Energy Investment
Beyond Competence
by Donald T. Tosti, CPT, and John Amarant, CPT
eople vary considerably in their work
performance as well as their overall
approach to work. At one extreme are
P the outstanding performers, who
approach work with enthusiasm and
energy—the people you can count on to
get just about any job done well. At the
other extreme are those who seem to do
only what’s necessary to get by.
Organizations often invest a good deal of
energy in trying to improve the
performance of people in the latter category—to develop them into outstanding
performers, or at least solid, reliable ones.
Typical approaches to fostering the
accomplishment of these ends include
training,
competency
development,
performance appraisal, coaching, performance management systems, and incentives. All these efforts assume that the
key to the performance problems lies
within the individual. This approach
begins with the premise that there is
something “lacking” in the employee—
for example, not enough skill, knowledge, motivation, or understanding of job
requirements. However, one of the
lessons learned through 40 years of performance improvement is that the most
powerful influences on individual performance are often found in the physical
and social work environment.
Competency: The individual’s skills and
knowledge—the performance repertoire.
 Capability: The physical and mental
capacity of the individual.
 Motivation: Here Gilbert differentiated
motivation characteristic of an individual from incentives, which were a
characteristic of the environment.
Gilbert recognized that an individual’s
motivation to perform is affected by the
immediate consequences surrounding
performance. But his discussion of motivation implies that there is more to it
than that. He also recognized that individual motivation is partly a function of a
person’s long-term history.
In large part, performance technologists
focus their improvement efforts at the
individual level on skill/knowledge
development to increase competency.
Capability is assumed to be an inherent
characteristic of the individual—and is
addressed primarily through assessment
techniques, if at all. Motivation is
addressed almost exclusively through
recognition and incentives. An individual’s long-term motivational history is
often assumed to be a “given”—developed over time and perhaps partly a
function of preferences inherent to the
individual, much like physical capacity.
When Tom Gilbert (1996) introduced his
pioneering model of performance, he
identified three classes of variables associated with the individual performer:
Performance Improvement • Volume 44 • Number 1
1
Energy Investment: A Performance View of
Motivation
In the 1980s, Claude Lineberry developed a model that we
have found useful for addressing motivational factors that
arise from organizational conditions and climate. He proposed this Energy Investment Model as a framework for
actively exploring motivation characteristics of an individual
as opposed to that which results from incentives. As
depicted in Figure 1, this model identifies two dimensions of
an individual’s motivation to perform a particular set of
activities or tasks: attitude regarding the activity and willingness to expend energy on the activity.
In an organizational setting, these dimensions depend strongly
on an individual’s previous experience in the performance
environment. For example, a person’s current approach to the
job is affected by his or her past experience with work—how the
person has been treated on the job by management, coworkers,
and company policies. These two dimensions create a matrix for
identifying potential motivational “communities” within an
organization, as illustrated below:
Positive +
+Positive Attitude
Low Energy
SPECTATORS
++
Positive Attitude
High Energy
PLAYERS
-Negative Attitude
Low Energy
WALKING DEAD
-+
Negative Attitude
High Energy
CYNICS
Negative Low -
Energy
High +
Figure 1. Energy Investment Model.
The motivational “communities” identified by the model are
as follows:
 Walking dead (low energy, negative attitude): People in
this group often act as if they are powerless to influence
events and may conduct themselves as “victims.” They
appear minimally engaged with their work or the organization; they are just “doing their jobs” and little more.
They may have a past history of being punished for mistakes, ridiculed for suggestions, or micromanaged. When
change is introduced to the organization, they are likely
to do as little as possible, hoping it will go away, and may
even try to quietly undermine it.
 Spectators (low energy, positive attitude): People in this
group are likely to speak positively of their jobs and the
organization—but seldom make an extra effort or take
action that involves doing something new or different
unless they are sure it is “safe.” They have a past history
that has made them risk averse—sometimes not so much
from direct experience but from seeing (or hearing
about) others who have been punished for making mistakes
or taking risks. When change is introduced to the
organization, they are likely to verbally endorse it but
wait to see what happens before taking supportive
action themselves.
 Cynics (high energy, negative attitude): People in this
group often spend a good deal of time complaining about
their jobs, management, policies, or other aspects of the
organization. Their boss or fellow employees may identify
them as having a bad attitude. They may be highly
competent performers but often feel frustrated
12
www.ispi.org • JANUARY 2005
and expend a good deal of their energy in complaints or
dire predictions of failure. In its most extreme form, this
can lead to publicly bad-mouthing the company or even
working against its best interests. When change is introduced to the organization, people in this group are
likely to invest as much energy in describing why the
change won’t work or predicting failure as in taking
action to make it work.
