This time i want to write a few words about positive experiences and their impact on happiness…in the long-term. Most people know, that the perceived (subjective) feeling of happiness triggered by a positive event declines over time. I assume, that you are not smiling every day because of your holidays, which took place half a year ago.  If your chef awarded you a raise at work due to outstanding achievements, the smile on your face will probably last some days, only.

There is a mechanism called “capitalization” in order to keep up happiness after positive events.

Our brains are not or not completely able to distinguish between reality and fiction. In the following i assume, that thinking allows us to imagine any given (fictional) situation.
It might be a future success event, like a win in sports or an event which occured in the past. For example an event, which raised the positive subjective feeling of happiness, like a vacation, you have always dreamt of.

It leads to the first conclusion, that thinking of a (past) event might lead to the same (positive) reaction as really experiencing the event.

How does it work? It is all about the power of imagination.

So, does it mean, that we should do “flash-backs” every day by our own? In kind of  meditation state? No, of course not.
The good thing is, you don’t need to do it by your own. Talking is one way, to get into the thinking process. Though there are differences between cultures, talking is at least closely related to thinking (and sometimes vice versa)

* Our brain is not (completely) capable of distinguishing between reality and fiction. Thinking of an event might lead to similar perceived emotional reactions as the experience of an event
* Talking is strongly related to thinking

So what can we do about the decreasing subjective happiness after a positive event?

Researchers Gable et al. have found out, that sharing good news on positive events with another person is one of the most important processes for maintaining perceived happiness. They call this process “capitalization”.

3.1.1. Capitalizing on positive events

Capitalizing on positive events means telling others about positive events, for example. Telling others about positive events leads to higher positive affect and greater life satisfaction (p. 241).

Based on the assumption, that our brain is not able to distinguish between reality and fiction, it leads to the idea, that telling others about positive events is a re-experience of the event itself. It is highly probable, that talking about positive events is like a mediating factor, which leads to increased memory of the positive event in the long run.Happiness increases.

3.1.2. Side effect: Social capital

A positive thing attached to capitalizing on positive events is, that it may lead to a better perceived social capital. Long story short: others think that you are more attractive and have greater intention to get in contact and/or establish a relationship with you.

In the long-run, well-being of this relationship i highly probable to increase (S.241). Happiness increases, too.

3.2.1. Active & constructive response

Gable et al. point out, that the reaction/response of the listener is of highest importance, too. They classified possible responses into 4 categories. On the positive end of the scale one can find active and constructive responses. The negative end of the scale describes passive and destructive responses. The direct response has immediate effect on well-being on inter and intrapersonal level.

Passive and destructive responses might undermine the development of further well-being based on the positive event in question. The listener might show, that he or she does not value the event in question or the story-teller or that he or she is jealous, for example.

Active and constructive feedback on the other hand leads to the feeling of being understood and appreciated, which helps in building well-being and a good relationship

How to build active and constructive feedback is described on this page.

3.2.2. Side-effect: Conditioning

There is a positive thing attached within this dimension, too. From a behavioral point of view, giving active and positive responses is also a kind of reward. Immediate rewarding helps in strenghening desired behaviors (in behavioral psychologythis process is standard-knowledge and psychologists call it “Operant conditioning“).

What does this mean? Simply speaking: Imagine being a child back in the days: if you clean-up your room and proudly tell your parents about it, positive feedback and a possible reward has led to a higher chance of repeating the clean-up behaviour.

One might call it “learning new and desired habits”. This is actually the process how dogs learn new things. Therefore active and constructive feedback not only leads to a better outcome for the story-teller and the relationship, but also helps enabling the story-teller to open up and be more confident about positive events in the future.

At work, one should create time and space, which enables colleagues to share positive experiences, as to what extent they have achieved predefined goals, for example. It might strenghen customer satisfaction, creation of new solutions etc. It should be an environment, where everybody is open to say everything. An environment, where others offer instant active and constructive feedback.

One might say, that not everybody is willing to open up or speak positively about yourself. This is why it is less important to encourage or even force people directly to open up about positive experiences. It is more important to create an environment, where people encourage telling about positive events and whoever is willing to speak is free to speak.

