1
Making
pro-activeness
happen
Strategic behaviour, making things happen by pro-activeness, nowadays is needed by every employee in the workplace. The present conduct seeks to inform about the proper instruments
to enable and stimulate that pro-active behaviour.
Author: Berber van Beusichem
Student number: 0153532
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. J. Strikwerda
Version: 29th of December 2014
Date of submission: 29th of December 2014
Study: Executive Programme in Management Studies – Strategy Track
Institution:Amsterdam Business School
Word count: 17.266
Reviewed and accepted by the supervisor on January 13, 2015 J. Strikwerda
2
Table of contents
Abstract
3
Introduction
4
Literature review
6
Research on the antecedents of pro-active behaviour 6
Theoretical perspective on determinants of pro-active behaviour 7
Research question 10
Data and method
12
Methodological approach 12
Case design 12
The case context 13
The construct of proactive behavior 14
Data sources and instruments 15
Procedure for data collection 16
Method for data analysis 17
Results
20
Pro-active behavior 21
1. Climate & Structure of the organization 21
2. Key-players 23 3. Information 24 4. Room 26 5. Support 28 6. MUT 30 7. Drive 30
8. Personality traits or personal abilities 31
Discussion and conclusions
32
Theory 32
Method 36
Implications for future research 37
Implications for instruments for administrative control of pro-active behavior 37
3
Abstract
Because strategic decisions are increasing in frequency and move from top to bottom, pro-activity in the workplace becomes more important in order to perform and survive. However, instruments to control and motivate employees still are based on the premise that only top-management makes strategic decisions and takes initiative. So instruments to control and motivate employees have to be adjusted in order stimulate and facilitate activity. While numerous quantitative studies on pro-active behaviour in organizations have been done on various contextual as well as individual factors, it is not clear what factors are most important, how they exert influence and why. Because of this
fragmentation and lack of theory on pro-active behaviour, the present study set itself the goal to lay the groundwork and aimed to answer the question what factors and mechanisms should be the targets for re-design of instruments for administrative control. A single case study was done using Parnassia Holding as case context. Because from the scientific field of organizational behaviour it was already clear that the organizational context is more decisive of organizational behaviour than is personality, the semi-structured interviews were based both on theory on contextual conditions for organizational behaviour as well as open questions with respect to personal experiences. From analyzing the opinions of the interviewed by means of inductive analysis it became clear that (1) The four organizational determinants ‘Information’, ‘Room to maneuver’, ‘Support’ and ‘Money & time’ seem directly responsible for enabling or hampering active behavior in the workplace. (2) The four pro-activeness determinants seem to be facilitated by the Climate & Structure of the organization. Most important elements of that context seem (a) the planning & control cycle, (b) leadership under uncertainty and (c) learning processes. (3) Key players as well as personal abilities to sell one’s ideas, to endure and to bear risks can obstruct or compensate for lack of facilitators in the Climate & Structure of the organization.
4
Introduction
Things do not happen. Things are made to happen.
John F. Kennedy
Designing a strategy while looking ahead and planning execution of that strategy to make headway, according to Fayol (1918),are the first management tasks for an organization to perform in order to be successful. And this insight still feeds modern theories about management and organization today. So far nothing new. Grant & Ashford (2008) call this bundle of anticipating and planning activities ‘pro-active behaviour’ and they state that these are aimed at having an impact on the internal or external environment. But while according to them all tasks in organizations potentially can be carried out in a more or less proactive way, top-management and operations alike, traditionally pro-activity was always exclusively the role of top-management. For the frequency of strategic decisions was relatively low and operations were controlled with predefined tasks. Nowadays however, strategic decisions seem to increase in frequency and they move from top to bottom. One reason for this is the growing importance of information goods and knowledge as key resources. With information costs falling and markets rapidly changing, pro-active learning activities, such as sharing and experiencing (Zollo & Winter, 2002), are a necessity to prevent tacit knowledge to become obsolete (Teece, 2003). Another reason why strategic decisions move to the workplace is decentralization of decision making. This change requires more initiatives at operational levels (Crant, 2000). A third reason is innovativeness. For most todays organizations this capability is a necessity in order to survive (Christensen, 2001). According to Teece (2007) thiscalls for responding to-, as well as instigating a changing environment, which hardly seems possible without some pro-activeness on the part of the organization. In this respect Lumpkin & Dess (1996) describe pro-activeness as ‘the way how firms relate to market opportunities by seizing initiative in the marketplace’ and they suggest it to be a dimension of the entrepreneurial orientation of the firm. This is supported by Becherer & Maurer (1999) who found the level of pro-active personality within the firm linked to the entrepreneurial posture of that firm. The importance of pro-activeness among employees for organizations is further stressed by a meta-analysis conducted by Tornau & Frese (2012). Along withfactors as competitors, market conditions, team conditions and firm conditions, pro-active behaviour of individual employees clearly predicts firm performance; subjectively (i.e. supervisor ratings) as well as objectively (i.e. company data, business success and salaries). So, for organizations having employees behaving pro-active nowadays gets particularly important. However, instruments to control and motivate employees still are based on the premise that only top-management makes strategic decisions and takes initiative. Therefore
instruments have to be adjusted in order for employees to be stimulated and facilitated to be pro-active.
5 To be able to answer the question about re-design of instruments one first has to have insight in which factors determine pro-active behaviour in the workplace. Because there is no known theory on pro-active behaviour, the present study set out to lay the groundwork and aimed to answer the question what factors and mechanisms should be the targets for adjustment of the instruments for administrative control. First, it was checked what is already known about antecedents of pro-active behaviour based on research conducted. Then, on the basis of theory about organizational behaviour an initial sketch was made of relevant determinants. Consecutively these were transferred into a research design in which individuals in the workplace were questioned about planned and conducted pro-active behaviour. Finally, based on the findings, suggestions are done on adjustment of instruments and follow-up study.
6
Literature review
Research on the antecedents of pro-active behaviour
According to the interactionist perspective (Greenberg, 2010) behaviour of individuals within organizations is the outcome of the interaction of both context and personal attributes. While none of the research done on pro-active behaviour is based on this theory, this reasoning is not contradicted by it either. A recently conducted meta-analysis on research about pro-active behaviour indeed shows positive relations with both contextual and individual factors, such as Responsibility for Change, Commitment, Job satisfaction, Locus of control, Role Breath Self Efficacy, the Big Five, Pro-active Personality, Social climate and Autonomy (Tornau & Frese, 2013). But there is no conclusive picture what factors contribute most, in what way and why. This is because most research on the determinants of pro-active behaviour is quantitative and has focused on 1. The isolated influence of one factor or 2. The joint effect with self-efficacy. And it also does not help that multiple explanations have been used to justify these separate investigations.
