preventing burnout, or enhancing/maintaining a high energy level. This is a viable route for future research.