WHETHER OR NOT PROACTIVITY AND PROACTIVE DIVERSITY ARE
PROBLEMATIC IN TEAM SETTINGS– Reflexivity and Relational Capital as
Influencing Factors
Master Thesis Michelle Denise Volbeda
10871977
University of Amsterdam
Msc. Business Administration – Strategy Track
August 2015 Final Version
Supervision
Supervisor: Pepijn van Neerijnen
2 Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Michelle Denise Volbeda who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ...4
Introduction ...5
Theoretical Background and Propositions ... 11
2.1 Team Performance ... 11
2.2 Diversity of Proactivity ... 14
2.2.1 Diversity ... 14
2.2.2 Proactive Personality ... 18
2.2.3 Diversity of Proactivity ... 18
2.3 Proactivity, Diversity of Proactivity and Performance ... 22
2.4 Reflexivity as a Mediator ... 28
2.4.1 Reflexivity ... 28
2.4.2 Reflexivity, Proactivity, Diversity of Proactivity and Team Performance ... 29
2.5 Relational Capital as a Moderator ... 32
2.5.1 Relational Capital ... 32
2.5.2 Relational Capital, Diversity of Proactivity and Reflexivity ... 35
Methods ... 37 3.1 Data Collection ... 37 3.2 Measures ... 39 3.3 Analytical Strategy ... 42 3.4 Data aggregation ... 43 Results ... 45 4.1 Proposition 1 ... 45 4.2 Propositions 2, 3, 4 and 5 ... 47 4.3 Proposition 6 ... 53 4.4 Findings ... 54 Discussion ... 57
5.1 General level of proactivity, reflexivity and team performance ... 57
5.2 Diversity of proactivity, reflexivity and team performance ... 59
5.3 Diversity of proactivity, relational capital and team performance ... 59
5.4 Limitations ... 60
5.5 Contributions ... 62
Conclusion... 63
4 ABSTRACT
This study investigated the complex relationship between team compositions and team performance. Specifically, this study provides guidance how to compose a team on the basis of the personality trait: ‘proactivity’. To do this, a general effect of proactivity in a team on team performance and the effect of proactive diversity in teams on team performance have been examined. This study argues that proactivity is a kind of diversity for which the two perspectives in diversity research (i.e. the similarity- and the information/decision-making perspective) can occur simultaneously. The expectation is that diversity of proactivity has a positive effect on team performance. In this research, reflexivity is proposed to mediate the relationships and relational capital to moderate the relationship between diversity of
proactivity and reflexivity. As expected, a survey-based study of 115 teams participating in the Business Strategy Game at a Dutch University provided (weak) support that proactivity in a team is beneficial until a certain level and that this effect is mediated by reflexivity. Against expectations, no significant positive relationships have been found between diversity of proactivity, reflexivity and team performance. Next to that does relational capital not
moderate the relationship between diversity of proactivity and reflexivity. However, this study did find a significant relationship between relational capital and reflexivity, which is a
promising field for further research.
Keywords: Diversity, Proactivity, Reflexivity, Relational Capital, Team Composition, Team Performance
5 INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, organizations have become more team-based (Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman & Wienk, 2003). One of the increasing themes of strategic management and organizational science is therefore the influence of compositions of teams and the effect of diversity to foster team effectiveness and performance. Many studies investigated the complex relationship between team diversity and team performance (e.g., Williams &
O’Reilly, 1998; Mellewigt & Späth, 2002, Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Schippers et al., 2003). However, the relationship is still not fully answered with mixed findings in the literature (e.g., Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998; Bowers, Pharmer & Salas, 2000). There are two major theoretical lenses in the literature of diversity: the information/decision-making perspective, where diversity leads to a greater range of
perspectives resulting in more high quality solutions (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Jackson, May & Whitney, 1995; Jackson, 1992), and the similarity perspective, where a less diverse team contributes to better performance, because it enhances communication and commitment in the team (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998; Brewer, 1979; Haas, 2010). An important issue in the literature is that there is no clear evidence that the similarity and/or information/decision-making perspective exist (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). The perspectives loosely present theories and notions, but because process measures are often not included, neither of them can represent a clear theoretical framework (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). This still leads to the question under which conditions a greater diversity is beneficial for group’s use of information and under which conditions it is more likely to disrupt group information processing (Philips, Mannix, Neale & Gruenfeld, 2004). Next to this is it hard to see how the outcomes outlined in the two perspectives could occur at the same time (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). In point of fact, there hardly seems to be evidence for both outcomes appearing simultaneously (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). The inconsistent findings in diversity literature mainly come through the focus of previous
6 studies on the direct effect between dimensions of diversity and team performance, neglecting the effect that contingencies can have on this relationship (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). This study addresses this gap by taking a mediating and moderating variable in
consideration to explain the relationship. Also, does this study describe a kind of diversity for which the two perspectives can occur simultaneously.