As we as humans tend to increase our own positive perception, providing active and constructive feedback, shows “shy” individuals, that opening up is rewarded. Strengthening one’s position and strengthening one’s perceived standing within a defined group.

Idea: Create a TGIF (=Thank God it’s friday) meeting at the end of the last day of the week. Ask for low- and highlights. Let the attendees decide if they want to open up.

In private context, in particular in traditional western family context, one might not have such a big group of grown-ups at the table of “story-telling”. Still it is also important, to create the described environment. Even when it is a 1-on-1 situation.

Of course, one might say, that the group (eg. family) is already talking about daily events. But in everyday life, some obvious things are forgotten. One of the obvious things, which might be forgotten, is constructive and active feedback. Hapiness can be pursued proactively in a family context, too.

I do have the habit to dive into a good book or an interesting lecture on Youtube, which leads to disrupted ability to listen actively to my partner. When talking while preparing for work, we don’t show the necessary concentration to be active and constructive. The concentration might be disturbed. Sometimes one might be held in his thoughts or his mobile phone.

This is why it is of highest importance, to create the environment (time & space), where opening up and providing feedback is on top of the consciousness list.

Leadership is an important topic for research within fields such as economics and psychology. Research concentrates on leadership styles, leadership impacts and the attributes a leader should have within the process of leading.

As a first overview the following chapters will describe the difference between leadership and management (1.2.), leadership styles by Hersey & Blanchard (1.3.), managerial grid by Blake & Mouton (1.4.) and the attributes of transformative leadership (1.5.). All of these approaches concentrate on a leader, on a single person, who is or is not impacting own and others outcomes.

Though in some leadership types the leader is asking his/her followers for opinion, in most cases he/she is the center of decision making. There is another approach, which is called Shared Leadership.

A brief description of shared leadership will be conducted, too (1.6.)

A leader is a person who influences behavior of another person or a group. Leadership is therefore the framework, within which an individual or a group is influenced by a leader aiming at achievement of specific goals. Compared to a  manager, who is doing things in the right way, a leader is doing the right things (Bennis, Nanus).

A manager is focusing on the realization of plans and following rules of others, while a leader has his own vision of the future. A manager seeks to conserve existing structures and order, while a leader is assisting adaptive changes.

Within this concept leadership is seen as depended from the situation. The leader should adapt his/her leadership style dynamically to the situation.

Situation is defined as the level of maturity of the leader.  The maturity level depends on both, the employees motivation and the employees competence. Both can be either high or low.

Depending on the situative combination the leader could or even should choose from a list of 4 leadership styles:

* Leader: Directive Style -> Employee (High motivation, low competence)

* Leader: Coaching Style -> Employee (Low motivation, low competence)

* Leader: Participation Style -> Employee (Low motivation, high competence)

* Leader: Delegating Style -> Employee (High motivation, high competence)

Now the question is, what these 4 styles mean when it comes to a leaders behavior:

* Directive Style (high task orientation, low relationship orientation): Leader  defines roles, sets rules, makes decisions, has an overview over the progress, communication in one direction

* Coaching Style (high task orientation, high relationship orientation):  Leader defines roles, listens to employee suggestions, makes decisions

* Participation Style (low task orientation, high relationship orientation): Leaders delegate daily business decisions to employees. Leaders simplify situations and take part in decision making process.

* Delegating Style (low task orientation, low relationship orientation): Leaders take part in decision making, but participation in decision making process is dependend on employees decision. Employee is evaluting for success.

The managerial grid by Blake & Mouton differentiates between task orientation and peoples orientation, too. The managerial grid differentiates 5 leadership styles:

* Style 1,1 – Indifferent style (low people orientation, low task orientatoin): Minimalizing efforts, efforts only in order to maintain position in company

* Style 1,9 – Accomodating style (high people orientation, low task orientation): Leader is seeking to build harmony among employees, which should help in building performance (but is not always)

* Style 9,1 – Authoritarian style (low people orientation, high task orientation): Leader is forcing obedience and concentrates on providing a framework for employees to fulfill their task properly.

