Proactive behaviour:
The impact of work characteristics on proactive behaviour of employees in a
digitized and standardized work environment
A field study at company X
Final versionSeptember, 2011
Master thesis, MscBA, specialisation Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Business and Economics
Rob Haverkamp Student number: 1737643
University of Groningen
MscBA, Faculty of Business and Economics
Rengersdiep 3 8032 NJ Zwolle Tel.; +31 6 42142458 Email: r.r.haverkamp@student.rug.nl Supervisor/university 1st supervisor: dr. B. Emans 2ndsupervisor: dr. C. Reezigt Supervisor/field of study Human Resource Advisorscompany X
Mw. C.R.B. Noordoven-Smit Mw. M.L. Adema-Haringsma
Table of contents
1. Introduction... 5
1.1 Changing from a paper to an e-business insurance organization at company X ... 6
2 Theoretical background ... 7 2.1 Proactive behaviour... 7 2.2 Job autonomy ... 8 2.3 Role ambiguity ... 8 2.4 Personal accountability... 9 2.5 Job complexity ... 10
2.6 Mechanisms influencing the relationship between working characteristics and proactive behaviour ... 11
2.6.1 Motivation ... 11
2.6.2 Knowledge & Skills ... 11
2.6.3 Opportunity ... 12
2.7 Renewed conceptual model ... 13
3. Research methodology ... 14 3.1 Data collection ... 14 3.2 Data analysis ... 16 4. Results... 17 4.1 Autonomy ... 17 4.2 Role ambiguity ... 20 4.3 Personal accountability... 22 4.4 Job complexity ... 24
5. Conclusion & discussion ... 27
5.1Job autonomy and proactive behaviour... 27
5.2Role ambiguity and proactive behaviour... 28
5.3Personal accountability and proactive behaviour... 30
5.4Job complexity and proactive behaviour ... 31
5.5 Additional mechanisms derived from the interviews... 32
5.6 Management summary ... 33
5.7 Limitations and future research ... 34
7. Bibliography... 36
Abstract
Researchers argue that work characteristics have an impact on stimulating proactive behaviour of employees(Grant &Parker, 2009; Frese et al.(1996;Parker et al. 2006). To date however these studies all focused on proactive behaviour in complex and dynamic working environments. The aim of this study is to increase the understanding of proactive behaviour of employees in digitized and standardized working environments. The Shared Service Centre (SSC) of company X was used as a field example. Grant &Parker (2009) examined the impact of multiple antecedents (i.e. work characteristics) on the proactive behaviour of employees and this study builds upon their theoretical framework by examining some of their work characteristics and their respective impact on the proactive behaviour of 17 employees of the SSC.
The human resources team of company X is highly involved in the evolvement of SSC and therefore specifically interested in the impact of work characteristics that are controllable by management. Based on their input as well as the aforementioned previous findings of Grant &Parker (2009) a theoretical framework emerged including job autonomy, role ambiguity, personal accountability and job complexity as controllable work characteristics. In addition it is of particular interest – both for company X as well as for a contribution to scholarly literature – how different mechanisms can contributeto the relationship between the work characteristics and proactive behaviour. These mechanisms are derived from Grant &Parker (2009) as well and include motivation, knowledge & skills and opportunity.
The results indicate some interesting discrepancies with current scholarly literature. These are analyzed in the discussion section of this study. One of the most significant contributions to scholarly literature is that respondents actually introduced a new mechanism that possibly could contribute to the relationship between the work characteristics and proactive behaviour, namely confidence.
Keywords: Change, digital processes, standard work, proactive behaviour, job autonomy, role ambiguity, personal accountability and job complexity.
Word count: 11.147
A mantra for proactive people
1. Introduction
Over the past fifteen years proactive behaviour of employees gained a growing attention due to the fact organizations operate in an increasingly fast changing environment and hence competition is also always on the rise. Frese, Fay, Hilburger and Tag (1997) already showed in 1997 that proactive behaviour is an important factor of organizational success. Therefore organizations strive to maximize the proactive behaviour of employees in order to stay ahead of competition. Management executives expect from their employees to continuously search for opportunities to develop new skills, gather new knowledge and create new and improved work methods. Furthermore they also stimulate employees to come up with new ideas and initiatives that can add value to the organization. As such researchers and organizations alike want to learn more about the antecedents that have an impact on the proactive behaviour of employees.
Literature shows thatthere are many different antecedents that have animpact on proactive behaviour.Frese et al.(1996) and Parker et al. (2006) – among others – examined job autonomy and job complexity, collectively named work characteristics. Grant & Ashford (2008) added ambiguity to the playing field and Grant &Parker (2009) also evaluated job autonomy, job complexity, ambiguity and added accountability. Morrison & Phelps (1999) and Ohly et al. (2006) included environmental characteristics such as management support. Furthermore individual characteristics like proactive personality were studied by Bateman & Crant (1993) and were found to have an impact on proactive behaviour.
1.1 Changing from a paper to an e-business insurance organization at Company X
Company X is one of the biggest insurance companies in the Netherlands and as any other organization it experienced a fast changing environment, increasing competition and the growing use of the Internet.
Therefore management executivesat company X stipulated a path to change from a “paper insurance organization” to an “e-business” organization. In specific they defined a three-step process to come from a traditional insurance organization to an e-business insurance organization. Step 1 is directed towards efficient handling of document management and in essence is the actual traditional insurance organization. The next step is characterized by digitized information and communication. The objective of this second step is to increase attention for the customers by providing them with better and faster solutions to serve their needs. The final step is the proclaimed e-business organization: all processes and management tasks are also digitized and the strategic impact is aimed at increasing innovative capabilities and speed up time-to-market for new products.
As the plan is currently written, management executives and the Human Resource team of company X are concerned whether or not the combination of standardized work and digitized processes would negatively influence the proactive behaviour of employees. More specifically, they were even afraid that employees could become reactive instead of proactive.