In the diversity literature a distinction is made between observable demographic attributes (e.g., gender, ethnicity and age) which are less job-related, and more job-related attributes such as variance in educational or functional background (Jackson, 1992; Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998). As research in diversity developed, also differences that are not readily visible or job-related such as differences in personality, values and attitudes are taken into account (Bowers et al., 2000). So far, studies of the relationship between personality diversity and performance are quite inconsistent. Personality traits, particularly those that reflect a willingness to change, are increasingly thought to drive the success of individuals and the competitive advantage of an organization (Seibert, Kraimer & Crant, 2001). Proactive personality is such a trait (Fuller & Marler, 2009), and is used to explain differences across individuals their propensity to take initiatives to influence their environment in a positive way (Bateman & Crant, 1993). While the positive results of the individual-level of proactive personalities are elaborated well in the literature (Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Crant, 1995; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999), inquiries at team-level are minimal (Williams, Parker & Turner, 2010). Research confirms that a mean level of proactivity is important within a team, but studies in aspects of team composition (e.g. dispersion or diversity of individual proactivity) are very limited (Parker & Williams, 2006). Organizations still have to acknowledge the configuration of such a trait within a team. Individual proactivity might have positive effects for individual performance, but the performance of a team is not the sum of individual performance its parts. Too much proactivity in a team can be counterproductive and the
7 function of passive people (i.e., people who rather react to others’ visions and ideas instead of initiating one’s own) for team performance should not to be underestimated (Crant, 2000). Therefore it is interesting to know how much proactivity in a team is optimal for team performance and what consequences diversity of this trait has.
In order to do so, this study tests a general level of proactivity and diversity of proactivity in relation to team performance. Remarkably, this study measures diversity of proactivity with two types of measures because proactivity as subject of diversity is very complex. While in diversity research three typologies of diversity are defined (separation, variety and disparity) (Harrison & Klein, 2007), it is not clear how to typify diversity in proactivity. On the one hand, proactivity can be diverse as in separation with for example differences in opinions about work style. This typology is consistent with the similarity perspective and expects negative consequences of diversity. On the other hand, there are arguments for diversity of proactivity as variety by explaining differences in experience or knowledge. For example when proactive members have experience in initiating changes. This typology is consistent with the information/decision-making perspective and expects positive consequences of diversity. As a result of this, there are arguments that diversity of proactivity will stimulate and exhibit team performance at the same time. This leads to the question what kind of effect (i.e., positive or negative) proactive diversity will have on team performance, and thus which perspective will offset the other.
To answer that question, mediating and moderating variables are added to the direct relationship. Often when negative or positive effects of diversity are found, the conclusion is made that social categorization processes or information/decision-making processes occurred, while no actual evidence for such processes is provided (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). The exact relation is therefore still ambiguous. Diversity research would therefore benefit from more knowledge about how effects of diversity are translated into certain
8 outcomes. This can be examined when processes are added to the relationship. An example of such a process is reflexivity, which is defined as “the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning” (Schippers et al., 2003, p. 779). By reason of many authors
acknowledging the positive relationship between team reflexivity and team performance (Carter & West, 1998; De Dreu, 2002; Schippers et al. 2003; Schippers, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2007; West, 1996), reflexivity can be an important mediator between the
relationship of diversity of proactivity and team performance. Indeed, Schippers et al. (2003) already confirmed this proposed mediated relation for other kinds of diversity (i.e., gender, age, education and tenure on the team). The effect of a general level of proactivity in a team on team performance is also expected to be mediated by reflexivity. Proactivity offers a lot of information which has to be processed. Reflexivity is a proper mechanism to coordinate that information and transform it into positive outcomes for team performance.
Diversity of proactivity can stimulate and exhibit reflexivity at the same time. On the one hand, diversity can stimulate the exchange, processing and integration of different perspectives at group-level (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). On the other hand can diversity lead to subgrouping and conflict between diverse members which will impact the interpersonal atmosphere negatively and therefore inhibit a smooth execution of group processes, such as reflexivity (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998;
Brewer, 1979). However, this study suggests that diversity of proactivity is positively related to reflexivity in presence of a moderating variable. The negative effects of proactive diversity can occur, but these will be neutralized when within-team relationships are strong. Within-teams relationships can be referred to as ‘relational capital’ which represents deeper degrees of relational quality through closeness and trust (Moran, 2005). When relational capital is high, it can create a climate where people dare to speak freely and discuss mistakes (Kramer & Tyler, 1996). Because reflexivity contains a certain risk for members, relational capital can
9 be a critical aspect for people to engage in reflexivity (Edmondson, 1999). As a result of that, relational capital can be an important moderator in this relationship.