* Style 5,5 – Behavioral style (average people orientatoin, average task orientation): Leadership is balanced. Both objective goals and subjective needs are considered. Bot might not be met at a high percentage.

* Style 9,9 – Team style (high people orientation, high task orientation): Leaders seek growing teamwork, engagement and motivation among workers. Should help in the belief, that workers are pursueing a common goal, that they need to cooperate and that they are an important part of the company.

Transformational leadership means, that a leader is leading with the help of a vision and inspiring others, while developing together with the members of the group. The transformational leadership has its focus on changing the future, based on the vision. Typical attributes are:

* Increasing intrinsic motivation of employees by involvement

* Increasing ethical culture and decision making

* Concentration on higher goals and common goods

* Persuasion based on rational argumentation

* Coaching and mentoring as types of leadership

Transactional leadership on the other hand focusses on supervision, organization and performance. It uses rewards and punishment as mechanisms. The transactional leadership has its focus on maintaining the present. Subsets of the transactional leadership are Management by objetcives (MBO) and Management by exception (MBE)

Shared leadership can be seen through different lenses.

Aggregation approach: Leadership is going over from an individual to an unknown group of individuals.  There is no exact definition on who exactly should be the leader in which situation. It is characterized by a commonly conducted leadership behavior by the whole group and its individual members.

Social network approach: Leadership is the connection between 2 individuals within a group, while the connection is one of many connections within a web of connections. Connections can be identified on a 0-1 scale, as 0=leader and 1= follower. This means, that within one connection, one individual A is the leader, while the other one B is the follower. Individual A might be a follower within another connection. It is characterized by the distribution of leadership influence across multiple individuals according to their connections.

Distribution: Centralization approach: It is charaterized by a set of responsibilities and rights which is centrally available, is not directly connected to any team member and is distributed depending on the situation. The individual with the most connections/abilities when it comes to the centrality, has the most powerful role within a team.

In general traditional approaches focus on the leadership style of an individual, who is in charge. In most cases the factor which differentiated the style was the focus on people and the focus on tasks. As an additional factor style was differentiated by degree of participation of employees in decision making, while a one person was still the formally appointed leader.

Now the question is whether a distribution of leadership on multiple individuals by any method will increase leadership and group outcomes. Another question might be, whether ineffective leadership might be improved by shared leadership.

The following results are taken from a scientific meta-analysis by Lauren D’Innocenzo, John E.Mathieu & Michael R. Kukenberger.

In a meta analysis the authors have found, that shared leadership is positively related to team performance.

Furthermore it was found, that the more a definition of shared leadership accounted for complexities, the higher the impact was. Especially two concepts have shown increased impact. Both, the central network approach and the centralization approach have shown a higher impact on team performance compared to the aggregation approach of shared leadership.

Authors have found, besides the upper findings, that team task complexity decreased the strengh of relationship between shared leadership and team performance

Which circumstances indicate, that adapting to shared leadership is a good idea?

* Unbalanced leadership: If there is an unbalanced leadership situation

* Not being a leader is valuable: If a company wants to show, that not being a formal leader does not restrict advancement, development and success.

* Future leadership: If the goal is to develop future leaders

* Responsibility: If teaching responsibility is one of the main goals of the company.

The following prerequisites should be considered, when planning adaptation to the shared leadership approach

* Mindset: Change in mindset of top management down to lower management (Top Down approach)

* Responsibilities: Restructure the decision-framework about task responsibility (from hierarchies to abilities)

* Coaching: External Coaching for current leaders (Less leadership is not a downgrade). Read more about Executive Coaching.

* Coaching: External Coaching for current followers (More leadership comes with greater responsibility). Read more about business Coaching.

