Finding Professional Fulfillment

I've been thinking recently about finding professional fulfillment, not just personally but as a general concept.  What makes a job satisfying?  What constitutes fulfillment?  What factors have to be balanced to achieve it?  I've tried to illustrate the process of asking and answering these questions with the graphs below, although at this point the idea is still a work in progress:

(Here's a larger version of the same graph.)  The basic concept is that our choice of job or profession is influenced by four primary forces: Extrinsic Rewards, Intrinsic Rewards, Role and Context.  These forces may not be in direct opposition to each other in a zero-sum relationship (i.e. greater extrinsic rewards equals fewer intrinsic rewards, and vice versa), but they can be at times, and at the very least they often pull us in different directions.

We're most fulfilled professionally when these forces are in balance, and we hit the bullseye--our personal sweet spot.  When one or more of the forces is too strong or too weak, we're pulled away from the center, and the resulting imbalance eventually leads to frustration.

A few further comments that reflect the work-in-progress nature of this concept:

• Something that's not adequately conveyed by the graph is the dynamic between absolute and relative measures  The ability to earn more is an absolute measure of an extrinsic reward, but equally important is the degree to which earning more matters to you, a relative measure that may also be variable.

• It should be readily apparent that I've rolled up a number of separate factors into Role and Context.  In addition (and partly as a result), I think the relationship between those two forces is more complex than the relationship between Extrinsic and Intrinsic Rewards.

• Finally, the concept of a target suggests that we should be aiming for the center, occupying a single point on the graph--and if you're fully satisfied in all four dimensions, and all four forces are in balance, you'll be right in the middle of the bullseye.  But if you're not fulfilled, if you're not in balance, you won't necessarily be occupying a single point--you'll be pulled in any number of directions outside the bullseye.  So below is a graph of optimal fulfillment, which is pretty straightforward (and here's a larger version):

And here's something less than optimal--let's say the right context, but the wrong role, and sufficient intrinsic rewards, but somewhat insufficient extrinsic rewards (again, a larger version):

I'm not sure if this graphical concept is adequate to represent the dynamic nature of the process, nor am I sure that these should be the four primary forces, or that they're generally applicable.  But I think it's a good start--and I have to say that I really like the "target practice" metaphor.  Presumably as we come to better understand ourselves--our capabilities and our needs--and how we function in a professional setting, our "aim" will improve.  (And if you just can't get enough of these graphs, here's a PowerPoint file with all three.)

Comments

[Geof F. Morris]

Ed: I assume that you're familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and all those behavioral management theorists that came after them? [So help me, I did a semester of engineering management last fall. ;)]

[Ed Batista]

Definitely, Geof, and I'm not making any great claim to originality here. I'm not drawing on any specific theory (not consciously, at least!) but my thinking on topics like this is certainly informed by courses I've taken and reading I've done along the way.

With regard to Maslow, I'm specifically interested in looking at how our work allows us to meet different needs embedded within the layers of his hierarchy. I find that his framework makes a great starting point for any discussion about fulfillment (and lack thereof), but in my experience it's too broad to be of use when considering why, for example, someone finds a particular job fulfilling or not.

The thinker who's probably had the greatest influence on me in this area is Peter Drucker:

[M]ost people, especially highly gifted people, do not really know where they belong until they are well past their mid-twenties. By that time, however, they should know the answers to the three questions: What are my strengths? How do I perform? and, What are my values? And then they can and should decide where they belong...

Equally important, knowing the answers to these questions enables a person to say to an opportunity, an offer, or an assignment, "Yes, I will do that. But this is the way I should be doing it. This is the way it should be structured. This is the way the relationships should be. These are the kind of results you should expect from me, and in this time frame, because this is who I am."

I actually see the graphic framework above as a companion piece to Drucker's three questions, a way to identify some of the answers and to look at them in relation to a specific job

[Travis A. Sinquefield]

Interesting concept, I like where you are going with it. I think you are going in the right direction with the balance thing, but not sure about the grouping of things together into broad areas. More likely, the graph should have somewhere between 10 and, oh, about a 1000 arrows on it since it seems like we are pulled and influenced by so many factors at work. But great job with trying to simplify the idea - some of the individual components of each of the 4 areas may play more of a role for a person, but it is a great starting point for developing a model on job satisfaction. Keep up the good work!

[Geof F. Morris]

Yeah, I just saw you doing this is as a graphical representation of the hierarchy in a way. [And there's other theories melded in there, as you note.] Influenced any by Tufte? ;)

[Ed Batista]

Bingo--I love Tufte. He should be required reading the world over.

[James Neils]

Ed, I came across your site while writing a series of articles regarding the use of models for management of non-profit Associations. One of the articles is the use of the target and bell shape curve to become a three dimensional graphical analysis. I was intrigued by your article and your application of the target to the issue.

Consider making your analysis three dimensional with say intensity as the third measure which adds height to the target, a kind of mushroom effect. Using three variables moves your theory to a higher level with greater applicability.

Also, I have adapted Maslow to create an organizational and membership hierarchy of needs and I believe is significantly robust in application to withstand serious investigation.

Your insight and post are an intellectual gold mine and will be reading your articles.

[Ed Batista]

Thanks, James--I appreciate the suggestion and the kind words. I've been meaning to circle back to this post for months now--the original graphic framework was always intended to be a draft--but I haven't made the time. It still may take me a while, but your comment has put it back on my to-do list. I look forward to hearing more about your work.

Ed