All in all, this study sheds light on the configuration of proactivity in a team and whether and how the relationship between diversity of proactivity and team performance is affected by other factors. Expected is that diversity of proactivity is positively related to team performance in presence of reflexivity and relational capital. Reflexivity will be examined as mediator between the mean level of proactivity, diversity of proactivity and team
performance, and relational capital as moderator between diversity of proactivity and
reflexivity. For the reason that proactivity cannot be classified into one typology of diversity, this study shows two theoretical models for diversity with different outcomes shown in figure 1 and 2.
The aim of this study is to develop and extend diversity theory as well as increase the understanding about the configuration of proactivity in a team. This study can make important contributions. At first, the importance of proactive individuals in a team will be established. Second, guidance for configuration of this trait will be exposed. Third, a theory will be established and checked about how the process of reflexivity mediates the relationship
between the effects of the general level of proactivity and diversity of proactivity in a team on team performance. Fourth, a theory is developed and tested about how relational capital in a team affects the extent to which diversity of proactivity leads to reflexivity. I do so by developing a theoretical model which separates out a negative effect that comes from
diversity in a team from a positive effect that stems from acquiring knowledge from different perspectives. Finally, this study can provide an empirical result for both perspectives of diversity occurring at the same time.
10 FIGURE 1
Proposed Relationships according the Similarity Perspective
FIGURE 2
Proposed Relationships according the Information/Decision-Making Perspective
Diversity as Separation, measured with Standard Deviation (SD) (Harrison & Klein, 2007)
Diversity as Variety, measured with Blau’s Index (Harrison & Klein, 2007)
Data from 563 students during an experiential longitudinal simulation called the ‘Business Strategy Game’ (BSG) at a major European Business School is used to analyse effects of these relationships. The students were composed in teams of four to five members who they might have known before or not. The BSG reflects day-to-day circumstances in organization-wide business situations, which makes it a realistic setting to conduct this study. In the sections that follow, the construct ‘team performance’ is defined and situated in the diversity literature. Then the other constructs underlying the research model, see Figure 1 and 2, are defined and the propositions will be presented based on findings in the literature. After that, the data and method are explained and the results are shown. Lastly, the results are discussed in relation to previous research on proactivity and diversity and a conclusion is made, accordingly I end with recommendations for future research and implications for practice. Diversity of Proactivity Reflexivity Team Performance Relational Capital + + +
-
-
Diversity of Proactivity Reflexivity Team Performance Relational Capital ++ + + +11 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND PROPOSITIONS
2.1 Team Performance
“Performance is the most widely studied criterion variable in the organizational behavior and human resource management literatures” (Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1995:587). Kirkman & Rosen (1990) defined performance as meeting or exceeding goals and completing tasks on time. Performance is context specific and is therefore not easy to
generalize (Mathieu, Travis Maynard, Rapp & Gilson, 2008). Therefore Mathieu et al. (2008) suggest that “the measure of performance should be (a) connected to the functions and tasks of the teams (b) differentiated into particular parts rather than a general construct (c)
combined using a formally articulated combination algorithm, such as balanced scorecard techniques”(2008:418).
McGrath (1964) started the team performance literature with an
input-process-outcome (IPO) framework. In this framework there are inputs (e.g., antecedent factors such as individual team member characteristics, team-level factors and organizational and contextual factors), which lead to team processes (e,g., members’ interactions directed toward task accomplishment) and which lead to outcomes (e.g., results and by-products of team activity). These outcomes can be performance (e.g., quality and quantity) and members affective reactions (e.g.,. satisfaction, commitment and viability). Since the processes unfold over time as teams mature, Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson & Jundt. (2005) added an extra feature to this framework and created the input-mediator-outcome (IMO) model which resulted in a more cyclical nature of team performance (Mathieu et al., 2008).