 Players (high energy, positive attitude): People in
this group generally demonstrate a positive attitude
toward their jobs and the organization and actively invest
considerable energy—not just in doing things well, but
in making things better. These are the people who believe
they can make a difference in the organization—and
who often do. They may be quite realistic about organizational problems, but they also have a positive view of
the organization’s ability to improve. When change is
introduced, they are the most likely group to support it
both verbally and through action.
The model that we present in this article is the same as that
originally proposed by Lineberry during a client
presentation in 1987 with the exception of the
high-energy, negative-attitude community. We have
labeled that community “cynics”. Lineberry states—
I have always talked about a continuum of placement within each community—ranging, for example, from cynics to saboteurs in the well poisoner
community. Individual residence within the community is a factor of placement of the individual on
the two axes—attitude and energy—and a wide range
of placement is possible within all communities....
Implications of the Energy Investment Model
We should be clear that we do not view using the model to
label people or to create a personality profiling system as an
appropriate or useful application. In fact, we all may find
ourselves—at least occasionally—in any one of the groups.
For example, a colleague of one of the authors once worked
for a new manager who was disrespectful and unethical.
Under these conditions, the colleague shifted from being a
fairly consistent “player” and became cynical in much of
his subsequent efforts. He finally left the organization, took
a new job, and soon returned to being a player. Clearly it
was an environmental condition, that is, the behavior of his
boss, that impacted his motivation.
Even the strongest players in an organization may occasionally find themselves feeling cynical, taking on a spectator
role, or even briefly acting as though they are among the
walking dead. The key issue for an individual is where he
or she spends most of the time. The key issue for the organization concerns what leaders and managers are doing to
ensure that people are encouraged and enabled to invest
most of their time as players—and what they are doing to
avoid things that create non-players.
No organization actively recruits or hires spectators, cynics,
or the walking dead; they are all looking for players. And
almost everyone takes a job intending to be a player—most
start out feeling good about the organization and intending
to succeed. Despite this, a surprising number of organizations find themselves populated by a high percentage of
employees who are functioning much of the time as spectators, cynics, or walking dead.
SPECTATORS
38%
PLAYERS
14%
WALKING DEAD
9%
CYNICS
39%
Over the years we have surveyed more than 2000 managers
in a number of international organizations. We asked them
to estimate the percentage of employees in their organizations who fell into each of the categories of the energy
investment model. The results are shown in Figure 2.
It is surprising how few players seem to exist; it is also surprising how consistent these data are across organizations.
Clearly, most organizations are being managed in a way that
wastes a considerable amount of employee potential.
Eliminating this source of waste may well be more important
to the organization’s success than all the competency-building
efforts or quality initiatives it could initiate.
After collecting these data, we often asked managers, “How
did people get this way—were they like that when you hired
them?” Consistently, the answer was, “No, we didn’t hire
them that way. We—the company and its managers—somehow
got them into those boxes.”
When we asked managers for suggestions about how to get
people to move into (or how to keep them in) the player role,
they typically responded with ideas for providing greater support
and/or challenge for people. They almost never suggested a
human resources or performance technology initiative— rather,
they tend to say that managers needed to take responsibility for
leading the organization in a way that encourages people to
become players. If more managers accepted responsibility for
personally creating a positive work climate, there may well
be many more players in organizations.
When confronted with their own estimates about the energy
investment communities in their organization, managers
began to take a hard look at their leadership and management
behavior in terms of how it influences people’s approach to
their work. They were able to identify specific ways to encourage people to take action, to avoid threat or punishment for
initial errors, to provide more challenging assignments, to
provide all the information people need to take action, and to
reduce perceived or actual threat for taking initiative.
The high percentages of non-players may be interpreted as a
failure in leadership. This is something that most organizations are reluctant to admit. That may be why quality programs that focus on process and precision in product are so
popular. But quality guru J.M. Juran always maintained that
the greatest problem in quality was to be found in management, not in work processes (Juran & Godfrey, 1998).
Applying the Model
In Management Development
Figure 2. Managerial Estimates of Employees’ Energy Investments.
There are many ways to use the energy investment model as a
framework for supporting organizational improvement
efforts. One use is in management development. We have
Performance Improvement • Volume 44 • Number 1
3
asked managers to rate themselves by estimating how much of
their time they spend in each of the energy investment
communities. Participants report a better understanding of
how their actions may be perceived by others and what they
could do to improve that perception.
Finally, there will be some audience members—the walking
dead—who show little reaction to any event. Often (but not
always) they have been around for a long time, have “seen too
much,” and have little faith that they can have any influence on
the organization.