To provide an answer and prepare themselves the management executives and the Human Resource team were enthusiastic to participate in this study. More particularly, they are interested inwork characteristics that are controllable by management.
In addition the objective of this study is to contribute to and build on scholarly literature. Current literature has a strong emphasis on descriptive research. This study in turn shifts attention to a hands-on field study.
The following research question was formulated:
2 Theoretical background 2.1 Proactive behaviour
Proactive behaviour can be described as the extent to which an individual takes self-directed action to anticipate or initiate change in work systems of work roles (Griffin, Neal & Parker, 2007). For example, an employee may develop work methods to fulfil tasks more efficiently or improve procedures to increase customer satisfaction.
Proactive individuals construe their roles more broadly (Parker et al. 1997) and redefine their roles to encapsulate new tasks and goals (Frese and Fay, 2001). Proactive behaviour is “taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones and involves challenging the status quo rather than passive adapting to present conditions” (Crant, 2000).
The literature has a strong focus on antecedents of proactive behaviour in dynamic and unstable environments. Most particular is the ‘Dynamic Model of Work Design and Proactive Behaviour’ of Grant & Parker (2009) as depicted in figure 1.
However, organizations that operate in stable environments become more and more interested in proactive behaviour as well. They want to use the understanding of this phenomenon to steer their employees from a reactive attitude to a more proactive role within the firm in order to increase the firm’s success.
Figure 1:
Model of work design and proactive behaviour of employees (based on Grant & Parker, 2009)
As figure 1 shows, there are four work characteristics that have an impact on proactive behaviour of employees: job autonomy, role ambiguity, personal accountability and job
2.2 Job autonomy
Job autonomy deals with the ability to determine how one does his or her own job (Fuller et al. 2006). Hackman & Oldham(1976) provided a more elaborate definition and described autonomy as “the freedom that an employee has in his or her function to schedule work, make decisions how to carry out the task and select their own work method”.However, in essence it states exactly the same as the definition of Fuller et al. (2006). There are a number of explanations for why job autonomy is related to proactive behaviour of employees.
Job autonomy indicates that employees can choose how to do their job. This stimulates them to think of new and improved ways to carry out current tasks and in turn increase their efficiency (Parker et al, 2006).Parker (1998) found similar results stating that job autonomy can also be experienced as challenging given that it providesemployees the freedom to experiment and make the workplace more efficient. In addition, Hackman & Oldham(1976) noted that job autonomy has an impact on the intrinsic satisfaction given that employees can control their own work. According to Hirschfeld (2002) intrinsic satisfaction refers to the elements of the job tasks themselves (e.g. variety, skill utilisation). Consequently this makes involvement with the work more likely.
Q1. Does job autonomyhave a positive impact on proactive behaviour of employees in a highly
digitized and standardized workplace?
2.3 Role ambiguity
However, unclear authority or judgement can also induce uncertainty. In that case employees can experience high levels of stress and subsequently difficulties in performing their tasks. A point could be made that interferes with proactive behaviour as employees rather wait and see what will happen (Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970). Von Emster& Harrison (1998) take upon this statement and argue that uncertainty in tasks or responsibilities instead could challenge employees to develop new knowledge and skills. In other words, they state employees want to be ahead of the curve and anticipate changes within the organization by preparing themselves as thorough as possible. Katz & Kahn (1978) argue along the line of Von Emster& Harrison (1998), but are not as progressive. They found that unclear expectations in the work of employees mightstimulate employees to search for information to gain a betterunderstanding of the appropriate behaviour in their work. However, using this new information to develop their skills was not part of their findings. Griffin et al. (2007) also indicate that when employees are faced with situations of ambiguity they have a predisposition towards displaying proactive behaviour.
Q2. Does role ambiguity have a positive impact on proactive behaviour of employees in a
highly digitized and standardized workplace?
2.4 Personal accountability
Personal accountability can be described as “the extent to which an employee feels personally accountable and responsible for his or her work” (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In addition, this is closely related to the willingness to take responsibility for one’s own action.There are a number of explanations why personal accountability is related to proactive behaviour of employees.
There is also a strong tie between personal accountability and work outcomes (Bandura, 1998; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Work outcomes are a direct result of employees’ own personal initiatives. Given that employees strive to maximize their own result, they simultaneously are willing to initiate new activities. In turn this puts the individual employees’ objective on the same page as the organization’s overall goals and mission (Boyd, 2003).
Q3. Does personal accountability have a positive impact on proactive behaviour of employees
in a highly digitized and standardized workplace?
2.5 Job complexity
Job complexity can be described as the level of difficulty associated with the job. For instance due to the number of different tasks and activities or the impact of the job on the company chain as a whole.
Frese and colleagues proved that employees with complex jobs execute more personal initiatives (Frese et al., 1996; Frese et al., 2007; Speier &Frese, 1997). There are a number of explanations why job complexity is related to proactive behaviour of employees.
Elsbach & Hargadon (2006) argue that job complexity could lead to stress, which has a negative impact on proactive behaviour. When employees are faced with a heavy workload their precious time is directed towards decreasing this load instead of anticipating, planning and acting in advance on (un)foreseen changes.
However, there is also another side to the medallion. Complex jobs are expected to support and encourage higher levels of motivation and creativity because employees have to focus on multiple dimensions of their work (Deci, Connell and Ryan, 1989; Hackman and Oldham, 1980).
Job complexity can also stimulate creativity, flexibility and feelings of responsibility to solve problems (Frese et al., 2007; Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). I.e. if an employee feels more responsible for a task, he or she will subsequently execute all necessary activities to perform that task. Preferably even surpass expectations and deliver more than was asked for.
Q4. Does job complexity have a positive impact on proactive behaviour of employees in a
2.6 Contribution of mechanisms to the relationship between working characteristics and proactive behaviour
Next to these work characteristics there are mechanisms that contribute to the relationship between the antecedents and proactive behaviour (Parker & Grant, 2009). These are motivation, knowledge & skills and opportunity and are consistent with the MOA model.