1. Among isolated determinants being investigated, one finding for instance is that day level recovery (Sonnentag, 2003); situational constraints and a positive mood (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009) can lead to pro-active behaviour on the same day. Another finding concerns a more robust contextual factor such as team support and interpersonal norms. De Jong & de Ruyter (2004) and Parker et al. (2006) respectively found these to be important determinants of pro-active behaviour within teams. Among the individual factors investigated, based on a meta-analysis, Parker & Collins (2010) conclude that Consideration for future consequences, Learning goal orientation, Flexible role orientation, Role breadth self-efficacy and Pro-active personality are all antecedents of some kind of pro-active behaviour. The meta-analysis of Tornau & Frese (2012) showed that, although correlated and different, pro-active personality is not a direct determinant of pro-active behaviour. According to Williams et al. (2010) this is explained by the mediating effect of interpersonal norms. They found both Transformational leadership as well as Pro-active personality to assert influence on pro-active team behaviour via the mediator interpersonal norms.
2. Other research has particularly focused on the joint effect of self-efficacy with other factors. In this respect, Parket et al. (2010) and Fuller et al. (2012) talk about two cognitive motivational states ‘Can do’ and ‘Reason to’. They claim that together these states determine pro-active behaviour and that these states themselves are influenced by individual as well as contextual variations. However, most research that included these motivational states has only focused on the role of ‘Can do’, being the perception of self-efficacy. For instance, Transformational team leadership leads to pro-active behaviour via the mediator Self-efficacy (Strauss et al., 2009) as does Job autonomy (Parker et al.,
7 2006). The effect of Co-worker trust on pro-activeness is mediated by another ‘Can do’ concept, namely Flexible role orientation (Parker et al., 2006). These inquiries stress the importance of
situational factors in determining the perception one is able to perform pro-actively. Also Griffin et al. (2010) found self-efficacy to be an important factor but as moderator of the effect of Leader vision on pro-active behaviour. Only when self-efficacy was high, Leader vision resulted in pro-active
behaviour. Den Hartog & Belschak (2012) even concluded self-efficacy to be a possible substitute candidate for Transformational leadership when Job Autonomy was low.In these last two
investigations it is not clear however, how the perception of self-efficacy had come about, nor was a reason to act pro-actively included. The only investigation that did just this was done by Fuller et al. (2012). They found self-efficacy only to exert influence on proactive behaviour when Responsibility for change was high.
In conclusion it can be said that a. it seems obvious one has to have a reason, as well as the perception one is able to perform pro-actively, in order to do so and b. there is evidence that contextual, as well as individual factors play a role in determining pro-active behaviour but it is not clear what factors are most important, how they exert influence and why. In the next section, theory on organizational behaviour is used to come to answering the question on the most relevant determinants of pro-active behaviour in the workplace.
Theoretical perspective on determinants of pro-active behaviour
The Interactionist perspective theory (Greenberg, 2010) proclaims individual behaviour to be the result of the interplay between the situation and individual attributes. Social psychologists Ellemers & Gilder (2012) do not contradict this, but add the notion that, although individual factors play some role, behaviour in organizations is for the most part determined by contextual factors. Indeed Grant & Rothbard (2013) found that only when Ambiguity was high, a high individual Security value resulted in little pro-active behaviour and a high individual Pro-social value resulted in a lot of pro-active behaviour. In practice however, instruments to motivate and control employees mostly are based on the idea advocated by consultants and HRM alike, that individual differences matter most. For instance the idea that talent is fixed and can be selected and must be rewarded, while evidence
suggests talent can be managed and developed and merely depends on effort and the right information (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). Pfeffer & Sutton (2000) call this error of judgement ‘the fundamental attribution error’ and they claim that from the scientific field of organizational behaviour, in contrast to what is practiced by popular thinkers on organizational development,it is commonly known the organizational context is more decisive of behaviour than is personality. So evidence suggests to go look mainly into the systemic context instead of just on pro-active talent or personality when aiming to influence employee pro-active behaviour (Strikwerda, 2013).
8 The elements of the systemic context described by the interactionist perspective as explained by Greenberg (2010) are as follows: mission, values, structure, technology, information, reward system, psychological climate and role expectation/attribution. With use of features of the organic organization as described by Buchanan & Huczynski (2004) these elements are aggregated to the presumed most important systemic context elements relevant for determining proactive behaviour in the workplace (see Table 1). SYSTEMIC CONTEXT Able to perform Pro-active behaviour Want to perform Pro-active behaviour Hard factor
1. Availability of information relevant for
making decisions, taking initiative and innovation.
2. A planning & control system that leaves
room to absorb pro-active behaviour of employees.
3. Reward system or appreciation of pro-active
behaviour and confirmation of self-respect by colleagues and superiors (vocally, written or monetary).
‘Soft’ factor
4. Organizational climate that is safe enough
to be able to make mistakes or contradict commonly held views within the organization.
5. Behavioural norms setting a role
expectation of taking initiative.
Table 1: Presumed most important determinants of pro-active behaviour in the workplace from a systemic context point of view.
This filter is used because the concept of the organic organization stands for a pro-active mentality, an organizational culture so to speak, whereby employees maintain contacts with the outside world as part of their everyday work. Some of the context elements, such as information, are hard factors which are negotiable and malleable. Some are soft factors that are less easy influenced but no less powerful in their effects (Strikwerda, 2011). Another classification can be made based on whether the factor enables one to be proactive or makes it attractive to be. The Extended Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1994) is consistent with this by stating that motivation is the result of the belief that one’s effort leads to a certain outcome and that this outcome is desirable. In the original sense of this theory, a desired outcome referred to personal goals. But the outcome could just as easily go to social goals or intrinsic motivation in itself. This latter idea is supported by the investigation of Thomas et al. (2010) who found pro-active behaviour to be correlated with job satisfaction. The systemic context elements are further theoretically explained below.
1. Availability of information Parker & Collins (2010) mention taking charge, innovation and problem prevention as instances of proactive behaviour. Information- based empowerment seems an antecedent of pro-activeness as according to Strikwerda (2012) access to different sorts of information is vitally important to be able to take autonomous decisions, initiate, experiment and innovate. The need for access to information in order to be able to behave pro-active can also be explained as follows. Without a knowledge base (information) it is not possible to recognize, create or use opportunities
9 (Shane & Vekataram, 2000). In other words access to information about the firm and the environment is needed in order to shape pro-active behaviour. De Jong (2007) found that there is a direct
connection between 'external contacts’ such as customers, suppliers and other companies and
innovative behaviour. Through these contacts employees gain insight in the external environment and opportunities to innovate. Therefore external contacts can be regarded as a special source of
information. Information based empowerment states the most important information is composed of a serious mission, hierarchy of values, clear goals, access to relevant data, feedback on performance and an understanding of the business model (Strikwerda, 2012).