Another approach we use is to have managers’ peers or
reports provide their views as to the percentage of time
managers spend in each dimension. This feedback can be
very sobering to a manager who is seen by others as high in
either cynicism or spectator behavior. They can see how a
certain amount of “wait and see” or even a bit of cynicism may
be reasonable under some circumstances, but also how
excessive amounts of either can negatively affect their people
and the performance of their unit.
Most change communication events are designed for the
players—those who readily take action to initiate change.
They ignore the population of cynics and spectators who
often make up a substantial portion of the employee audience. Communication of change needs to consider how to
appeal to each of these “market segments” in the employee
population. Spectators need the motivation and confidence
to take action. Cynics need to be convinced that the change effort
is real and that they can genuinely influence the results.
In Communicating Change
We have just begun to examine ways to address these audiences and have found that an appeal to obligation and duty is
often more powerful than “inspiration” for cynics. They
often respond more positively to a statement like, “We have
made a promise of good service to our customers and we
have an obligation to deliver on that promise” than to an
exclusive focus on the benefits of good service. It is critical,
however, that an appeal to duty or obligation does not take on
a threatening tone, implying, “We’re going to nail you to the
wall if you don’t deliver.” The change should be viewed as a
joint effort—that is, management and employees working
together to right a wrong, correct an imbalance, rectify past
mistakes, or take advantage of an opportunity to grow and
improve. It is vital that an appeal like this be followed by
visible support and role modeling by senior managers. The
discovery that one’s managers do not feel an obligation to
support the change will very quickly become justification for
the initial cynicism.
Major change efforts are often introduced to an organization
through a communication event or series of events that typically have two purposes: One purpose is to inform—to
describe the nature of the change and how to support it; the
other is to enroll—to describe the benefits of the change and
encourage people to actively participate in making it work.
A key factor in informing people about change is learning
what information is important to them—what they need or
want to know (rather than what executives or change agents
think people need to know). A key factor in enrolling people
in supporting change is recognizing and addressing the variety
of employee “audiences” in the organization.
Efforts to communicate change often include motivational
aspects that position the change in the most positive light,
illustrating benefits with high-impact visuals, examples,
and sometimes supporting data. That strategy can be very
effective for the players of the organization, who are ready to
take action when they see a positive idea.
Spectators, however, often endorse change but take little
action to make it happen. They may be too comfortable as they
are, or they may not have the confidence to take the risks
that inevitably accompany change. Because this group usually
expresses positive support for the change, they help create the
impression that the communication event has been quite
successful—until people notice that little is being done
differently.
Cynics are likely to approach the change with skepticism. Their
attitude may shift during the communication program, but
unless visible change occurs quickly, this group often reverts
to cynicism with a “see, I told you so” reaction. The cynical
attitude may stem from seeing a history of failed change efforts
or from a belief that their attempts to change will not be
supported—particularly by management. It is difficult to
dispel such an attitude with a typical communication event.
4
www.ispi.org • JANUARY 2005
For spectators, an appeal to the importance of their role can
be effective, for example, “We need you as an active partner
out there doing things. We can’t hope to deliver high customer value without you.” This, however, must be accompanied by messages from senior management that give
people the confidence to take risks. And, as with cynics,
there must be follow up. Management must be prepared to
accept the inevitable mistakes when people try new
things—and respond with support and advice, not punishment or criticism. If we ask people to stick their necks out in
support of change, we must make sure the first efforts are not
so painful that no one wants to take a chance again.
These messages, coupled with visible action and support
throughout the organization, can also go far toward bringing
some of the walking dead out of their shells.
Designing an event that includes messages for each of these
audiences is not simple. Perhaps the hardest part is ensuring that
management will support the initiative with visible actions.
If management fails to do so, the spectators will go back to
watching and the cynics will feel betrayed and become
even more cynical. Targeting employees in this way has high
potential for gain but entails some risk, because management
must change its behaviors, and do so visibly. A one-size-fits all event has lower risk but less opportunity for gain.
To illustrate these concepts, we offer the following example:
When a European telecommunication company asked for
help introducing a new product to its distributors, one of
the authors worked with marketing and product development specialists to craft product introduction materials that
incorporated messages for all audiences. In addition, the
organization identified a group of distributors that had a relatively low rate of adoption of new products in the past.
They determined the energy investment community that
appeared most relevant to these distributors (cynics and
spectators) and provided additional communication specifically targeted to them. Marketers and product management
personnel reported a higher-than-average positive response
to the communication and, more important, a higher-thanaverage rate of product adoption.