2.6.1 Motivation
Simply put motivation is the driving force by which employees – or humans in general – achieve their goals. According to the model of Parker & Grant (2009), enhancing the motivation of the involved employees may promote proactive behaviour. In other words, the more motivated an employee is, the more he or she will be induced to behave pro-actively. It is the employees’ belief that he or she is able to organize and execute work related things (Bandura, 1997). Grant & Ashford (2008) further specify motivation in intrinsic motivation. Stating that when employees are intrinsically motivated, have the necessary knowledge and right tools at their disposal, they are more likely to come up with useful ideas and are more willing to actually implement them. In this case having control over one’s own tasks makes it obsolete to ask others for permission or to search for allies. Asking for permission or searching for allies could hinder proactive behaviour if permission is not granted or allies are never found.
2.6.2 Knowledge & Skills
Knowledge and skills are both subjects of ability. MacInnis (1997) described ability as “the extent to which employees have the necessary resources (e.g. knowledge, skills and money) to make an outcome happen”.
However, this study is aimed at highly digitized and standardized working environments, indicating that knowledge and skills in turn have a subordinate influence on the relationship between the working characteristics and proactive behaviour.
2.6.3 Opportunity
MacInnis and Jaworski (1986) described opportunity as “the extent to which a situation is conductive to achieving a desired outcome. In addition, they outline several situational factors such as the available time or the number of distractions. Thus, opportunity can be approached from a positive view of availability or it can be viewed from a negative perspective of impediments (MacInnis et al., 1997).
Opportunity is different from the other two mechanisms – motivation and knowledge & skills – in the sense it is not a mechanism controllable by management. I.e. offering training can develop knowledge & skills and motivation can be stimulated in terms of a bonus. However, stimulating ‘opportunity’ is not that straightforward, if at all possible. An opportunity arises or not. Nevertheless it is interesting to know that, if it arises, what the contribution will be on proactive behaviour. Take for example the relationship between job autonomy and proactive behaviour. Does the situation where an organization provides freedom to their employees to schedule their own work truly lead those employees to take that freedom?
Q5a. Does motivation contribute to the relationship between work characteristics and
proactive behaviour in a highly digitalized and standardized workplace?
Q5b. Do knowledge & skills contribute to the relationship between the work characteristics and
proactive behaviour in a highly digitalized and standardized workplace?
Q5c. Does opportunity contribute to the relationship between work characteristics and
proactive behaviour in a highly digitalized and standardized workplace?
2.7Renewed conceptual model
Incorporating the mechanisms from paragraph 2.6 into the conceptual model from figure 1, leads to a renewed conceptual model as depicted in figure 2. This study is meant to test if job autonomy, role ambiguity, personal accountability and job complexity have an impact on proactive behaviour of employees in a highly digitized and standardized workplace. A second objective is to understand if and how the three mechanisms contribute to this relationship between the work characteristics and proactive behaviour of employees.
Figure 2:
Model of work design and proactive behaviour of employees (based on Grant&Parker, 2009)
3. Research methodology
3.1 Data collection
Interview.Interviews are the desired form of information gathering given the complexity of the work characteristics. Data collection was done through individual depth interviews and was semi-structured. The respondents got the possibility to share their own experience, feelings and opinions.On average each interview took between 1 and 2 hours. Before conducting the interviews, respondents were first debriefed regarding the various terms used in this study. They receivedthe corresponding descriptions of the work characteristics and proactive behaviour as formulated in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.6.The interviews were allface-to-face and included both open and closed questions. See appendix 1 for a full transcript of the questionnaire. On forehand respondents were informed the interview would be recorded on tape and they were asked for their approval.
Testing the questionnaire. The questionnaire was tested with anemployee from the Human Resource department at company X. This HR employee in particular was familiar with the other respondents that would follow and could therefore accurately stipulate if the questions were too difficult. The test also had another objective given that the interviewer could get accustomed to conducting the interview (e.g. how to ask the right follow-up questions and how to lead the conversation).
During the interview respondents did not receive any notification of the mechanisms as mentioned in chapter 2 (theoretical background). Reason for this was to explore any possible new mechanisms that may contribute to the impact of the work characteristics on proactive behaviour.Next, through careful asking follow-up questions, respondents were forced to explain their answers as detailed as possible. Due to this in-depth analysis the researcher was able to either place the mechanisms they mentioned within the scope of one of the mechanisms as mentioned in chapter two or – if this was not feasible – to create a new mechanism.
To measure to what degree job autonomy, role ambiguity, personal accountability and job complexity have an impact on proactive behaviour of employees in a stable, highly digitized and standardized work environment the respondents could chose from answers ranging from very high, high, normal, low and zero.
Participants. In total 17 interviews were conducted: 15 respondents were (operational) employees from company X and the other two were team managers at the same firm.All work across different departments associated with the Shared Service Centre. To be precise: output (archive, print & fulfilment), input (mail & scan) and management& consultancy. A list containing statistics of the respondents is included in table 1.
Table 1:Statistics of the respondents
Department/Function Location Gender Age Education
Mail Tilburg Apeldoorn De Meern Leeuwarden Female Male Female Female 21-25 36-40 46-50 56-60 Low educated Low educated Low educated Low educated Scan Apeldoorn Zwolle Female Female 36-40 46-50 Average educated Low educated Print & fulfilment Apeldoorn
Leeuwarden Male Female Male Female 46-50 56-60 41-50 51-60 Average educated Low educated High educated Low educated Procurement& supply Leeuwarden
Apeldoorn Male Male 46-50 51-60 Low educated Low educated
Archive Apeldoorn Male 46-50 Average educated
Reviewing the data. The gathered data from the interviews were sorted out using tables. Table 2 depicts how question 1 was reviewed (“Based on your own experiences, which factors have an impact on proactive behaviour”?). I.e. different factors were derived from the respondent’s answers and each factor received an explanation as to why this influenced proactive behaviour.