* Decision making: Change in decision making processes (More transparency, an open forum, encouragement of speaking out loud)

When implementing an approach of shared leadership, the following effects might come to reality:

* Performance: Individual and team performance will increase

* Acceptance of leadership: Understanding for the complexity of leadership decisions will increase throughout the whole team

* Increased adaptivity: Diversification of leadership styles due to higher involvement of different personalities and therefore better situative adaptation

* Increased innovation: Increase of innovation due to higher involvement of the whole group

* Increased motivation and engagement: Positive effects on motivation and engagement due involvement into transparent decision making processes

* Participation: Higher perceived participation in company success

What is motivating me to get out of bed, to get myself into a specific shape, to meet with friends, to go to work and to develop? There is an evergreen battle on the motivation field still going on. Arguments are being made for the domination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

As a coach and psychologist i stand like a rock by the idea of intrinsic motivation (as it implies, that it is me, who is or is not motivated to do something).

At the same time, as a psychologist, i am fully aware and do commit to the concept of extrinsic motivation (as it implies e.g. from a behavioral standpoint, that positive behavior can be strenghened by awarding it.)

First let’s take a look at what internal and external motivation actually is?

Intrinsic motivation means, that somebody is performing actions due to an inseparable internal character of satisfaction, and not some possible separate consequences, which might or might not occur. The motivation for action has is locus within the motivated individual and the action itself is the primary reason for conducting it.

A few examples of intrinsic motivation:

I love playing soccer. As a child I dreamt of becoming a soccer player. Today, as soon as i see a human or a dog playing around with a ball large enough to be played with your foot, i’m instantly willing to join. Why? Because i just love it!

Not the same effect, but still intrinsic motivation: When having the possibility to improve myself in areas, which are important to me, i am not hesitating. For example, writing this article, means improving my blog, means learning new things, means having new thoughts. The task itself has high value.

Even just spending time with my family is a no brainer for me. Why? Because the time spent with family has very high value in my own value structure. Even if we were lazy, the time spent is still valuable.

Extrinsiv motivation means, that somebody is performing activities due to the disconnected external nature of satisfaction. The motivation for action is placed outside the motivated individual and the action will not be conducted until some external incentive is introduced (until rewards are provided).

A few examples of extrinsic motivation

I love playing soccer, as you already know. Sometimes i play soccer and do street style tricks, when i see people around. Why? Because i do aim at being awarded as the best 35 year old non-professional soccer player they know.

After having written an article on my blog, which i did not need any extrinsic motivation to do, i willingly use the extrinsic elements of it. Probably people will read the article, probably some people will like it, probably it will help my blog the get buzz and monetize on it. Well, getting money based on things i like doing, is kind of one of the purest forms of extrinsic motivation.

What about spending time with my family? Well, we are 4 grandchildren from my granny’s perspective. I am spending most of my time in my hometown with my granny, because i don’t live there on a daily basis any more. My granny is then convinced, that i am the best of all 4 grandchildren and praises me in front of my whole family. This kind of approval is extrinsic motivation, too.

What if i was motivated only if i’ve received something in return? Well this would mean, that extrinsic motivation has had a bad influence on me. It would mean, that i was not able to move, if there was no external force, which was moving me.

On the other hand, what if i was only motivated, if the task itself was holy to me? Well, this would mean, that intrinsic motivation has had a bad influence on me, too. It would mean, that i was not able to move for other people or other people’s benefit, if the task was not holy to myself.

What if introducing external incentives would lead to a lower motivation to move in general and over time? As an extreme example, it would mean, that giving bonuses or salary raises to employees, might decrease their job performance, though they have had high motivation for performance beforehand.

There is a theory, which describes under which circumstances extrinsic motivation might impact intrinsic motivation in a negative way. Based on the theory, there is a wrong assumption out there, that rewarding has negative impact on intrinsic motivation.

The theory postulates, that intrinsic motivation is naturally given. The naturally given intrinsic motivation needs benefiting external circumstances to thrive. This means, that external circumstances, eg. rewards might have bad influence, too.

The theory assumes, that external circumstances, eg. rewards have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation in situations with a controlling aspect. Controlling means, that you have to conduct a task in a very specific way, in order to get the reward.

