There is a difference between a sapling and a full-grown plant, and it’s understood that even a colossal tree begins as a tiny shoot. Humans, too, start small in a physical sense. However, many of us recognize the life trajectory where we learn things over the months and years, often yielding a more developed persona later in life. Our invisible personality changes over time, sometimes for better and sometimes not.
As plants and trees develop, they can contribute nutrients to their ecosystem (e.g., phosphorus to the soil (for plants), leaf matter to herbivores, and oxygen to the air). Similarly, as individuals grow and age, they have the capacity to contribute resources to their communities. When we change for the better, we tend to bestow assets to the system within which we reside (a term for this is “generativity''), but when the opposite comes to pass, we may instead withdraw and become a burden to the system.
One theory involving generativity is credited to Erik Erikson, which entails phases individuals navigate as they age and mature. In his framework, the generativity definition is “primarily the concern in establishing and guiding the next generation, although there are individuals who, through misfortune or because of special or genuine gifts in other directions, do not apply this drive to their offspring (p. 267).” A more general generativity psychology definition is “the propensity and willingness to engage in acts that promote the wellbeing of younger generations as a way of ensuring the long-term survival of the species.”
According to Erik Erikson, generativity vs. Stagnation is the seventh stage of psychosocial development. It happens around the ages of 40-65 after the other six theoretical life stages. The stage of generativity vs. stagnation targets society in general as opposed to targets that tend to be more self-interested.
Someone who has reached the Generativity (versus Stagnation) stage is grappling with whether to use personal resources to benefit others (whether or not the benefactor is related by any or none of genes, family ties, or personal relationships to the beneficiaries). Generativity examples can include caring for and showing your kids about life and guiding them through situations, as well as people who volunteer in community work, environmental activism, or sports involvement. Examples of stagnation include maintaining great distance from others and refusing to lend aid to neighbors. In such cases, one can even become a detriment to society by using resources generated by others without some sort of requisite contribution to balance it out.
Since Erikson’s stage of Generativity vs Stagnation is theorized to occur between the ages of 40 and 65, those who successfully embody generativity tend to be the people who have fruitfully completed the earlier stages of psycho-social development (though it is not impossible, according to Erikson’s theory, to embody generativity even if one has passed through a prior stage unsuccessfully). An individual behaving in a way that produces generativity encourages the next generations to expand their knowledge and personas continually. Also typical for generative individuals is that they elicit passion within others for various domains, including work, life, and the process of making new things.
For a more comprehensive background in generativity, as it relates specifically to the work context, the following three paragraphs provide a smattering of generativity findings from various sources. First, in contrast to Erikson’s ideas, which distinguish age forty as the beginning of the seventh stage of development, Peterson and Stewart witnessed the generativity versus stagnation struggle emerge earlier (i.e., in young adults). Second, the notion that personal productivity is an antecedent for generativity has been supported. These, taken together, are good news for managers who encourage subordinates of a wide range of ages to perform well in their occupations.
Third, two aspects (specifically “summed power” and “intimacy motivation”) of the Thematic Apperception Test (or TAT; a projective test of personality and mental patterns) demonstrated predictive power for ensuing generative intentions. Similar to using SAT scores to predict subsequent student performance in undergraduate studies, this knowledge could potentially be valuable if managers (who have the resources to deploy the TAT to subordinates or have access to subordinates’ past TAT scores) are trying to determine who will later engage in generativity. Those scoring low could be included in generativity development efforts to bridge the gap.
Finally, two authors identified people scoring high on the breadth of interest and innovation as more generative (where the breadth of interest means the individual has a larger set of passions). Like our comment concerning the predictive power of certain TAT elements for future generativity, managers could score subordinates for these two personality constructs to assess the likelihood of certain individuals exhibiting generativity. These findings and the findings about the TAT provide managers with a potential starting point — with some go-to constructs to measure and assess if they are trying to identify good candidates for generativity development.
A specific form of generativity is technical generativity. An individual engaging in technical generativity is concerned with sharing personal skills and knowledge that benefit others. Examples include a doctor teaching wound diagnosis, a chef explaining proper knife skills, and a writer providing coaching on optimally developing a story’s plot. In all three examples, someone is teaching skills to a learner.