Table 2:
Example of the table for writing down the answers to question 1
The aim of the aforementioned question was to explore whether the factors that have an impact on proactive behaviour in a dynamic and unstable environment also have an impact on proactive behaviour in a stable environment. In addition, the question may gain new insight in factors that have an impact on proactive behaviour of employees in a stable environment.
Table 2 was also used for writing down the answers to the question “Which influence this impact and could you explain this with examples?” In this way the mechanisms that influence the work characteristics in a dynamic and unstable environment could be compared with the mechanisms that gave rise to work characteristics in a stable environment.
3.2 Data analysis
Table 3 shows how the results from the interviews are linked with the theory in chapter 2. More specifically, how the various research questions are linked with their respective corresponding interview questions.
Table 3:
Connecting the hypotheses to the interview questions
Factor that impacts proactive behaviour Explanation
Questions Related interview questions (see appendix 1)
4. Results
4.1 Job autonomy
Table 4 shows the different answers provided with regard to the impact of job autonomy on proactive behaviour of employees.The majority of therespondents said they experienced a high to very high presence of job autonomy in their working life.The team manager on the other hand indicated this to beneutral to high.Both groups – employees and team managers – seem to agree on the impact of job autonomy, indicating this impact is mostly ‘high’.
Table 4: Job autonomy and proactive behaviour of employees
Presence * Impact ** Employees TM Employees TM Very high 3 4 High 8 1 8 2 Neutral 4 1 2 Low 1 Zero
Note: The cells contain the number of respondents, * is the perceived presence of job autonomy in the function of the respondents and ** is the perceived impact of job autonomy on proactive behaviour
Table 5:
The perceived contribution of the mechanisms to the impact of job autonomy on proactive behaviour according to the respondents
Mechanism Contribution to proactive behaviour No. of respondents *
Motivation
Employees indeed had the ability to determine their own tasks and activitiesand to come up with ideas or initiatives to improve their own work methods. This ability increased the motivation level of employees. However, expanding their view to a broader level – suggesting improvements outside the scope of their function – was disregarded time after time. Managers simply did not listen to the initiatives and ideas. Subsequently this led to a decreased motivation among employees and was accompanied by a lower willingness to go the extra mile.
Furthermore, employees said that having the space to define their own tasks, work sequence and work methods motivates them to work more independent. In turn this led them to behave more proactive. In case of a problem they first tried to find solutions to solve it by themselves or with the help of colleagues. Only if this did not yield sufficient results they would turn to management for advice.
6
8
Knowledge & Skills
The organization offers the freedom to employeesto direct their own work and to develop knowledge & skills by means of training and courses. However, employees indicated they only marginally used these possibilities. As they claimed this was due to the fact that informing themselves of the different courses available was a time consuming activity. The intranet includes all possible training and courses provided and that leads to pages and pages of information that employees simply are not willing to or have the time for to read. One example in particular is where the employee was offered to follow a training program suited to his needs, interests and capabilities. Tailor made if you will. However, the employee chose not to participate since he was happy with his current function and did not feel the need to step up the ladder.Consequently the level of knowledge & skills remained practically the same and the proactive behaviour of this particular employee displayed no changes.
4
Note: * Respondents were able to name multiple mechanisms
Opportunity
one’s own function and take up the challenge to improve whatever process the employee deemed feasible.
Employees on the other hand indicated that they indeed had the opportunity to go beyond their function. Employees seized this opportunity and used it to either work in advance or help other colleagues finish their tasks in time. Only marginally do they gather information from third parties (e.g. consultants) to evaluate their own function and subsequently come up with improvements. In other words, they do no direct attention towards improving processes.
Nevertheless, working in advance or helping out colleagues is also perceived as proactive behaviour. Indicating that when employees have the opportunity to go outside the scope of their own function, they are willing – to a certain limit – to do so.
4.2Role ambiguity
Table 6 depicts both the perceived presence of role ambiguity in the workplace as well as the perceived contribution of that mechanism on the relationship between role ambiguity and proactive behaviour of employees. There is a strong divergence between the employees and the team managers. Whereas the former indicate neutral to zero presence of role ambiguity in their workplace, the latter state exactly the opposite. Regarding the impact of role ambiguity on proactive behaviour the employees indicate this is high to very high whereas the team managers said this to be neutral to zero.
Table 6: Role ambiguity and proactive behaviour
Presence * Impact ** Employees TM Employees TM Very high 1 3 High 1 1 6 Neutral 8 1 1 Low 1 1 Zero 5 4 1
Note: The cells contain the number of respondents, * is the perceived presence of role ambiguity in the function of the respondents and ** is the perceived impact of role ambiguity on proactive behaviour
Table 7:
The perceived contribution of the mechanisms to the impact of role ambiguity on proactive behaviour according to the respondents
Mechanism Contribution to proactive behaviour No. of respondents *
Motivation
In short the ambiguity associated with role ambiguity crushed moral among employees and as such decreased the motivation to take initiatives. Not knowing what the nearby future would bring accompanied by reorganizations led employees to rather sit and wait than to initiate steps to reassure their position within the organization.
In addition the employees mentioned that role ambiguity led to increased levels of stress. Sometimes employees were desperate to find a solution to a specific problem on their own that instead they called in external consult to help them out. To increase empathy an employee even invited a client to come over and experience firsthand how the processes were executed. This increased insight led to a decreased amount of unsuspected problems associated with that particular client. The action of the employee could in this case be explained as being motivated to initiate the step to invite the client. However, this was done more from a perspective of total disillusion than from a perspective of motivation.
4
Knowledge
&
Skills
Whenever employees were faced with a problem or question from a client they could not immediately deal with, they would call in help from colleagues. This stimulated them to work together to solve problems.