External circumstances, eg. rewards have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation in situations with an informative aspect. Informative means, that the provided reward will have educational impact on you. At the end, the question is whether we should be careful with rewards?

In order to get an overview of the evidence the best way is to have a look at scientific meta analysis’. Meta Analysis’ are a collection of multiple single scientific studies, while the collection is analyzed statistically as a whole.

3.1.1. General information

The meta analysis was conducted by Uco Jillert Wiersma in 1992. It combined 20 single scientific studies and was based upon the assumptions of the cognitive evaluation theory.

3.1.2. Rewards have positive or negative impact on intrinsic motivation

The study has found, that rewards have negative impact on intrinsic motivation, when provided conditionally. Conditionally means, that a reward is provided under the exact same circumstances. The study has found, that rewards do not have negative impact, when provided unconditionally. Unconditionally means, that rewards were provided under random circumstances.  More important, extrinsic motivation when active, does not impact performance in a negative way. To be more precise, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards have an additive influence on performance.

3.2.1. General information

The meta analysis was conducted by Cerasoli, Nicklin and Ford in 2014. 154 scientific studies have been choosen for the meta analysis. In sum, 212.468 individuals were part of the meta analysis.

3.2.2. Extrinsic motivation helps intrinsic motivation in performance

The study has found 4 very important points.

First a basic assumption was confirmed. Intrinsic motivation does impact performance.

Second, intrinsic motivation is stronger in qualitative tasks, compared to quantitive tasks. What does it mean? When conducting complex tasks, which have to be thought through, intrinsic motivation is powerful compared to tasks, in which complexity is low and the task has to be conducted multiple times in order to have a solution.

The third finding is the most important one: The impact of intrinsic motivation on performance does increase, when extrinsic rewards are introduced in between.

The fourth finding concludes, that extrinsic rewards have higher impact on quantitative task. Intrinsic motivation on the other hand has higher impact on qualitative tasks.

Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can impact overall motivation and therefore increase performance. But introducing extrinsic rewards should be adapted to many aspects, such as:

* The setup of a group/team in a work environment: What are other motivational structures

* The specificity of the task: quantitative/repetetive Vs. qualitative

* Time & place of the extrinsic motivation: conditioned Vs. unconditioned display of extrinsic rewards

* Other external circumstances

As it is crucial to combine intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the question is how to introduce extrinsic motivational structures. The following points should provide a first brief concept on how to get things rolling:

* Evaluate tasks in place: e.g. per department

* Identify internal motivators of team members: dependent on tasks – by discussing it with the team

* Identify potential moments: when? how often? in which intervalls? under which conditions and characteristics (which rewards?) of extrinsic rewarding

* Identify potential platforms for displaying extrinsic rewards: Individual or Group? By supervisor, colleagues or the group?

* Align extrinsic rewards and motivators with intrinsic motivation already in place: in order to fully develop a combined effect

People often talk about satisfaction at work or about being engaged in work. People often understand satisfaction as coming from cirumstances, like the sallary, the social bond with coworkers or the possibilities of development.

Engagement seems to be connected to satisfaction, maybe influenced by satisfaction. Engagement is often understood as the willingness to go the extra-mile.

Employees judge themselves retrospectively. Employers judge their employees based on evaluations of satisfaction and engagement. Employees might think, that lower satisfaction and engagement are suggesting to change the company, ask for changes etc.. Employers might see indicators of lower loyality, lower willingness to be part of success of the company etc.

Often wrong

Satisfaction and engagement seem to be central indicators of the employee-work relations, but at the same time, they are not defined precise enough in a common sense. They are not defined precise enough in order to develop mechanisms, which will increase both, satsisfaction and engagement. Such mechanisms are often assumed to be sallary increases. Both employees and employers assume, that increasing sallaries will improve satisfaction and engagement. What if satisfaction and engagement are not understood properly and are ill-defined, therefore the motivational constructs, which should increase them, lead to positive effects only in short-term or to negative effects in long-term?

So what is engagement? There are different approaches to the concept.

