Research finds that people and Teams are more likely to flourish when there is a greater level of positive emotions than negative emotions floating around.
When people flourish they are more likely to do their best work, they feel more positive, engaged and have a greater sense of meaning and achievement in their work. Therefore it follows that a team of flourishing people, as a whole, are more likely to accomplish greater team outcomes.
The opposite to such is when teams are in throws of change, when high performance goals that are not supported by consistent and productive leadership, when people lack support, direction and a sense of meaning.
This kind of environment increases stress and negativity, along with fixed and problem focused mindsets and a correlation with reduced creativity and declining team engagement, often at times when these are most needed. Such environments increase the risk of high staff turnover and it can feel like the team is on a downward spiral along with performance.
That said, on average humans beings have a trend towards positivity. We have a need for it from our environment in order to help us perform at our best, grow, thrive. And scientists know exactly how much positive emotions, compared to negative emotions, we need from our environment to support flourishing.
The research, undertaken by Barbara Fredrickson and Marcial Losada found the sweet spot ‘positivity ratio’ between positive emotions (feeling grateful, upbeat; expressing appreciation, liking) and negative emotions (feeling contemptuous, irritable; expressing disdain, disliking). The positivity ratio is the ratio of pleasant feelings and sentiments to unpleasant ones over time.
Fredrickson and Losada found this positivity ratio in studies relating to psychological health, marriages and work teams.
From this and other research, a precise mathematical model predicts that humans flourish at a positivity ratio of 2.9 (round up is "3") - that for every one negative affect, there are at least three positive affects.
‘Benefits of Positive Affect: Empirical Evidence
A wide spectrum of empirical evidence documents the adaptive value of positive affect (for a review, see Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, in press). Beyond their pleasant subjective feel, positive emotions, positive moods, and positive sentiments carry multiple, interrelated benefits:
First, these good feelings alter people’s mindsets: Experiments have shown that induced positive affect widens the scope of attention (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Rowe, Hirsch, & Anderson, 2005), broadens behavioral repertoires (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005), and increases intuition (Bolte, Goschkey, & Kuhl, 2003) and creativity (Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987).
Second, good feelings alter people’s bodily systems: Experiments have shown that induced positive affect speeds recovery from the cardio-vascular aftereffects of negative affect (Fredrickson, Mancuso, Branigan, & Tugade, 2000), alters frontal brain asymmetry (Davidson et al., 2003), and increases immune function (Davidson et al., 2003).
Third, good feelings predict salubrious mental and physical health outcomes: Prospective studies have shown that frequent positive affect predicts (a) resilience to adversity (Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003), (b) increased happiness (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002), (c) psychological growth (Fredrickson et al., 2003), (d) lower levels of cortisol (Steptoe, Wardle, & Marmot, 2005), (e) reduced inflammatory responses to stress (Steptoe et al., 2005), (f) reductions in subsequent-day physical pain (Gil et al., 2004), (g) resistance to rhinoviruses (Cohen, Doyle, Turner, Alper, & Skoner, 2003), and (h) reductions in stroke (Ostir, Markides, Peek, & Goodwin, 2001).
Fourth, perhaps reflecting these effects in combination, good feelings predict how long people live: Several well-controlled longitudinal studies document a clear link between frequent positive affect and longevity (Danner, Snowdon, & Friesen, 2001; Levy, Slade, Kunkel, & Kasl, 2002; Moskowitz, 2003; Ostir, Markides, Black, & Goodwin, 2000)’
About flourish teams
The positivity ratio for teams was also found to be between 3:1 and 11:1. Which again means there needs to be a minimum of 3 positive emotions to 1 negative emotion for groups of people to flourish. And there needs to be a maximum amount of 11 positive emotions to 1 negative emotions, after which there is diminishing returns.
The figures were gleamed after studying 60 teams. Behind two-way mirrors, the researchers coded all utterances as positive if speakers showed support, encouragement or appreciation and as negative if speakers showed disapproval, sarcasm or cynicism. Later, it was identified that 15 of the teams were high-performing teams on measures of profitability, customer satisfaction and performance evaluations. Twenty six of the teams were identified as moderate performance teams and 19 were assessed as low performing.
They also found that Marriages need a higher ratio to prosper and survive: around 5:1, the rationale for which is due the closeness of marriage and the importance of the opinions of our life partner.
So what does this mean for leaders?
We do our best work and the team is most successful when we can meet our instinctive needs of being in an environment of optimism and positivity over pessimism and negativity.
Interestingly the researchers found that while there appears to be a need for higher levels of positivity appropriate levels of negativity is still required.
So, on the positive side, leaders should monitor the incidence of people expressing feelings of appreciation, encouragement, liking and being upbeat.
And, on the negative side, leaders should also ensure constructive feedback connected to specific circumstances or goals. So even negative expressed emotion should be meaningful and purposeful.
Source: Barbara Fredrickson and Marcial Losada, "Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human Flourishing" in American Psychologist, October 2005 pp 678 - 686
Author
Jan Carpenter
コメント