Another positive point is that employees indicated that they perceive problems as an opportunity to learn. In this respect the mentioned that two departments once work together on a project of a client given that the single departments both did not have the necessary skills on board to accomplish the project.
3
Opportunity
Due to the many changes in their respective functions, employees do not understand the appropriate behaviour associated with their function nor do they explicitly know what managers expect from them.
In particular the function of one employee became obsolete after the implementation of the new SAP software. Next to the fact the employees lost a colleague, they also indicated that the new software limited their opportunities to go beyond the scope of their function as the software set clear boundaries what they could and could not do.
In short the digitized processes caused not only uncertainty in the workplace but even more led to a negative attitude among employees towards their own job and the organization.
4.3 Personal accountability
The presence and impact of personal accountability on proactive behaviour, as perceived by the respondents, is depicted in table 8. It displays a situation of common agreement; both the employees and the team managers perceive the presence of personal accountability as high to very high. Both groups – employees and team managers – also seem to agree on the impact of personal accountability, indicating this impact is mostly ‘high’.
Table 8: Personal accountability and proactive behaviour of employees
Presence * Impact ** Employees TM Employees TM Very High 4 1 2 High 4 1 9 1 Neutral 7 2 1 Low 1 Zero 1
Note: The cells contain the number of respondents, * is theperceived presence of personal accountability in the function of the respondents and ** perceived impact of personal accountability on proactive behaviour
Table 9:
The perceived contribution of the mechanisms to the impact of personal accountability on proactive behaviour according to the respondents
Mechanism Contribution to proactive behaviour No. of respondents *
Motivation
Holding employees’ personal accountable increased their motivation to take responsibility for one’s own actions to achieve a desired goal. A process coordinator in this respect said the fact he is personal accountable for all processes this motivated him to work more accurately. Furthermore it stimulated him to actively search for solutions when problems did occur instead of turning to management to come up with a solution.
Some employees even indicated that they regularly checked the work of colleagues and provided feedback, removed errors and suggested improvements all to increase the quality of output. A strong indication that being motivated contributes to the effect of personal accountability on proactive behaviour.
9
Knowledge
&
Skills
Multiple employees felt responsible to solve problems. In order to realize this they called in external sources to find a solution for a specific problem regarding the mailbox of a client. Instead of just calling in the help, they looked over the shoulders of the external help in order to grasp their way of thinking and acting. As such they became aware of new working methods to incorporate in their own day-to-day activities. I.e. feeling more responsible consequently increased the level of knowledge and skills, which in turn lead to proactive behaviour.
One employee in particular took the new knowledge to the next level and initiated changes in communication. He wanted to cut time in decision-making and improve communication between departments and did this by shortening communication lines.
Another employee followed a more straightforward manner of increasing his level of knowledge & skills. He participated in a training in order to gain a better understanding of the newly acquired SAP software.
4
Opportunity
The actual personal accountability that was associated with their respective functions was sufficient not to strive for more. I.e. the employees felt comfortable to execute their tasks and to be responsible for this. They knew what the tasks entail and how to execute them to oblige management’s expectations. However, personally being responsible for tasks that go beyond the scope of their function was not appreciated. The employees said they simply could not handle that. In short, employeesdid not take the opportunity to be personal accountable for a broader range of tasks or it was their opinion that these broader tasks were actually part of their job description.
4.4 Job complexity
The majority of the interviewed employees indicate they perceive job complexity as neutral to high, the interviewed team managers said this to be neutral to low, as shown in table 10. The impact of job complexity on proactive behaviour is perceived as neutral to high according to the employees and high according to the team managers.
Table 10: Job complexity and proactive behaviour of employees
Presence * Impact ** Employees TM Employees TM Very high High 4 7 2 Neutral 5 1 5 Low 3 1 2 Zero 3 1
Note: The cells contain the number of respondents, * is theperceived presence of job complexity in the function of the respondents and ** is theperceived impact of job complexity on proactive behaviour
Table 11:
The perceived contribution of the mechanisms to the impact of job complexity on proactive behaviour according to the respondents
Mechanism Contribution to proactive behaviour No. of respondents *
Motivation
The difficulties in the workplace as a result of job complexity crushed moral among employees and as such decreased the motivation to take initiatives. However, instead of letting this truly demotivate them, they took upon the challenge to decrease the complexity. They were motivated to find new and improved ways of execute the same tasks more efficiently. An example that was provided in specific was the enormous amount of different envelopes the employees of the mail department had to cope with. Decreasing the number of different envelopes was not possible, so they rearranged and reorganized the workplace to form different rows for each type of envelope. A certain display of proactive behaviour.
9
Knowledge & Skills
The tasks the employees need to execute are part of a larger chain. I.e. every employee executes a small task and together they execute a larger task. In order to improve efficiency the employees started to learn more about previous and subsequent parts of the chain. This resulted in a better understanding of the processes associated with the chain as a whole and in turn this new knowledge led the employees to develop work methods that better fit the requirements of the respective previous and subsequent links of the chain.
6
Opportunity
The tasks at hand at the department ‘Input’ are far most characterized by routine. Everyday sorting, processing and delivering the mail tends to contribute to routine rather than to variety as the employees said. There is not really the opportunity to do more or different tasks. As a result the employees also displayed no proactive behaviour.
On the other hand the tasks at the department ‘Management & Consultancy’ were complex enough so the opportunity could arise for employees to grasp more and different tasks.
4.5 Additional mechanism derived from the interviews
During the interviews one mechanism arose that possibly contribute to the relationship between the work characteristics and proactive behaviour of employees. Next to motivation, knowledge & skills and opportunity the respondents also mentioned confidence as possible mechanism that contribute to proactive behaviour of employees.Why and how this mechanismpossibly could contribute tothe relationship is depicted in table 12.