2. Planning & control system A planning & control system can be more or less interactive. On the one hand control can be loose coupled and employees are granted discretion to react to a changing
environment and to experiment on how to attain goals more efficiently. Planning is flexible and maybe every month a rolling forecast is done based on sense making of employees about what is happening outside and what should be done with this knowledge, for instance adjustment of internal processes or even the business model. On the other hand control also can be tight. Operations of employees are strictly subscribed in terms of how to do what and planning is more fixed and based on internal performance measures only (Strikwerda, 2012). With this kind of planning one can easily miss out on relevant changes in the environment or interpret those changes wrong. Too much closure also inhibits the emergence of good alternatives (Schwenk, 1984). Daft & Weick (1984) call this ‘conditioned viewing’ as members of the organization rely on a limited view of the environment because they use establihed data collection procedures and interpretation is done within predifined boundaries.It is imaginable that a more loose control system leaves more room for pro-active ideas of employees than does a tight control system where decision space is narrow. Karasek & Theorell (1990) define decision space as composed of autonomy and variety of work. And they state that when these are low,
innovation potential is underutilized. Experimentation and exploration of ideas by the granting of autonomous decisions by employers how to perform their job, according to Pot et al. (2009), gives a breeding ground for innovations bottom up. So autonomy and job variety are expected to createroom to manoeuvre and facilitate pro-active behaviour. On the other hand procedures for limiting the discretion (Rollinson & Broadfield, 2002) can hamper or obstruct pro-active behaviour.
3. Reward system Confirmation of self-respect and appreciation are basic human needs (Strikwerda, 2011) and thus can act as powerful rein forcers of pro-active behaviour. Ellemers & Gilder (2012) also explain that appreciation by colleagues and support by superiors is key to motivation and commitment in the workplace. According to Chapman & White (2011) appreciation is even the main reason for people to experience job satisfaction. They suggest different means to express appreciation in the workplace, such as words, time, service, touch or gifts. They do not mention monetary incentives.
10 Pfeffer & Sutton (2006) explain that there is little reason for the use of monetary incentives only when performance is the result of individual effort and can be objectively assessed.
4. Organizational climate Organizational climate is often defined as the recurring patterns of behaviour, attitudes and feelings that characterize life in the organization (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2007). Factors as morale, trust, conflict, leader credibility, equity in rewards, scapegoating and safety play a role within this concept. It is expected that safety is an enabler for pro-activity because it can allow individuals permission to make mistakes, to contradict commonly held views within the organization and learn from conflicts. Gong et al (2012) state that pro-active employees seek informational
resources through exchange in the workplace. This results in the fostering of trust or relational safety, which opens the door to creative endeavours. So pro-activeness can lead to the building of trust that on its own turn again can form a basis for pro-activeness. It is important to distinguish between
institutional trust and personal trust here. While the former is socially and organizationally embedded; personal trust applies to close personal relations (Williamson, 1993). Rousseau et al. (1998) state that trust contains the willingness to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations about another one’s behaviour. It is to be expected organizational trust will enable pro-active behaviour because one feels protected enough to explore and expects holding of this behaviour within the organization. Personal trust limits pro-active behaviour to individual relations and may even stimulate expectant behaviour.
5. Behavioural norms Social norms on pro-activeness presumably play an important role in boosting pro-active behaviour. This is expected because people derive their identity from social norms and want to feel connected. These ideas are supported by a couple of theories:
The Belongingness theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) states that people possess an innate need to feel connected to a greater whole, which can be an organization or group. Within
organizational contexts the perception of oneness with a group then leads to activities, such as pro-active behaviour, that are congruent with (institutions that embody) the identity of that group
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
The Social Identity theory (Haslam, 2004) also explains that the perception of oneness with a group feeds a fundamental need and leads to activities that are congruent with social norms. Thus social norms that support pro-active behaviour will stimulate such behaviour.
Furthermore, according to the Self-determination theory (Desi & Ryan, 2000), people behave pro-active because of their need for competence and (again) relatedness, their need to express socially valuable behaviour and their care for an envisioned future that is regarded to be important for self or others.
11 Social norms on pro-active behaviour are made ‘visible’ in exemplary pro-active behaviour of
colleagues and superiors. Social learning than acts as mechanism for others to act more pro-actively (Bandura, 1977).
Research question
The aim of the present study is to gain insight on how pro-active behaviour in the workplace comes about so that the proper instruments to facilitate and stimulate that behaviour can be applied. Former quantitative research on pro-active behaviour suggests contextual, as well as individual factors to play a role; research on organizational behaviour however suggests the organizational context to be more decisive than personality (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). Thus the object of the study is to come to a contextual explanation of pro-active behaviour and the subject is the process of how pro-active behaviour is enabled and motivated from a systemic point of view (Thomas, 2011). In order to come to this explanation the present study explores to refine existing theory as well as seek new theory (Pratt, 2009). Prior knowledge based on existing theory about behaviour in organizations was used in the former paragraph to formulate contextual conditions in advance that are supposed to play a significant role in being able and wanting to perform pro-actively in the workplace (Suddaby, 2006). But the study also takes into account other conditions and mechanisms can play a role. Overall, the outcome of this research process should be theory on the unfolding of pro-active behaviour in the workplace as means to come to an explanation of that behaviour (Bryman, 2008).
So the research question is: How are people in the workplace enabled and motivated by the
organization to display pro-active behaviour?
Sub questions are: What are the most important factors? Do the five contextual factors mentioned in
Table1 play a role in facilitating (being able to) and stimulating (wanting to) behave pro-actively in the workplace? What role do these factors play? Do factors reinforce or weaken one another and how so?
12
Data and method
Methodological approach
A qualitative approach seemed most suited to tackle the research question because the aim here is theory building and not theory testing (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Firstly, a how-question not a what-question on pro-active behavior and its enablers and motivators is posed (Yin, 2003). This is done because there is no one theory about how pro-active behavior in the workplace comes about. Quantitative research on pro-active behavior has been conducted but this has focused on specific factors and has not led to the insight why and how certain factors play a role, which factors are most important and how they relate to one another.Secondly, the assumption of the present study is that pro-active behavior for the most part is determined by contextual conditions which, as said before, when studied in isolation would miss out on the complexity of the phenomenon i.e. the relations and mechanisms underlying the effect on pro-active behavior (Yin 2003). Thirdly, meanings given by employees in the workplace on their experience can add to theory building about pro-active behavior which quantitative research cannot (Gephart, 2004).
Case design
Theoretical sampling and local knowledge were decisive for selecting the case. Because of the researcher’s familiarity of the Parnassia Holding it was expected this contextual knowledge
substantially added to illuminating the relationships and logic among constructs underlying pro-active behavior (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Besides the understanding argument, another reason for choosing Parnassia as case was the action oriented argument (Flyvbjerg, 2013). The practical value of the explanation of pro-active behavior in the workplace is grandly enhanced by conducting the case study within its own context.