The first approach defines engagement as identification with work. It depends on individual attributes, work circumstances and social context factors. Factors such as age, need for development, autonomy at work and in decision making, difficulty in task performing, group work or independent work may have an impact on engagement.

The second approach defines engagement as some kind of involvement. This involvement energizes the person and leads to action taking, which on the other hand leads to personal and professional fulfillment. Such energization on the other hand has it’s risks. When becoming extreme, it might lead to professional burnouts.

The third approach defines engagement as a positive cognitive perception of work and a positive cognitive leaning towards work. This in long-term leads to a general fulfillment.

Engagement understood within the three concepts above involves sub-concepts, such as vigor (which equals high energy and willingness to work), dedication (which equals 100% sensefullnes based on work) and absorption (which is kind of forgetting the world around, while at work).

Engagement in the longrun leads to taking over greater responsibility in shaping the organization. Engaged employees do their job conscientiously and voluntarily provide more input and energy to the outcomes of a company. At the same time, engaged employees have a positive effect on co-workers, increasing their engagement.

In general satisfaction is understood as a set of attitudes and feelings, both negative and positive for a given work (easier defined: the degree to which an employee likes or dislikes his or her job). Formerly, satisfaction was understood as a measure of satisfied physical and psychological needs.

More recently, satisisfaction is understood as the outcome of superior cognitive processes. Work and work experience in the eyes of a satisfied employee, is perceived as emotional, positive and pleasant.

Similar, to engagement, which is consists of sub-elements, satisfaction can be understood as a global concept as well as a detailed concept consisting of sub-concepts.

From another point of view, the detailled approach defines satisfaction as the thoughts, feelings and behaviors, that employees have about certain sub-aspects of their work.

Work satisfaction consists of three components: the affective component, the cognitive component and the behavioral component. The affective component presents feelings, emotions and attitudes towards work. The cognitive component describes the rational beliefs about the work situation (Work can be interesting, motivating, attracting, but also hard and difficult). The behavioral component descibes tendencies to display certain behaviors at work: Such as being accurate to timings, promoting good opinions about the employer, staying after hours.

Engagement at work might be considered as a motivational construct concerning work itself. Satisfaction on the other hand might be seen as a positive reactive state, after engagement has been increased.

So the assumptions are not directly confirming or might even contradict the general assumption, that satisfaction increases engagement. This leads to the suggestion, that methods should not aim at increasing satisfaction, but at increasing engagement directly. One could understand this better this way:

Engagement leads to enthusiasm, energization and mobilization.

Satisfaction leads to higher satisfaction and comfort, which might in a worse case scenario lead to less energization and mobilization.

Employees are more willing to devote more time to their work and their company, when they become more engaged. Employees then are perceiving their ability to fulfill essential needs at work and private life as very high. As an employer: if you perceive your ability to work properly for you as well as for your employee as high, you will engage more and more. Increasing engagement therefore is the way to increase and maintain satisfaction.

Newer studies underline the importance of both concepts in impacting each other.

On this basis, it can be concluded, that employers should take care of both aspects among their employees. Both satisfaction and engagement should be cared of, as they are mutually affecting each other and bringing future benefits to the functioning of companies.

Salary as the main method for increasing satisfaction and engagement is not effective, as assumed. Many studies indicate, that salary does not change the long term effects on both scales. Even employees, who were unsatisfied with benefits and salary, were not less satisfied, than co-workers. Other aspects, such as growth-potential, involvement and engagement in company decision making, supervision and mentor-programms and transparency were more directly connected to overall satisfaction.

From a employer-perspective, there are certain mechanisms, which could increase both engagement and satisfaction. Salary and benefit is one component, but should be used strategically.

Create transparent policies and processes: Every employee engaged, should have insights on why and how things are working and progressing, especially if it connects directly with their work

Create an environment of support: Every employee needs the feeling of being supported, if necessary, while not developing the feeling of control. The rule should be: As much support as necessary, as little control as possible.

Create a view, which allows development and goal pursuing: Employees should have the possibility to aim at certain target states at work.