Table 12:
Additional mechanismderived from the interviews that possibly contribute toproactive behaviour
Mechanism Contribution to proactive behaviour No. of respondents *
Confidence
A total of 8 employees mentioned that an increased level of confidence fuelled their belief that they had the capacities to organize and execute new activities or tasks. In most cases a supervisor stimulated this confidence.
For example one employee managed a new project and arranged all accompanying activities in order for the project to be a success. In the end it was a success and the employee claimed that if he had not got the support of his supervisor, he would not have undertaken the project. In addition he said it now was even easier to undertake new projects in the future.
Another employee mentioned that he followed a training in order to develop new knowledge & skills and of course apply this new profound insight in his function. He stated that without the support of his supervisor he would not have followed the training.
A third employee took up the challenge to make a formation planning after she was told that she had the capacities to do so. It required an in-depth analysis of processes and she was doubtful whether or not she could accomplish this successful. In the end she did make it a success and told that if her manager did not ask her to analyze the processes, she would not have done it.
Three examples that indicate employees will behave proactive when they have or get the confidence they need to execute the task at hand.
8
5. Conclusion & discussion
For comprehensibility purposes the relationships between the different work characteristics and proactive behaviour of employees will be examined in individual paragraphs. Furthermore this chapter discusses the additional mechanisms derived from the interviews and concludes with a management summary, limitations and future research possibilities.
5.1 Job autonomy and proactive behaviour
The majority of the interviewed employees (12 out of 15) and both interviewed team managers indicate that job autonomy has a positive impact on proactive behaviour in their situation. Job autonomy provides employeesthe freedom to take initiative and stimulates them to come up with solutions to improve the efficiency of their daily tasks.
Based on the results of the various interviews,the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative. Job autonomy has a positive impact on proactive behaviour.
Griffin et al. (2007) argued that motivation predicts additional proactive behaviour of employees by improving core tasks and taking initiative to improve work methods and effectiveness. The results of this study suggest that no support was provided for this statement in a digitized and standardized working environment. Results show that employees suggest that motivation contributes to proactive behaviour. Employees are inclined to initiate change, however when they actually pose such a possibility, management simply does not listen. A possible explanation for this is that managers do not know how to act when employees come up with new ideas in a digitized and standardized working environment.
The third mechanism, opportunity, was suggested to contribute to the relationship of job autonomy and proactive behaviour of employees. Results are conclusive about the fact that when the opportunity arises to help out colleagues or to work in advance, employees take upon this opportunity and as such go beyond the scope of their own function.
Q5a,b,c. The three mechanismswere suggested to contribute to the relationship between job autonomy and proactive behaviour. However, disturbing factors makes the contribution of motivation, knowledge & skills more difficult to contribute to the relation between job autonomy and proactive behaviour.
5.2 Role ambiguity and proactive behaviour
According to the majority of the interviewed employees (9 out of 15) reducing role ambiguity leads to an increase in proactive behaviour in their situation. This is a sharp contrast with the statements of both interviewed team managers; they said that reducing the role ambiguity for their employees has little to no impact at all on proactive behaviour. Grant & Ashford (2008) tend to be on the side of the employees as their findings are consistent, indicating that reducing role ambiguity indeed leads to an increase in proactive behaviour.
Based on the results of the various interviews, the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative. Role ambiguity has a positive impact on proactive behaviour.
The results of this study however suggest that knowledge and skills contribute to proactive behaviour of employees in a digitized and standardized working environment. Employees suggested although uncertainty negatively affected their motivation to go the extra mile, they also were aware that if they did not act at all their role within the firm was even more vulnerable. Therefore they suggested that uncertainty also was an opportunity to learn and it also paved the way for closer collaboration with colleagues and third parties like consultancy firms. Grant & Ashford (2008) agrees with this as information seeking – part of role ambiguity – predicts higher levels of proactive behaviour.
Employees suggested that opportunitydo not contribute to the relationship between role ambiguity and proactive behaviour of employees. The uncertainty as a result of the changes in processes led employees to focus on their job at hand and not to broaden their view to any activities that might need attention outside the scope of their function. In addition, thanks to the changes the employees do not have a clear understanding anymore of what they are expected to do or how they are expected to act. In turn resulting in the fact they also do not know how to change their own behaviour to once again fit the expectations.
5.3 Personal accountability and proactive behaviour
A total of 11 out of 15 interviewed employees said that personal accountability has a positive impact on proactive behaviour. Both interviewed team managers are not on the same page; whereas one indicated personal accountability has a high – positive – impact on the proactive behaviour of employees in digitized and standardized working environments, the other one said this to be neutral. Morgeson & Humphrey (2008) agree that personal accountability stimulates proactive behaviour.
Based on the results of the various interviews, the answer toquestion 3 isin the affirmative. Personal accountability stimulates proactive behaviour of employees in a digitized and standardized working environment.
Grant & Ashford (2008) stated that motivation increases proactive behaviour through strengthening employees’ feeling of responsibility for taking initiative. This study underlines that statement by suggesting that motivation also contributes to the relationship between personal accountability and proactive behaviour in digitized and standardized working environments. Employees said that being personal responsible motivated them to excel in their own work and a small group of employeeseven provided feedback on the work of colleagues as well. In short, it increases the feeling of responsibility one’s own work, and sometimes also for the work of colleagues.
A small group of respondents suggestedthat knowledge & skills also influence the relationship between personal accountability and proactive behaviour. Employees participate in training programs and courses to – amongst others – increase their understanding of processes. McAllister et al. (2007) found similar results stating that personal accountability predicts proactive behaviour by taking charge to improve work methods and processes.
Q5a,b,c. Knowledge& skills as well as motivation were suggested to contribute to this relationship. However, respondents suggested that opportunity on the other hand does not contribute to proactive behaviour.