The design is a single case study with embedded multiple units of analysis (Yin, 2003). Sampling of the units occurs at two levels: (1) The Business Unit (BU) level. The BU's within the Holding differ in their primary or secondary position relative to the core business of the company. Also they have different geographies. They operate in different cities which are situated in the provinces of South- or North Holland). (2) The interviewee level. Functions of employee’s differ as to their hierarchy. It was expected that this way of unit sampling represents a kind of heterogeneity that is purposeful because these levels together are supposed to make up the most important different perspectives on how pro-active behavior comes about and thus by their contrast achieve the greatest possible amount of
information (Flyvbjerg, 2013) to come to answer the research question (Bryman, 2008). For instance it is imaginable that managers have more access to information than others, which enables them to behave pro-active. Also the experienced room to maneuver may differ between functions. Geography and BU’s may differ as for organizational climate and behavioral norms that may shed light on their
13 roll in stimulating pro-active behavior. Besides heterogeneity of units also some homogeneity was attempted in the sampling in order to make some kind of comparison possible (Bryman, 2008). Initially purposeful sampling was done on the basis of the researcher’s knowledge of the Parnassia Holding organization structure, but in most instances advice was sought from HRM and Management on suitable interviewees. It was explained to the informants which region, BU and function was intended and also that the interviewee should be in the middle of the continuum, neither being too pro-active by themselves, nor being too passive. This was done because it was assumed that, say 100% pro-active personalities do not require contextual factors too be pro-active, and 0% pro-active personalities pay no heed to contextual factors. Besides purposeful sampling, also snowball sampling was incorporated. Snowball sampling being theresult of insights during transcription of interviews and taking field notes (Eisenhardt, 1989) that the criterion ICT department should be added for sampling (Pratt, 2009). Another reason was that in two instances interviewees advised the researcher about other potential interesting interviewees that could add much to the subject at hand because of their overall position within the case context. So eventually, there was a mixture of sampling procedures. Result of both purposeful- and snowball sampling at the unit level is shown in Table 2. This table is arranged according to the presumed relevant levels of sampling discussed earlier. Due to possible traceability cities and specific functions are not included:
Primary or secondary value chain?
Business unit of Parnassia Holding Line
management? Geographies
1 Primary Bavo Europoort (Long term care adults) NO South-Holland
2 Secondary Facility NO Parnassia Holding
3 Primary Palier (Forensic psychiatry) YES South-Holland
4 Secondary Housing YES South- Holland
5 Secondary E-health service/innovation NO Parnassia Holding
6 Primary Brijder (Addiction cure & care adults) YES South-Holland
7 Secondary Service centre/ ICT NO North-Holland
8 Primary Ipsy (Intercultural cure youths & adults) NO North-Holland
9 Secondary Parnassia academy YES Parnassia Holding
10 Secondary Finance NO Parnassia Holding
11 Primary PsyQ (Adults cure) NO South-Holland
12 Primary Dijk & Duin (Elderly cure & care) NO North-Holland
13 Primary Brijder (Addiction cure youths) NO North-Holland
14 Primary PsyQ (Adults cure) YES North-Holland
Table 2: Sampling of units by value chain, business unit, employee hierarchy and geography.
The single case study made use of both past phenomena and real time cases. This was in order to limit bias in data collection as result of retrospective sense making afterwards (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). So each interviewee was asked to consider his intention to conduct pro-active behavior in the present (snapshot) as well as reflect on attempted or conducted pro-active behavior in the past. The case context
The core business of Parnassia Holding is diagnosing and treatment of psychiatric patients. It had to cope with a recent 6 million euro cut on the budget for Mental Health Care by the government of the
14 Netherlands. Above all that, institutions for Mental Health care are cut a 20% extra on their income by the Health insurance companies. They can win part of the latter back by complying with several rules such as measurement of treatment effect, lowering the no-show percentage of clients and treating more clients shorter at a lower cost. Because potential clients also have less money to spend, they more often decide not to get mental help because of the own risk that is charged by the health insurance companies. This altogether, has led the CEO of the Parnassia Holding to decide cutting on budgets for support staff such as managers, advisers and secretaries. Professionals that treat clients with mental health problems have to work harder to gain their heightened production target. By 2015 and ahead, there no longer will be procurement by one large health insurance company of mental health care for youths but there will be procurement of youth care by every local government on its own. Also long-term care and prevention fall within the jurisdiction of local governments. So the number of
stakeholders has multiplied for a lot of businesses within Parnassia. Besides national politics,
municipal politics and insurers, the context of Parnassia is further occupied by wishes and demands of patient associations, referring agencies and professional associations.
The construct of proactive behavior
Parker & Collins (2010) extracted from dictionary definitions the key elements of pro-activity. They state that definitions either contain an anticipatory element (acting in advance of a future event) or definitions emphasize taking control and causing change. Self-initiation in both instances is essential. This means if one is asked to change something it is not pro-active behavior. Also adapting to future events is not pro-activeness; it has to involve initiative for bringing about change in the internal organization or at the fit between the organization and its environment change. Every task or role can be carried out in a more or less pro-active way, so intra- or extra role behavior does not set the boundary for defining pro-active behavior. Focus in the present study was on pro-active behavior within the firm that is expected to be beneficial for the firm. So self-interested pro-active behavior in the workplace was not taken into account. Initiative for change can be communicatory, signaling to others within the organization the benefits of change or it can be action oriented. That is, initiating the change at hand. However, Parker & Collins (2010) fail to mention that initial sensing and sense making (Weick, 1979) of a problem, need or opportunity also asks for pro-activeness. Whether it is active directed search or undirected, open minded scanning of the environment. Taken together 4 instances fall between the parameters of the definition of proactive behavior used in this inquiry, which are displayed in Table 3:
15
TAKE INITIATIVE FOR CHANGE
Self-initiated signaling to others the benefits of change (communication)
Self-initiated tackling of change (action)
SENSING A
CHALLENGE
Sense an expected future problem or need for the
organization PROPOSE SOLUTION SOLVE ROBLEM/ STATISFY NEED
OR
OPPORTUNITY
Detect an improvement in work methods or innovation of products beneficial for the organization
PROPOSE
INNOVATION/IMPROVEMENT
ADJUST / CREATE PRODUCT/PROCESS
Table 3: Instances of pro-active behavior that define the realm of the present inquiry.
Data sources and instruments
Semi-structured interviews were partly combined with documentation. The latter was done to triangulate the findings (Tracy, 2013) on the Planning & Control cycle and included two procedures, as described in the quality system of Parnassia. The semi-structured interviews contained open and closed questions. The latter were to check whether 5 aspects as discussed in the theory section are present and in what respect; the former were to assess whether other factors are at stake not included in the model beforehand. The open questions also were to further explain the closed questions i.e. what role the factor plays in enabling or motivating the interviewees to behave pro-active. All these questions were asked 3 times in a row because every interviewee was asked to think: A. forwards intending to behave proactive, B. backwards about having conducted pro-active behavior that succeeded and C. again backwards wanting to behave pro-active but eventually did not or did but failed. In Table 4 below the questionnaire is portrayed:
A. Can you momentarily think about an expected challenge or opportunity for your department or organization that you want to tackle by taking charge or selling the issue? Mind that it is about a situation in which you plan to be pro-active.