This provides an organic segue into some relevant generativity findings on teachers and the applicability of those findings for business coaches (like those working for Tilt 365). Individuals in the teaching profession can make a vast, positive impact on the next generation because teachers are in contact with students for so many of students’ developmental years. This finding can be extended to any organization in the coaching and development business sector since coaches tend to interact extensively with the people they support in personal transformation. Many clients positively affect the many people they lead or influence long beyond the coaching engagement.
“Thus, it is vital that teachers, coaches, and other professionals strongly embody generativity to maximize their influence on their pupils and clients. If certain instructors are found wanting in this realm, enabling them to participate in training and development that cultivate stronger sentiments of generativity would be beneficial. Since everyone (regardless of education, job description, or status within an organization) can, at some level, develop generativity, our belief is that this concept of generativity training and development is also relevant and viable for anyone in a business setting (even if they are not teachers or coaches).
When working toward a robust set of character strengths characteristic of generativity, the first step is to know your strengths and weaknesses so that you know where to focus your energies. Tilt’s True Tilt Personality Profile™ (TTP) and Positive Influence Predictor™ (PIP) strengths assessment enable the user to identify which character strengths they easily embody and which character strengths they need to develop. Also, the PIP allows observers to rate an individual on perceived character strengths, potentially providing insights into blind spots. Similarly, Tilt’s Team Agility Predictor (TAP) can help your team hone its strengths, enabling further generativity.
Moreover, addressing career stagnation and fostering a generative mindset in the workplace requires a multifaceted approach. Here are some effective strategies:
Leadership coaching is another critical element. Teaching supervisors, managers, executives, and other team leaders how to lead effectively can profoundly impact. A strong coaching culture develops generative adults and benefits businesses with increased productivity, engagement, and employee retention.
In conclusion, by integrating character strengths assessments and embracing a comprehensive set of strategies, businesses can effectively address career stagnation and cultivate a generative mindset. This holistic approach benefits individual employees and enhances overall organizational performance.”
We at Tilt 365 define generativity as “A cognitive pattern characterized by a well-developed set of character strengths and a balanced, fulfilled life. Its outcomes include contributions to the world that extend beyond the individual actor.” Companies that practice generativity intentionally will be cognizant of the people they serve and their impact on them. This sense of responsibility is something we want to diffuse through society because it is vital for companies to care about their workers and the footprint they leave locally. Every time a business decides to pursue generativity that is a win for that organization because it has committed to cultivating any relevant business strengths present in its employees (e.g., empathy, focus, trust, or confidence).
Increased confidence might result in a more coherent presentation to upper management by a newer employee, and enhanced focus could enable a team to finalize an important project well before the deadline. Even if individual teams within an organization commit to acting generatively, we believe the repercussions can be profound. Regarding the benefit to the workplace, these repercussions of generativity can include enhanced work motivation and affective organizational commitment. Also, regarding potential benefits to society, individual teams practicing generativity could result in sponsorships between local youth sports teams (e.g., in which a team member’s child participates) and the relevant company.
Concerning our efforts to proliferate generativity, we believe we are providing business exchanges, psychological gains, and enhanced emotional well-being. Given that we are in the professional training and coaching field, we understand the need for strength development in our various communities and organizations. Tilt, therefore, values all of the following:
When working toward a robust set of character strengths characteristic of generativity, the first step is to know your strengths and weaknesses so that you know where to focus your energies. Tilt’s True Tilt Personality Profile™ (TTP) and Positive Influence Predictor™ (PIP) strengths assessment enable the user to identify which character strengths they easily embody and which they need to develop. Also, the PIP allows observers to rate an individual on perceived character strengths, potentially providing insights into blind spots. Similarly, Tilt’s Team Agility Predictor (TAP) can help your team hone its strengths, enabling further generativity.
Just as a farmer’s apple trees and livestock are her assets, people are important resources to a company. If a farmer fails to fertilize and water her apple trees, there won’t be much fruit at harvest time. Similarly, it would be a significant missed opportunity if organizations fail to develop the strengths of their workforce.
As seen in the content of this blog, the concept of generativity is very much about developing human resources. Incorporating our assessments is a great strategy for maximizing the potential of your teams.
How will your organization focus its energies when our assessments identify strengths that need to be developed in your human capital?