Managing People During Change:
The “Bounce Effect”
Organizations often experience a “bounce effect” when follow up of change is inconsistent or when managers do not
adequately support it. This is particularly common when
people in the cynic group buy into change and put substantial
effort into supporting it—until they get somehow punished
and drop right back into their cynical role.
It is important to watch for this phenomenon—a cynic who
takes action to become a player is a powerful asset as well
as a role model for others. But one who has decided that the
change is not supported and who “bounces back” into the
cynical role can become a well poisoner—a negative role
model for the change.
We recall an account executive hired by a telecommunications firm to work with major Internet clients. She was an
excellent performer, highly regarded by peers and senior
management, and began her job with enthusiasm. She began
to take on a cynical role when she found that the company’s
bureaucratic processes, combined with micromanagement,
prevented her from effectively meeting her clients’ needs.
Her performance dropped substantially and she became one
of the more creative complainers in the department.
When the company introduced a new and more flexible
approach to customer service and delivery, she pulled out of
the cynic role and became an active supporter of the change.
Unfortunately, many senior managers in her department
were unable to change their own behavior and continued to
micromanage, requiring approval for even the most trivial
issues. Within a short period of time, this executive again
bounced back into the cynic community with a vengeance.
At Last—A Useful Perspective on Motivation
The Energy Investment Model offers the means to identify
motivational conditions and determine how one can deal
with them. This latter feature has been a consistent shortcoming of other major thinkers in the field. For example,
Gilbert (1996) recognized motivation as a source of performance variance, but he didn’t propose any way to either
identify motivational problems or (more importantly)
address or prevent them. Although Maslow’s (1943) work
goes further than Gilbert’s by explaining motivation in
terms of a hierarchy of human needs, it does little to suggest
means for changing performers’ energy investments. Most
other motivational models provide a classification of motivational factors but similarly provide little or no insight on
what to do about them.
This energy investment model offers both the means of
identifying motivational problems and the insight into the
origins and methods for dealing with such problems. Its
power lies in not relying on an analysis of “internal” states
or need conditions of the performer. Instead, it focuses on
observable performance and emphasizes the previous experience of the individual in the work environment as the
major source of problems. Lineberry’s contribution to the
field of “motivational engineering” is unique in this regard.
Summary
The Energy Investment Model can serve as a useful component of a wide variety of change efforts:
 Managers have found it a useful template for thinking
about how their behavior can affect the motivation of
their team, their department, or the organization as a
whole. As a component of a formal management development effort, it has been helpful in setting priorities for
changing behavior.
 It has also been useful to managers thinking about the
development of their people—to think about what
energy investment “community” their people operate
within as well as what skills and capabilities they might
need. How can these people best be redirected or moved
from the walking dead, spectator, or cynic groups into
the player community?
 For organizations, it can provide one means of useful
insight into how current management practices may positively or negatively affect the motivation of the workforce.
 It can provide a framework for adapting communication
about proposed change—so that the communication
more fully reaches the
entire
range
of
audiences that will experience the change.
Note: The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge Claude Lineberry for
his early creative work in his formulation of the energy investment model.
Performance Improvement • Volume 44 • Number 1
5
References
Gilbert, T. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy
performance. Silver Spring, MD: ISPI/HRD Press.
Juran, J.M. (2004). Architect of quality. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J.M., & Godfrey, A.B. (1998). Juran’s quality handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Maslow, A.H., (1943). A theory of human motivation.
Psychological Review, 50, 3 70-396.
Donald T. Tosti, PhD, CPT, is a consistent contributor to Performance
Improvement. He is the managing partner of Vanguard Consulting, which specializes in the alignment of organizational processes and people with the
stated strategy of the organization. Don is an expert in organizational systems.
His pioneering work on contingency management began in the 1960s.As the
6
www.ispi.org • JANUARY 2005
principle investigator for the multimedia leadership/management course conducted at the US Naval Academy, he adapted the methods of performance
analysis to the study of leadership and management behavior. His subsequent
work on modifying behavioral norms and leadership has demonstrated the
power of human performance technology in organizations such as British
Airways and General Motors. He may be reached at Change111@aol.com.
John R. Amarant, MPA, JD, CPT, is an independent consultant working in
San Francisco in the field of change management. He has worked to align
organizations to better implement their strategies. This has included new
brand launches, business process streamlining, the introduction of new technologies, culture change, and mergers/acquisitions. John’s work has taken
him throughout the United States, Europe, and the Middle East, where he has
worked with a range of industries: transportation, information technology, publishing, financial services, and telecommunications. He may be reached at
jamarant@aol.com.