Energy at work: A measurement validation and linkage to unit effectiveness

Abstract

Summary We introduce the notion that the energy of individuals can manifest as a higher‐level, collective construct. To this end, we conducted four independent studies to investigate the viability and importance of the collective energy construct as assessed by a new survey instrument—the productive energy measure (PEM). Study 1 (n = 2208) included exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to explore the underlying factor structure of PEM. Study 2 (n = 660) cross‐validated the same factor structure in an independent sample. In study 3, we administered the PEM to more than 5000 employees from 145 departments located in five countries. Results from measurement invariance, statistical aggregation, convergent, and discriminant‐validity assessments offered additional support for the construct validity of PEM. In terms of predictive and incremental validity, the PEM was positively associated with three collective attitudes—units' commitment to goals, the organization, and overall satisfaction. In study 4, we explored the relationship between the productive energy of firms and their overall performance. Using data from 92 firms (n = 5939employees), we found a positive relationship between the PEM (aggregated to the firm level) and the performance of those firms. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Validating a Measure of Productive Organisational Energy in the South African Context

“…Scholars in the field of organizational energy are of the opinion that the lack of a valid and reliable measurement instrument hampers the development of the field (Cole, et al, 2012). The aim of this research is to validate the Productive Energy Measure (Cole, Bruch & Vogel, 2005;2012) in the South African context, and to determine whether construct equivalence was present for White and African ethnic groups.…”

“…The realization that the thoughts and emotions of employees play an important role in shaping the actions of employees in the workplace (Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003;Cameron & Spreitzer, 2011, Cole, Bruch & Vogel, 2012Luthans & Avolio, 2009) has resulted in increased scrutiny of the effects that positive psychological states can have in the workplace (Luthans & Avolio, 2009) and the impact that these states can have on encouraging employee activities and behaviors that are needed to implement the organization's strategy effectively (Lawler, 2005).…”

The effect of social network, funding and productive organizational energy on the capability of organizational ambidexterity in research institution

“…The system of collective thinking is fundamentally leads to two things: the first focuses on the problems faced now and how to utilize available resources to solve them. The second is pro-active thinking to come up with new ideas that can be the basis for the creation of new knowledge, if it finds that available resources are no longer sufficient to solve the problem (Schudy, 2010;Cole et al, 2012).…”

“…Routines and norms that arise from everyday behavior of individuals, called personality, will transform into the collective level, referred to as the collective personality (Hofmann and Jones, 2005). Collective behavior is represented by the construct of productive organizational energy that includes three dimensions, named affective, cognitive and behavioral dimensions (Cole et al, 2012).…”

“…Cognitive dimension refers to the collective ability to think and act in productive and proactive job-related tasks. Behavioral dimension reflects the collective behavior of agentic behavior to take advantage of opportunities, take risks and persistence in pursuit of goals and a willingness to change in order to adjust to the situation that is more in line with the interests, aspirations and expectations (Cole et al, 2012;Schudy, 2010).…”