1) What could help you to take this initiative? How does that work? Why?
2) What could further motivate you to take this initiative? How does that work? Why? 3) Do you see hurdles you have to tackle before you want or can take initiative?
4) Do you feel you have enough information and insight into the business to take this initiative and does it play a role in your taking initiative? How? Why?
5) Do you feel your decision space or room to experiment play a role in your taking initiative? How? Why?
6) Does appreciation of pro-active behavior by colleagues or superiors play a role in your being able or motivated in this instance? Why? How does it work?
7) Do you feel mistakes or contradicting commonly held views are acceptable within your organization? Does this play a role in you being able or motivated to take this initiative? Why? How?
8) Is it common ground, so to say part of culture, to take initiative within your organization? Does this play a role in you being able or motivated to take this initiative? Why? How?
9) Are there important issues you feel also play a role in making you able to take this initiative that we forgot to speak about?
10) Are there important issues you feel also played a role in motivating you to take this initiative that we forgot to speak
about?
B. Think about a recent moment at work in which you, on your own account, took initiative to face a challenge or seize an opportunity for your department or organization by taking charge or selling the issue. Mind that it is about a situation in which you already have performed pro-active behavior.
11) What made you feel enabled to take this initiative? How did that work? Why? 12) What made you feel motivated to take that initiative? How did that work? Why?
13) Do you feel there were hurdles you had to tackle before you wanted or could take initiative? How did that work? 14) Do you feel access to information or insight into the business played a role in being able or being motivated? Why? How
did it work?
15) Did you feel your decision space to take this initiative is part of the system and did it play a role in your taking initiative? How? Why?
16) Do you feel appreciation of pro-active behavior by colleagues or superiors played a role in being able or being motivated? Why? How did it work?
16
initiative? Why? How?
18) Do you feel the norm or absence of the norm to take initiatives within your organization played a role in you being able or motivated to take this initiative? Why? How?
19) Are there important issues you feel also played a role in making you able to take initiative that we forgot to speak about?
20) Are there important issues you feel also played a role in motivating you to take initiative that we forgot to speak about?
C. Think about a recent moment at work in which you, on your own account, wanted to take initiative to face a challenge or seize an opportunity for your department or organization by taking charge or selling the issue, but did eventually not do it or did but failed in the effort.
21) What prevented you from going through with it? How did that work? Why? 22) What did you think caused the effort to fail? How did that work? Why? 23) What do you feel should have been there to make it work? Why?
24) Do you feel not having access to information played a role in your choice or failing of the effort? Why? How did it work? 25) Do you feel not having enough decision space or room to experiment played a role in your choice or failing of the effort?
How? Why?
26) Do you feel absence of appreciation by colleagues or superiors played a role in your choice or failing of the effort? Why? How did it work?
27) Do you feel room to make mistakes or held contradicting views played a role in your choice or failing of the effort? Why? How?
28) Do you feel the norm or absence of the norm to take initiatives within your organization played a role in your choice or failing of the effort? Why? How?
29) Are there important issues you feel also played a role in not being able take initiative or failing of the effort?
30) Are there important issues you feel also played a role in not motivating you not to take initiative or failing?
D. Think about 1 or 2 employees within your organization who particularly are not easily influenced by others and who you observe conduct pro-active behavior on their own cause.
31) How do you feel are they reacted to by the organization (colleagues and superiors the like) when they suggest solutions, improvements or innovations without being asked to?
32) How do you feel they are handled by the organization (colleagues and superiors the like) when they adjust procedures or
change products on their own account without being asked to?
Table 4: Questionnaire for the semi- structured interview about enablers and motivators of pro-active behavior in the workplace.
As can be seen a fourth part (D) was added to the questionnaire that particularly addressed the
question how individuals who are supposed to be less susceptible for contextual conditions are treated and regarded within the case. This was expected to contribute to the insight on the role of contextual conditions in facilitating and stimulating pro-active behavior by the majority of employee’s.
Procedure for data collection
This episode began with getting permission by the board of directors of the Holding. To acquire this, first a short thesis proposal was presented to them in which the purpose, confidentiality agreement and criteria for selecting interviewees were explained. Initial selection of the 14 respondents was done on the basis of the researcher’s knowledge of the Parnassia Holding structure and with use of advice from HRM and Management on suitable interviewees (see also Case design).The respondents were
approached by telephone and the following issues were explained to them: the (academic) purpose of the study, the format, conditions and time of the interview. Also the confidentiality agreement was mentioned. This agreement statesthat conversations are recorded and later on written down but stay within the custody of the researcher. Findings are aggregated at a higher (not personal) level. Quotes are used to illustrate de findings but these are made anonymous. If there is any doubt about
traceability, the quotes were sent to the interviewees for their permission to be used. If they were not content with them, corrections could be made. After this explanation a face-to-face appointment was made. Only if the interviewee insisted, the questions were sent beforehand. Each interview started with a brief introduction to each other. Then the purpose of the conduct was explained, as was the
17 confidentiality, the format and length of the interview. Before starting the interview the definition of pro-active behaviour was explained, using a checklist (see Table 5):
Pro-active behavior:
Is in the interest of my organization. It may be in my own interest too, but this is not the primary goal.
Is about anticipation. For instance grabbing an umbrella before leaving my home because it might rain today, and I could use it as a weapon too in an unsavory neighborhood where I have to go.
Is not about adaptation. For instance looking through my home’s window, seeing it rain and then grab an umbrella.
Is on my own account; not because I am told to.
Consists of two parts: 1) I see a potential thread or opportunity for my organization and 2) I propose change or take charge of change.
Table 5: Checklist for interviewees on the definition of pro-active behavior.
The interviews lasted about 2 hours. At the end of each interview the interviewees were asked if they had additions or remarks of any kind regarding the interview itself, the conduct or the subject of pro-active behavior. They were asked to contact the researcher if any ideas came up later. After each interview, notes were made on observations. During the period the interviews were conducted (April 2014 till June 2014) parallel already the transcription of interviews began.
Method for data analysis
The purpose of this analysis was to answer the research question. In short this was done by analyzing the opinions of the interviewed within the context of theory by means of inductive analysis. Key themes were extracted by means of comparison. Also interviews were contrasted in order to reveal conceptual differences (Gephart, 2004). It was chosen to conduct this manually because then the researcher could make use of her understanding of the meaning of the words used by the interviewed. This understanding was expected because of her knowledge of the case context and knowledge of the context of the interview in which sense making is done. Also additional documentation on the Planning & Control cycle of the Parnassia Holding was used to assess whether (un)directed scanning of the environment and experimentation were indeed (not) part of it as was stated during the
interviews. Below the steps of the analysis are described successively in more detail:
1. The analytical stage started with taking notes during the interviews and directly afterwards. 2. While transcribing the fourteen interviews, these notes, along with actually listening to what was said, were used to preliminary mark parts of the texts with grey blocks that seemed indicative for answering the research question.