5.4 Job complexity and proactive behaviour
The majority of interviewed employees (8 out of 15) said that job complexity has no or, at most, a neutral impact on proactive behaviour in a digitized and standardized working environment. This in contrast to both interviewed team managers; they indicated that job complexity has a positive impact on the proactive behaviour of the employees. Frese et al. (2007) argue along the line of the team managers, their findings state that employees who work in complex jobs exercise more personal initiatives. Ohly et al. (2006) even provided empirical evidence that routinized processes predict higher levels of proactive behaviour.
Based on the results of the various interviews no support was found for question 4. Job complexity does not have a positive impact on proactive behaviour of employees in digitized and standardized working environments.
Job complexity is often associated with increased levels of stress resulting in a decreased motivation of employees which prevents them from having the time and energy necessary to anticipate, plan ahead and act in advance to create change (Ohly, Sonnentag & Pluntke, 2006). The results of this study suggest a different setting. Employees suggest that job complexity stimulated them to search for solutions in order to decrease complexity as well as to reduce possible problems in the future.In addition, employees suggest that job complexity stimulated them to gain new knowledge and develop new skills to increase insight in all processes associated with their work. Once again this contradicts with findings from previous scholars, Fay & Sonnentag (2002) and Ohly, Sonnentag & Pluntke (2006) in particular.
Respondents suggested that opportunitydoes not contribute tothe relationship between job complexity and proactive behaviour due to the fact employees claimed opportunities to display proactive behaviour do not arise. Day-to-day tasks do not vary and employees do not have the willingness to take on more or different tasks.
However, the day-to-day tasks at the department ‘Management & Consultancy’ do vary and are characterized by complex activities. As such employees of this department do have the opportunity to undertake more and different tasks and also actually do this.
Q5a,b,c. Suggested was that knowledge & skills as well as motivation do contribute to the relationship between job complexity and proactive behaviour. Opportunity varies across departments as whether or not perceived by employees to contribute to the relationship between job complexity and proactive behaviour. In specific, employees of the department
‘Input’ does not see opportunity as contributing to the relationship whereas employees of the department ‘Management & Consultancy’ do see opportunity as contributing to the relationship.
5.5 Additional mechanism derived from the interviews
Next to the mechanisms included in the study – motivation, knowledge & skills and opportunity – employees suggested there was one other mechanism that also contribute to proactive behaviour of employees in digitized and standardized working environments. This is confidence.
5.6 Management summary
Table 12 provides a compressed overview of the different hypotheses and whether or not this study found evidence to accept or reject them. Also the suggested contributions of the different mechanisms are included.
Table 12:
Compressed overview of the hypotheses
Questions
The perceived contribution of the mechanisms to the impact of work characteristics on proactive
behaviour
Q1. Does job autonomy have a positive impact on proactive behaviour of employees in a highly digitized and standardized workplace?
Yes
Motivation Yes
Knowledge & skills Yes
Opportunity Yes
Q2. Does role ambiguity have a positive impact on proactive behaviour of employees in a highly digitized and standardized workplace?
Yes
Motivation No
Knowledge & skills. Yes
Opportunity No
Q3. Does personal accountability have a positive impact on proactive behaviour of employees in a highly digitized and standardized workplace?
Yes
Motivation Yes
Knowledge & skills Yes
Opportunity No
Q4. Does job complexity have a positive impact on proactive behaviour of employees in a highly digitized and standardized workplace?
No
Motivation Yes
Table 13 includes the two additional mechanisms that were derived from the interviews and their respective influence on proactive behaviour.
Table 13:
Addition mechanism that contribute to proactive behaviour suggested by the respondents
Mechanism Relationship to proactive behaviour
Confidence Confidence contributes to proactive behaviour.
5.7 Limitations and futureresearch
First of all this concerns a qualitative study with a relatively low number of respondents (N = 17). Therefore one needs to be careful generalizing the findings of this study to a broader public. The objective of this study was exploratory and should be interpreted as such.
Second the interviews did not include straightforward questions asking for mechanisms that contribute to the relationship between the work characteristics and proactive behaviour of employees. This way it is not possible to conclude whether or not the mechanisms contribute to the relationship between the work characteristics and proactive behaviour (i.e. no empirical evidence was found), but rather the contribution of the mechanisms can only be suggested.
Future research
The first step along the way of future research is to investigate if the work characteristics might influence each other. For example, if job autonomy has any influence on personal accountability. In addition this study examined the influence of the mechanism ‘motivation’. Various scholars have provided subdivision of motivation, indicating that this mechanism could be fine-tuned. A suggestion is to use the following four forms of motivation:
Job self-efficacy is the belief in ones capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required for the work (Bandura, 1997).
Role breadth self-efficacy is the extent in which an employee feels confident that he or she is able to carry out a broader and more proactive role (Parker, 1998).
Intrinsic motivation is the motivation to engage work primarily for its own sake. The work in itself is interesting, engaging or is in some way satisfying (Amabile, Hill, Hennesssey and Tighe, 1994).
Role orientation is the degree to which individuals fit certain responsibilities into their work roles (Parker, Wall and Jackson, 1997).
Furthermore this study increased the understanding of several mechanisms that were suggested to contribute to the relationship between work characteristic and proactive behaviour of employees. Future research could explicitly name these mechanisms and subsequently examine their contribution to the relationship between work characteristics and proactive behaviour. Also including the additional mechanism derived from the interviews (i.e. confidence) could contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon that is proactive behaviour.
7. Bibliography
Amabile, T.M., Tighe, E.M., Hill, K.G., and Hennessey, B.A. 1994. The work preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol 66, issue 5, p 950-967.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bateman, T.S. and Crant, J.M. 1993. The proactive component of organizational behaviour: A measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behaviour, 14: 102-118.
Boyd, J. 2003. Accountability. Vital speeches of the day. Vol.69 issue 19, p599.
Crant, J.M. 2000. Proactive behaviour in organizations. Journal of management, 26: 435-462.
