Absolutely agree with the proactive.

The question is what do you do while the collective is catching up?

The old green slogan “act locally think globally” comes to mind

I think “strengths” is actually a red herring here. When I look at Dr. Prilleltensky’s stuff, the distinction he makes is reactive versus proactive, rather than weakness versus strength. So here’s the figure corrected — and with some of his examples.

He argues that most of our investment is in Quadrant III, where the investment would achieve much more in Quadrant I.

He also argues that well-being is about personal well-being, relational well-being, and collective well-being, all of which are interrelated. So working on the personal well-being of the individual is only part of the story.

Kathryn

Check out wikipedia for a definition of mediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation_(Statistics)

Life satisfaction is about the person - not the circumstance - a bottom up approach.

The question is how do you boost personal wellbeing. Personally I think positive psychology is a little obsessed with strengths - I think the research on strengths suggests ist about getting of your but and doing things (eg hope is about self efficacy). Which is the same conclusion being drawn in CBT - its the B in CBT that’s all important.

Interesting post.

However, I think it is a lo-o-o-ng leap from personal well-being being a mediator of job satisfaction and performance to a conclusion that investing in job satisfaction is a waste of money, as the article states.

Based on his work with disadvantaged communities, Isaac Prilleltensky has concluded that we spend too much of our ameliorative resources on trying to fix the deficits of individuals. We can get a lot further by accentuating the strengths of communities. Perhaps that is true in the workplace as well.

Kathryn

http://www.innate-intelligence.com.au/blog/?p=77

I like ‘play nicely’:) Cyborgs can’t give warm hugs on bad days coz they don’t feel you need one and if they were all cyborgs, the problem goes away but we have the depressed unemployed to worry about.

Let’s put our heads together and join hands in (Kathryn’s words) finding means for people to ‘imagine how to turn a negative situation around’ and help ‘them picture and then pursue an alternative’.

Perhaps the typo slip in the title of Dutton’s book is a sign of things to come - we ‘crate & sustain HQCs’ for the various levels of the organizational totem pole. Time to end the suffering at workplaces and humanize that major domain that takes up the best years of most of our lives.

Love & peace to all,
Sulynn

What an eloquent description. It made me laugh to think of the cleaning lady who wants people to keep things clean. It’s the way I feel in my own home sometimes.

I see Jane Dutton’s Energize your Workplace is in your reading list. I love the way she faces right up to “corrosive connections” and why they should not be just endured because they damage both individuals AND organizations. “Low-quality connections eat away at employee’s capability, knowledge, motivation, commitment, and emotional reserves. Moreover, corrosive connections can spark revenge, cheating, and other destructive behaviors.” (p. 10). For those who haven’t seen her book, she has a whole chapter with strategies for dealing with corrosive connections, including an awareness that “… it is often the person with less power who must notice the corrosiveness of the relationship and take action to deal with it.” p. 111. That’s hard.

I have seen people in power cast huge negative shadows and not appear to have any idea they are doing it. I’ve helped pick up the pieces of broken confidence they left behind in other people.

I like your conclusion about being agents for change. I think sometimes people can’t imagine how to turn a negative situation around — until they see someone else do it. That helps them picture and then pursue an alternative.

Thanks for the discussion, Sulynn.

Kathryn

I must have worked at those organizations! I can recognize every single symptom of helplessness. I used to work at an org that had the spoken philosophy: you are a cog in the machine and your thoughts/morale/actions really are irrelevant UNLESS they are something that management can punish.

My last day there I breathed a sigh of relief. There were people who were technically very saavy but unable to relate well with others. There were hybrids that were skilled at teamwork and technical. Finally, there were people who didn’t have a clue about the machines we worked on but could make the hurt go away. I find myself missing the people-friendly but not the technicians.

I’d like to say that there is a golden path to better optimism, but I must say, I don’t fully know what it is. Many jobs could be virtual paradises if people could work together—play nicely—and do their jobs. Maybe cyborgs could get the job done better, faster, & cheaper…they could be virtual optimists.