Create a system, where the employee decides: Let the employee decide, if somehow possible. Involvement in decision making increases capabilties, work ressources and increases the speed of the learning curve. A good rule might be: An effective leader is the one, which makes the followers think “they achieved something by themselves, only”.

Create a salary and benefits programm, that is not predictable but transparent: Provide increases and benefits, not on a regular basis, but on a irregular, but understandable way as a gratification for past achievement and a incentive for future great behaviors.

Create jobs within your company with end-2-end responsibility: The tasks an employee is conducting, should include the planning and decision making as well as the finishing till the end-product.

Create jobs within your compamy with verticle and horizontal challenges: vertical challenges are tasks from higher hierarchy-levels. horizontal challenges include tasks on new topics.

From a perspective as an employee, the major suggestion would be to concentrate on building own engagement. Set own goals, try to fulfill tasks as good as possible. Try to deliver results. Do not look at satisfaction in short-term. To be satisfied is – in my opinion – a long-term concept and not the main product, but a by-product of proper work itself.

Try to take over responsibility and be autonomous: Try to find tasks which imply high responsibility and solve them by yourself.

Try to always set a higher goal or undertake a more difficult journey / task: Do not rest based on satisfying results. Aim higher, try to get a little bit more out of the next adventure.

Try to not delegate decision making to others: Do not seek for the decisions of others, e.g. a husband, a wife or a supervisor. At least try to evaluate possible decisions by yourself and then seek advice.

Try to undertake difficult tasks: task should be as difficult as possible, while the solution should be as easy as necessary in order to be able to achieve it.

Try to grow in teamwork: Look out for tasks, where shared ressources and common goals might lead to higher positive outcomes for you and the group.

It sounds logical, that we automatically assume to be responsible for our positive experiences. On the other hand it turns out, that we don’t want to feel and be responsible for the negative experiences. This becomes even more obvious, if we think about both a lottery winner and a little child breaking one of the windows at home.

The lottery winner will very likely tell a story, how he has choosen the numbers wisely with premeditation. A child, who has broken a window while playing soccer at home, will very likely try to tell the parents, that it was the brother or sister or even the dog. So even in situations, which should be obviously rated the exact other way, people tend to attribute positive outcomes to themselves and negative outcomes to the environment and circumstances. Responsibility is only taken over, if it makes sense for us.

The attribution of outcomes to oneself helps in capitalizing on positive events and attribution to the environment helps to cope with difficult situations.

In my estimate, the main question to be answered is the following: Is it helpful to attribute responsibility for good and bad experiences to oneself?

There is a concept called locus of control (LOC). LOC describes how sure people feel to be in control over the results.

Am I responsible for my grades at school by learning day in day out.  Am I responsible for the degree of bonus achievement at work by going the extra mile. Both are called internal locus of control. It is important to note, that if i fail, it was my lack of effort, which led to failure.

On the other hand: is my teacher or my boss in control? Do they set goals, which are unachievable under given circumstances, no matter how hard one might work? This is called external locus of control. It is important to note, that if i succeed, it was the easy exam and not my effort, which led to success.

The case for responsibility is as simple as it is described above. But why is this concept so important?

3.1.1. Internal LOC and job performance

In a meta analysis the authors have found, that out of the 4 major concepts of self evaluation, locus of control has the second largest positive impact on job performance. Not only does it impact actual performance in task solving, but self and others ratings of performance, too. It does even  correlate with the salary earned, as pointed out in a study in 2006. On the other hand, external locus of control is correlated with lower achievement.

3.1.2. Internal LOC and job satisfaction & commitment

In a meta analysis the authors have found, that out of the 4 major concepts of self evaluation, locus of control has the second largest positive impact on job satisfaction, too. Job satisfaction has such sub dimensions as satisfaction with pay, supervisors and coworkers.

What does it mean? If you assume, that you are the one who controls your results, you will tend to think, that you are paid adequately and that your boss is Ok, too. Furthermore, internal LOC has impact on job commitment, too. Commitment has such sub dimensions as the willingness to leave the company or the willingness to work an amount of hours. In another meta analysis researchers found, that internal locus of control impacts even life satisfaction, which is different compared to job satisfaction. Taking over responsibility increases the relationship between work and worker.