3. After all interviews were transcribed; each interview on its own was coded initially with pencil in the margin of the text by use of the themes earlier identified in the theory section, as well as other themes that emerged while reading the transcription. So this stage of analysis consisted of both deduction and induction.
18 4. Then for each interview a mini code table was constructed with open codes and sub codes and remarks that explained the meaning of the themes for the particular interviewee. This was done by merging and parting the initial codes in the text by use of these meanings.
5. After that a cross-case analysis was done (Yin, 2009). The fourteen stories summarized in the mini code tables were compared on themes and meanings and consequently codes and sub codes were renamed and regrouped (i.e. merged and separated) so that they as a whole still accounted for each of the stories told. As a result one code table with core codes and sub codes was constructed. Each core code was then given a color.
6. By use of the single code table, each interview was run through again for a second time, marking the text with color blocks referring to the core themes/codes. While doing that, a final check was done on the covering of the code table and if necessary the (sub) codes of the table were regrouped,
renamed or refined.
7. During this second run through, additional remarks about meanings of the codes were placed in third column of the code table and also relations between core themes were marked with colors. This third column functionedas a basis for the structuring of the Result section and for interpretation. On the next page the final coding scheme with additional explanation is displayed in Table 6.
19
Core codes Sub codes Additions & connections
0 PROACT =
Pro-active behavior
0A. PROACT/SPOT 1. Spot future problem or 2. Spot future opportunity
0B. PROACT/DO 1. Sell the idea of change or 2. Implement change
0C. PROACT/TYPE 1. Operational: -process- or product improvement, 2. Tactical: process- or product innovation, 3.
Strategical: new product market, new customer market
2 KEYPLAY 1A. KEYPLAY/TYPE 1. Experts needed in the matter for INFO and implementation, 2. Departments of secondary
value chain stick to regulations and do not show eagerness to deviate. 3. Direct superiors or Top-management to grant access to other key players and legitimize the idea in the workplace. 4. Workplace involved in the matter 5. Instigators (idea sellers) to create critical mass or Spotters of people with good ideas that are in a position to sell and push 6. Stakeholders outside Parnassia.
1B. KEYPLAY/ROLE 1. Grant ROOM to experiment, 2. Provide INFO, 3.SUPPORT idea or 4. Provide sense of security
saying “I believe in you”
1C. KEYPLAY/ACCESS 1. Can you fathom the person? Can you level? 2. Is the person accessible? or 3. Feeling you are
being listened to (taken seriously) by that person.
1 CLISTRU 2A.CLISTRU/CLIMATE 1. Climate of fear versus entrepreneurship and 2. Climate in action- versus reflection mode.
Both effect ROOM, MUT, INFOand SUPPORT
2B. CLISTRU/STRUCTURE 1. Sort of planning & control system and 2. Bureaucracy. Both effect ROOM, MUT, INFOand
SUPPORT
3 INFO 3A. INFO/GOAL 1. To form ideas, 2.To check upon the soundness of ideas and assess strategically consequences
of the idea, 3. To assess URGENCY and success ratio, 4. To create a sense of security sROOM, 5. To get acquainted to the subject to be able to implement, 6. To connect to employees and sell the idea/motivate 7. To inform and train employees.
3B. INFO/TYPE 1. The URGENCY of the matter, 2. The vision where we stand + mission image of 2020, 3.
The purpose and structure of meetings, 4. The opinion and images of a subject that live within the organization, 5. Strategic assumptions and SWOT, 6. Business goals, 7. Feedback to employees about the effect of their behavior on the end-product. To understand the business model, 8. Understanding the why of the business goals and hierarchy of values, 8. The definition of the subject at hand and 9. Transparency about decision space ROOM.
3C. INFO/SOURC E 1. Previous (tacit) knowledge & experience. 2. Passive search to spot ideas from outside own
context. This can be done by giving meaning to an occurrence with others, salesmen talking to financers, professionals talking to clients, access to different angles such as other disciplines and departments or Bu’s, contacts with other companies, education, magazine and big thinkers f.e. science. 3. Active search for specific information within own context to be able to implement. Sources are KEY PLAY and social network + formal access to data CLISTRU + Technical specifications that disclose/hamper disclosure + being able to understand the data .
4 ROOM 4A. ROOM/TYPE 1. Feeling of (in) security, 2. Room to deviate, 3. Room to make mistakes, 4. Experimental space, 5.
Decision latitude.
4B. ROOM/SOURCE Hard sources within the formal Structure (CLISTRU): 1. Accountability, 2. Formal decision latitude
attached to hierarchical position, 3. Formal agreements on room to maneuver or other form of transparency
Soft sources within the Climate (CLISTRU) or provided by KEYPLAY; 1. Relationship with superior based on trust, 2. Fear to deviate or fear of being stupid i.e. feelings of insecurity 3. Levelling with superior provides ROOM, SUPPORT and INFO and 4. Feeling of belonging to one-another, being sort of a family, provides a secure breeding ground.
Note1: KEYPLAY play an important role in granting room if it is not part of CLISTRU. Formally but also they can block initiatives regardless of formal room.
Note2:The less ROOM-> the more SUPPORT is needed and personal risk bearing PERSON
5 SUPPORT 5A. SUPPORT/SOURCE 1. FTF human interaction instead of social media and email
2. Formal vs informal. For instance formal platform for check and balance or informal network. 3. Key player line management or strategic coalition.
5B. SUPPORT/TYPE In general: 1. A basic feeling of being appreciated as a person generates a feeling of freedom i.e.
ROOM and 2. The feeling management values your capacities and so really does listen also generates ROOM.
Specific: 1.Getting feedback from experts i.e. INFO, 2. Colleagues participating and 3. Superiors KEYPLAY support the idea openly.
5C. SUPPORT/GOAL 1. To get people to participate in the implementation or to sell the idea, 2.To grant ROOM by
superiors/ top-management is essential, 3. To fund the idea by superiors/ top-management, 4. To provide INFO, 5. To compensate for feelings of insecurity, 6. To motivate oneself by being appreciated and 7. To asses success ratio.
6 MUT 6A. MUT/MONEY Is there a starting bid? Who pays what? Is there financial ROOM to experiment?
6B. MUT/URGENCY The concept of (sense of) urgency is linked to interests, needs and distress of the individual
involved versus those directly involved in the workplace, services, superiors and top-management i.e. the key players.
6C. MUT/TIME 1. Time to reflect and form ideas together with others = INFO, 2. Time to experiment and learn
about the subject =ROOM & INFO, 3. It takes time to gain critical mass and 4. How much time are you granted to make the arrive at return on investment?, see CLISTRU/CLIMATE.