Davenport, T., Prusak, L. 1998. Working with knowledge. Executive excellence, Vol, 9, p 10.
Elsbach, K.D., and Hargadon, A.B. 2006. Enhancing creativity through “mindless”work: A framework of workday design. Organization science, 17, 470-483.
Deci, E.L., Connell, K.P, and Ryan, R.M. 1989. Self determination in a work organization. Journal of applied psychology, Vol. 74, No, 4, 580-590.
Fay, D., and Sonnentag, S. 2002. Rethinking the effects of stressors: A Longitudinal study on personal initiative. Journal of occupational health psychology, 7, 221-234.
Frese, M. Garst, H. and Fay, D. 2007. Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of applied psychology, 92, 1084-1102.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., and Zempel, J. 1996. Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of management journal, 39, 37-63.
Fuller, J.B., Marler, L.E, and Hester, K. 2006. Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behaviour: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of organizational behaviour, 27, 1089-1120.
Grant, A.M., and Ashford, S.J. 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in organizational behaviour. 28: 3-34
Grant, A.M., and Parker, S.K. 2009. Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The academy of management annals. 3:1, 317-375.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Parker, S.K. 2007. A new model of work role performance:
Positive behaviour in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of management journal. 50: 327-347.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. 1976. Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a theory. Organizational behaviour and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. 1980. Work redesign, Reading: Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley.
Hirschfeld, R.R. 2002. Achievement orientation and psychological involvement in job tasks: The interactive effects of work alienation and intrinsic job satisfaction. Journal of applied socialpsychology, 8, 1663-1681.
Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations ( 2ndedition), New York, Woley.
MacInnis, D.J., and Jaworski, B.J. 1989. Information processing from advertisements: Towards Integrative framework. Journal of marketing, 53 (October), 1-23
McAllister, D.J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E.W., and Turban, D.B. 2007. Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of applied psychology, 92, 1200-1211.
Morgeson, F.P., and Humphrey, S.E. 2008. Job and team design: Toward a more integrative conceptualization of work design. Research in personnel and human resource management, Vol, 27, 39-92.
Morrison, E.W., and Phelps, C. 1999. Taking charge: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of management journal, 42, 403-419.
Myers, C. and Davids, K. 1993. Tactic knowledge and performance at work. Journal of applied psychology 42, 117-137.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., and Pluntke, F. 2006. Routinization, work characteristics and their relationship with creative and proactive behaviours. Journal of organizational behaviour, 27: 259-279.
Onyemah, V. 2008. Role ambiguity, role conflict and performance: Empirical evidence of inverted-U relationship. Journal of personal selling and sales management, 3, 299-313.
Parker, S.K. 1998. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of applied psychology, 83, 835-852.
Parker, S.K. and Axtell, C.M. 2001. Seeing another viewpoint: antecedents and outcomes of employees’ perspectives taking. Academy of management journal, 44: 1085-1100.
Parker, S.K. and Collins, C.G. 2009. Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviours. Journal management.36 (3): 633-662.
Parker, S., and Turner, J. 2002. Work design and individual work performance: Research findings and an agenda for future inquiry. In S. Sonnentag (Ed), Psychological management of individual performance. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Parker, S.K. and Wall, T.D and Cordery, J. 2001. Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 74: 413-440.
Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D., and Jackson, P.R. 1997. “That`s not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of management journal, 40, 899-929.
Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M and Turner, N. 2006. Modelling the antecedents of proactive behaviour at work. Journal of applied psychology, 91: 636-652.
Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J. and Lirtzman, S.I. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations.Administrative science quarterly, 15: 150-163
Shally, C.E., Zhou, J., and Oldham, G.R. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of management, 30, 933-958.
Speier, C., and Frese, M. 1997. Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field study in East Germany. Human performance, 10, 171-192.
Von Emster, G.R., and Harrison, A.A. 1998. Role ambiguity, spheres of control, burnout and work-related attitudes of teleservice professionals. Journal of social behaviour and personality, 13, 375-385.
Appendix 1: Questionnaire General questions: Name: Race: Age: year Education: Function:
Work experiences current function: year Work activities:
Proactive behaviour:
1a.What is proactive behaviour, according to you?
1b. To what degree is proactive behaviour important in your current function?
Very important Important Average Unimportant Not important
1c. Which factors are important to stimulate proactive behaviour in your function, according to you?
1e.How can company Xensure that these factors are presented in your function?
Specific questions:
2a. To what degree does job autonomy have an impact on proactive behaviour in your function? Very large Large Average Small None
Factors that impact proactive behaviour Explanation 1.
2.
3.
2b. Could you explain questions 2a with work activities from your workplace?
2c. What can company X do to ensure that these factors are presented in your function?
2d.How important is job autonomy in your function?
2e. Could you explain question 2d with examples of work activities from your function?
3a. To what degree does role ambiguity have an impact on proactive behaviour in your function? Very Large Large Average Small None
3b. Could you explain question 3a with work from your work place?
3c. What can company X do to ensure that these factors are presented in your function?
Mechanism Explanation
1.
2.
3.
3d. How important is role ambiguity in your function? Very important Important Average Unimportant Not important
3e. Could you explain question 3d with examples of work activities from your function?
4a. To what degree does personal accountability have an impact on proactive behaviour in your function? Very Large Large Average Small None
4b. Could you explain question 4a with work activities from your work place?
Mechanism Explanation
1.
2.
3.
4c. What can company X do to ensure that these factors are presented in your function?
4d. How important is personal accountability in your function?
Very important Important Average Unimportant Not important
5a.To what degree does job complexity have an impact on proactive behaviour in your function? Very large Large Average Small None
5b. Could you explain question 5a with work activities from your work place?
5c. What can company X do to ensure that these factors are presented in your function?
Mechanism Explanation
1.
2.
3.
5d. How important is job complexity in your function? Very important Important Average Unimportant Not important