3.2.1. Internal LOC and well-being

Researchers found, that internal locus of control has impact on general well-being, self reported health and objective health measures. The second and third dimension is interesting in so far, in which it confirms the overall public belief, that mental health impacts physical health. On the other hand external locus of control is related to ineffective stress management and depression.

3.2.2. Internal LOC and psychological measures

Researchers found, that internal locus of control has positive impact on the intrinsic task motivation and instrumentality, self development and self efficacy. Task motivation is your willingness to work on job related tasks, while instrumentality means, that you belief in being rewarded for your own efforts. On the other hand, external locus of control is related to decreased self-control. Responsibility helps in increasing psychological measures, which benefit a person in the long-run.

4.1.1. Future Expectations

One of the things that distinguishes the human kind from other animals is, that humans are able to forsee future events and adjust their actions to their expectations.

Now, future events might be or might not be seen positively or negatively. If i think, that people are nice to me, i will get up in the morning and try to meet as many as possible on my way to work. If i think, that people aren’t nice to me, i will probably avoid being around them. So expectations concerning the future underly subjective evaluation.

If the evaluations are subjective, then actions should not be seen as predefined and static. With changing expectations, a person will be able to impact behaviors and take over responsibility, if possible and sensful.

4.1.2. High motivation for achievements

If you start realizing any plans, you will get better over time while trying. Getting better while trying is a kind of feedback.

So, imagine trying to solve rubiks cube. Over time you will get one side solved. Later you will get another side solved. At some point you will solve the whole rubiks cube for the first time. Then you will try to get a better time in solving it.

Each single improvement is equal to a feedback-loop saying, that your work is paying off. You’re getting better and the results confirm it. Your motivation to continue will probably increase. So you will be more and more convinced, that you might really beat any time at some point.

4.1.3. Drive for control and order

This might be understood from 2 perspectives.

The first one indicates, that if you have the feeling of being in control of the immediate environment and the experiences, then you tend to feel more secure. People feel more secure driving their own car compared to flying by plane, which they don’t have control over. This is interesting in so far, that flying by plane is much more secure compared to driving by car.

The second perspective indicates, that being confronted with chaos, you will try to get things into order. Children are a good example. After building up lego castles, they’ll destroy it in order to be able to start building from the beginning. This behavior will help you to understand, evaluate new strategies, navigate through and ultimately solve issues, which seemed unsolveable at the beginning.

4.1.4. Summary of assumptions

* People adjust own behavior to subjective future expectations, so behavior is not predefined

* Motivation to achievement in itself is motivating, because it will have a feedback-loop implemented naturally in its process

* People tend to get things in order to gain control over the immediate environment, which creates a feeling of security, helps in looking clearer and helps to perform better.

What we can do in work environment? First of all you need to have an environment, where your employees or co-workers will be able to experience consequences of their own actions. Of course, it includes the possibility of experiencing consequences of bad behavior (=failure).

Then people will need to have the possibility to change behavior, develop new strategies and experience a change in consequences. The tricky part is to provide the possibility to experience the connection between action and consequences. As an example you might see tasks, which will be conducted end-to-end by the person.

There should be no interference by another person with the only goal to make challenges easier at the beginning, change outcomes at the end or make the person feel better during the process.  The tasks should not be cut off at the beginning or at the end. So a supervisor should not try to get order into chaos on behalf of the employee, nor should a supervisor try to be the one, who earns all the rewards at the end.

Such an environment will help in building up positive future expectations grounded in a belief of being in c0ntrol of future results, which will ultimately lead to the employee getting better.

In order to strengthen the experience, it is obviously helpful to provide constructive feedback. Constructive feedback means, that it should be provided immediately. It should emphasize on the behaviors, which the person has impact on.

In privat environment the situation is comparable to the situation in work environment. An important difference to work environment is, that a person might not need to get better in solving repetetive tasks. But still taking over resposibility in both cases, success and failure, will lead to better outcomes in the long-run.