7 DRIVE 7A. DRIVE/OTHER. 1. Help clients that suffer, 2. Feeling of overall responsibility, 2. Help improve the working
process of professionals, 4. To gain business results and 5. Proud to work within the GGZ and Parnassia, feeling of being connected and part of whole.
7B. DRIVE/SELF 1. Personal development: seek challenge or want to learn or build expertise, 2. Need of stimuli/ change and 3. Improve own work process.
8 PERSON 1. Risk taking attitude, 2. Capacity to mingle with upper class and sell your idea and 3. Be able to
endure that not everything has to be solved right away (endurance). Table 6: The final coding scheme with additional explanations and relations between core themes.
20
Results
In this section the question how people in the workplace are enabled and motivated by the
organization to display pro-active behavior is answered using the concepts that were derived from inductive analysis. In the perceptions of those interviewed and who also happen to manage and/or receive behavioral instruments in the workplace, the following eight factors played significant parts in facilitating or hampering their pro-active behavior (see Table 7):
1. Climate & Structure of the organization (CLISTRU) 2. Key-players (KEYPLAY) 3. Information (INFO) 4. ROOM 5. SUPPORT 6. Money-urgency-time (MUT) 7. DRIVE
8. Personality traits or personal abilities (PERSON)
PRO-ACTIVE
Organizational factors
BEHAVIOUR
Individual factors
2. KEYPLAY
+
1.CLISTRU
7. DRIVE + 8. PERSON
3. INFO
+
4. ROOM
+
5. SUPPORT
+
6. MUT
Table 7: The eight determinants of pro-active behavior derived from inductive analysis
The organizational factors INFO, ROOM, SUPPORT and MUT seem directly responsible for
facilitating and/or hampering pro-active behavior. These four factors can be provided by the ‘Climate or structure of the organization’ (CLISTRU) but in the majority of instances of pro-active encounters, the interviewees seemed more depended on ‘Key-players’ (KEYPLAY) to get them. So key-players seem to compensate for ‘lacks’ in the organizational system and so play an important role in this story as is illustrated by the following two interviewees:
” When he used me saying things about a colleague in an improper manner, I closed myself of and I also restrained from taking initiatives in entirely other areas then the one we talked about, because that person had become unsafe for me on the whole. Yes, I really retired back then and started working on my own pieces of work and did fewer things for the group. While it is just that I enjoy plus I also think it may have value for the company. But nevertheless, I no longer did that. Now there is someone else sitting in that chair and I started doing it again. So for how important persons are for that matter! "
“To decide to do it or not? Well, it depends on people so that makes it complicated. Suppose I now have superior A, and B is about 6 months and he is not amused. But you are still in that mode and so you come up with a great idea and then B
21
says ‘wait a second friend, we do not go there’. On the other hand, I would never do this initiative at location X either because there is a director there that really matches the control type.”
Another observation about the consistency between factors is that the individual factors DRIVE and PERSON partially compensate for lack of the organizational factors. For instance when there is little room to maneuver (ROOM) personal risk bearing can still urge one to be pro-active:
“Although there is a chance that it does not succeed and it deviates from how things are normally handled here and also is somewhat out of my own jurisdiction, I still took the initiative and I consider it my own risk now to bear the
consequences” .
In this chapter, beneath each of the 8 determinants of pro-active behavior is separately described as how according to the interviewees it had an effect on their pro-active behavior intentions or attempts. But first some observations are made about the examples of pro-active behavior the interviewees came up with during the interviews.
Pro-active behavior
While the interviewees were asked to remember pro-active behavior already executed or think ahead about pro-active behavior they were planning to execute, some things stood out. One was that they almost all mentioned selling or implementing ideas. Although the two-fold definition of pro-active behavior was explained to them beforehand, they seemed less aware of the fact they first had to form ideas and that this in its own right is already pro-active behavior. This seems to refer to a state of being were reflection is less pronounced than doing. Another observation is that the position of the
interviewee in the organization greatly seemed to determine the level of pro-active behavior executed. Professionals mainly executed operational stuff; senior professionals and manager’s operational- and tactical stuff and almost none mentioned strategically stuff. Suggesting sources for new ideas are not available on a day-to-day basis for most of the people.
1. Climate & Structure of the organization
First of all, several interviewees described something called ‘Climate’. What they described not so much seems to link to the culture concept because it is not anchored in standards and institutions but seems more dependent on locations, history and people. Climate within the context of the interviews relates to the following aspects:
a. The experienced way of how one deals with things in the workplace: action- or reflection mode b. The experience of safety and how attention of oneself and/or colleagues are focused: inwards on
control or outwards on entrepreneurship.
a) Lots of interviewees clearly mentioned an action mode in their business unit. As they sought SUPPORT for their ideas or initiatives, it made a big difference whether there was a short-term urgency (MUT/URGENCY) for the matter involved. Also, allocation of resources (MUT/MONEY) seemed depended on this. The action mode results in a focus on quick wins (MUT/TIME) inside the
22 current work- and think frame. Consequently initiatives outside the frame are not supported and initiatives that do not show results on short term are banned. Therefore pro-active behavior mentioned by the interviewees mostly seemed to take place on the operational and sometimes on the tactical level. Strategically changes mentioned merely were adaptations; not anticipations. Because of the dominant action mode, information (INFO) needed and available was mostly targeted at accounting and operations; not on idea generation.
b) Interviewees also differed in how they perceived the climate’s safety and consequently their experimental space and room to make mistakes or deviate (ROOM).
“Being able to fail, falter and diverge is clearly different in the various regions or care companies of Parnassia Holding. I'm less afraid than others when it comes to that, but nevertheless it gives me more comfort and peace as it is spoken out that you simply are allowed to fail”
When people felt less room to deviate they also mentioned to receive less SUPPORT from colleagues or superiors, indicating the experience of (un)safety was shared. A couple of interviewees mentioned ‘fear to deviate’ because of superiors; several mentioned that rumor that people got discharged made pro-activity diminish. One illustrated that when colleagues actually quitted, people were in a state of
mourning and focus was inwards:
“Emotionally the mindset was far from ‘let’s pick up something new’. Reorganization and pro-activity just do not match. Energy was directed inwards whereas to be able to be pro-active energy has to be directed outwards.”
Besides ‘Climate’ also more structural facets of the organization were mentioned to play their part. One aspect of the ‘Structure’ that, according to the interviewees, has an impact on getting Support, Money, Time, Room to maneuver and the right Information, has to do with the Planning & Control system. Within Parnassia the budget is set once a year using information from outside (INFO). After that only internal criteria (INFO) are used, of which productivity is the most important one, to check and correct (afterwards). Only once a year a financial forecast is done using internal criteria only. So idea generation is limited to the internal frame of mind, hampering pro-activity on the strategically level. This is a direct implication of the closed Planning & Control cycle without second order learning incorporated. One interviewee boldly putted it this way:
“There are few people at the top level that are able to think ahead innovatively”
Furthermore, the dominance of financial criteria urges one to not consider and thus SUPPORT initiatives outside the core business that do not have the potential to show immediate financial results (MUT).
"Ideas that are still with me in the concept stage, I like to mirror them before going into action, but to just step up to a director with them?! Maybe this has got something to do with hierarchy and me realizing that especially with them I should have things to talk about of which I know that they directly lead to financial results "
23
So focus is on financial end results and business cases are fixed and not flexible, therefore
experimental space (ROOM) is hampered too:
“Nevertheless, I ignored opposition and still started this pilot when I know there is a lot of skepticism and suspicion about it in the sense that one is already judging it as a bleeder”.
The organizational Structure was mentioned by more than half of the interviewees to play a part in their being (not) able to behave pro-actively. The Parnassia Holding is best described as an M-form organization. Having business units that on their part are divided into outcome responsible units. All units make use of central staff organs in which functions are one-to-one linked with persons. It is not surprising that in this context lots of interviewees complain about the number of ‘railway stations’ they need to pass in order to get SUPPORT or information (INFO). Central rules and regulation hamper ROOM for initiatives. In this respect frequently mentioned are the ICT- and Communication department. To state it mildly:
“Many divisions or units of the secondary value chain have become ends in their own right”
Also business units do not have the financial incentive to cooperate, so this can hamper SUPPORT, ROOM or INFO needed for pro-activity. Units even compete once in a while because they also lack a common goal to guide them (INFO).
Result 1: The organizational Climate and Structure are contexts that can facilitate or hamper the Room, Information, Support, Money and Time that are needed to act pro-actively.
2. Key-players
As was said before, key-players within the context of Parnassia Holding seem to compensate for lacks in the organizational structure to provide ROOM, INFORMATION or SUPPORT. All interviewees mentioned key-figures to have played a significant role in their being able to act proactively. As well as for hard factors, as for soft factors:
“He gave me a sense of security saying ‘I believe in you’”.
The term key-player refers to people who, because of their knowledge, position, or involvement in the matter, are vital for idea generation or implementation. These can be experts needed for knowledge (INFORMATION) or (top-) management to grant access to other key-players and legitimize the idea in the workplace. Key-players (KEYPLAY) also can be spotters of people with good ideas that are in a position to sell and instigate to create critical mass. Or they can be stakeholders outside Parnassia such as GGZ-N, VWS, Accountants and Health insurers with decision space. Evidently early adopters in the workplace involved in the matter can be seen as key-players because they are critical for idea selling. Direct superiors seem particularly important in expressing their appreciation for moral SUPPORT and granting ROOM to maneuver when this is not formally given.
24
"It's nice when they stand behind your idea but in any case mustn’t you have the feeling they are going to punish you for crossing the line. It sure is a good thing if they point that out at the start but the person must also show it non-verbally. Saying and doing have to be congruent. "
The former may be linked to leadership style but moreover it seems they are provided by the context, i.e. the interest of a key player to (not) go along with change at that moment. On the whole it seems key players can obstruct/support ideas not solely on the basis of the content of the idea or rules & regulations but to make a stand about who is in charge and on the basis of their own interests. Entrance to key-players seems to be determined by knowing the right persons, getting access to them and being able to fathom them!
“It pays to have the capacity to sit on the lap of the establishment”
Interviewees from their point of view especially experience access if they feel they are being listened to and taken seriously by that person. In the stories of the interviewed departments of the secondary value chain i.e. services such as ICT, Housing, Facility, Finance and Communication within the Parnassia Holding, often seem eager to stick to regulations and do not show eagerness to deviate. And this clearly obstructs pro-active behavior now and then.
"Look, accounting and payroll do the interviews with banks and so they put in between bumps so that we cannot get a clean conversation with a bank to improve customer care."
It is apparent key-players situated in the secondary value chain themselves sometimes need more ROOM to experiment to be able to be creative in supporting others, such as health care line-managers, to find solutions and act pro-actively.
Result 2: Key-players are key to getting Information, Room, Support, Money and Time. Key-players seem to compensate for lack of provisions within the organizational Climate or Structure.
3. Information
Information plays a profound role in being able to behave pro-actively. First of all information from outside (for instance trends, images of what can be and ideas of other branches) was named as a basis for the creation of ideas about future problems or opportunities for one’s own company.
"It might not only be interesting for supporting divisions, but I think for an employee of a health care company too, sniffing around at another BU. You cannot spot chances if you do not know where to look, if you do not come into contact with them."
Secondly it became clear that information can help by checking upon the soundness of those ideas with sparring partners and to assess strategically consequences and the success ratio. Thirdly, information is needed to (a) further get acquainted to the subject and define it, (b) connect to employees and inform, train and/or motivate them by talking their language
25
"The challenge is that I outline a realistic understandable perspective, otherwise there remains little because it is too far away for people."
and (c) to develop a common language around the subject to use during implementation of the idea. On the whole information is vital in providing the building blocks to move along pro-actively. But what is information exactly? It is a broad term stretching from detailed numbers to wider frameworks; from facts to opinions. Most interviewees mention some sort of framework they need to be able to assess the urgency of an idea, or to assess their decision space needed for implementing that idea.
“You must have frames; otherwise you get what was in the past. Everyone walks his own path without grip. You provide anchors and safety with those frameworks”
An example of a broader framework is understanding the why of the business goals, and what is more important: to understand what is more important than what, in order to weigh options before deciding what to do. These facilitate acceptance of an idea because it is linked to a broader context,
"Because that is momentarily a problem for me. I do not know exactly what the motives of the board of directors are to make certain choices. There is insufficient transparency here. And I also do not know if the reason for reorganization corresponds with the figures because I do not understand those figures. While I do need those figures to cover my story to the people involved in my pro-active endeavours”.
and provide a common ground for different business units which facilitate pro-activity outstretching one’s own department. The vision where we stand for and the mission, say the image of 2020, also helps to give meaning to events.
“To understand what is going on outside and connect this with the inside is hard for people in the workplace because they lack the greater picture”.
And without meaning the connection with one’s own organization is vague and so idea generation is greatly hampered. If strategically assumptions and images are not shared, selling of an idea gets harder. Interviewees higher in hierarchy stressed out that employees seem to miss out on feedback that links their efforts to the greater picture, the end product. Providing that information to them is not enough though; they also have to understand the business model to be able to assess the meaning of feedback.
Sources of information mentioned by the interviewees can be divided into 3 categories:
1. Passive/divergent search outside one’s own context to spot ideas. This can simply be giving
meaning to an occurrence with others (for instance colleagues) to structure one’s thoughts. Also interaction with customers can be a source of idea generation. For instance salesmen of Parnassia talking to financers or professionals talking to clients and referrers. Other sources interviewees came up with were: listening to other disciplines/departments/business units, contacts with other companies, education, magazines, big thinkers outside the current frame and science.