A work team is defined as “collectives who exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks, share one or more common goals, interact socially, exhibit task interdependencies, maintain and manage boundaries, and are embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units in the broader entity” (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003: 334). A work team can generate positive energy through
12 coordinated effort, meaning that the level of team performance is greater than the sum of the individual inputs (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). There is no clear measure of performance effectiveness for groups. Hackman (1987) defined effectiveness of a team when it assesses one or more of three aspects: (a) group-produced outputs (i.e., quantity, speed) (b) the consequences a group has for its members, or (c) the enhancement of a team’s capability to perform effectively in the future. Studies of work teams in a variety of organizational settings have shown that team effectiveness needs well designed structural features (i.e.,
well-designed team task, appropriate team composition), and a context that ensures the availability of information, resources and rewards (Hackman, 1987). Important aspects of designing an appropriate team are staffing (e.g., who is in the group, what should the group size be), specifying roles and tasks of team members and creating support systems (e.g. training opportunities) (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Magjuka & Baldwin (1991) investigated in team-based employee-involvement programs and the effect on the long term-team performance. They found that a greater team size, heterogeneity (of different jobs in a team) and a greater access to information was positively related to team performance. However, there are mixed findings about the effect of heterogeneity (i.e., diversity) on team performance or team
effectiveness. Jackson et al (1995) for example show that heterogeneity is positively related to innovativeness and effective decision making of teams (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996).
Comparatively, Campion, Medsker & Higgs (1993) found diversity of expertise to be unrelated or negatively related to team effectiveness. An important finding of Watson, Michaelsen & Sharp (1991) is that with the forming of new cultural homogeneous and heterogeneous teams, the heterogeneous teams who performed poorly in the first place, later outperformed the homogeneous groups in task performance. Showing that when people get more familiar with each other, team performance can increase. Watson et al (1991) confirm this by investigating in group decision-making effectiveness, which they showed rose over
13 time when a new group was formed. However, Katz (1982) implied that there can be a point (approximately two or three years after the formation of the group) when group longevity and team member familiarity will negatively influence team performance (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996).
The current challenge of team management is not to execute existing processes efficiently, but enact on the environment and implement new processes and products as quickly as possible (Edmondson, 2001). Kozlowski & Ilgen (2007) described the science of team success. Although the centrality of teams in organizations, it seems remarkable how much our society’s perspective is focused on the individual, like rewarding people on individual performance instead of team performance. This can inhibit team members to co-operate, even when the success of the team depends on it. For organizations it is important to know what makes a team co-operate, and what inhibits it in order to have a greater
performance. According to Kozlowski & Ilgen (2007) there are three building blocks for a successful team: 1) there has to be a right mix of knowledge, skills, tools and other resources necessary to succeed, 2) face-to-face meetings, social interaction among members and a leader who establishes a good relationship with every worker to help a team make the best use of its expertise and create a cohesive mission, and 3) generic teamwork skills, such as setting goals, adapting to change, resolving conflict and providing feedback, allowing teams to learn from each challenge and continually improve performance. This equals 1) the right kind of diversity (Schippers et al, 2003; Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014; Ensley, Carland & Carland, 1998; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), 2) good communication and relationships (Moran, 2005; Kijkuit & Van den Ende, 2010), 3) teamwork skills, such as reflexivity (Schippers et al, 2003; Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999; O’Reilly, Caldwell & Barnett, 1989; Pelled, 1996). It is about how people think, feel and do (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2007). The think is about the information and knowledge in members’ heads. Some
14 can be shared, some can be a specialized skill of a particular member. The ability to access and use this distributed expertise efficiently is one characteristic of a successful team. Also an overall objective, mission, or strategic imperative of the group (e.g. team climate) is a
cognitive influence on team effectiveness. Such a team climate emerges in teams with strong ties among members. It is clear that the feelings of a team can increase productivity or otherwise decrease it. The do refers to working well with others, where general teamwork skills are important. One factor which could degrade team performance is for example free riders, who rely on others to do their job and therefore contribute less than their fair share. Advantages can be reached when individuals are aware of another’s performance, provide backup coverage for members, set goals, coordinate their actions, communicate effectively, make decisions, resolve conflicts and adapt to changing circumstances and new ideas (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2007).
While thousands of studies showed how much an appropriate team composition can do, how the successes can be replicated still remains the question.
2.2 Diversity of Proactivity 2.2.1 Diversity
Williams and O’Reilly (1998) typified diversity as a reference to differences of any attribute which makes people feel different from another. In principle this can be anything, but
diversity research mostly focused on differences in age, gender, ethnicity, tenure, educational background and theoretical background (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). The main question in diversity research is how differences between team members affect team process and team performance (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). As said, there a two dominant
perspectives in diversity literature: the similarity perspective and the information/decision-making perspective.
15 The similarity perspective aims that similar people are attracted to each other and select similar people to be their ‘in-group’ and create subgroups in the team (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). The similarity effect is originated by Byrne (1971) and his ‘reinforcement model’ which argues that similar attitudes serve as reinforces (Montaya & Horton, 2012). Individuals like ideas and attitudes that are consistent with their way of thinking, and are thus attracted to people that reinforce those ideas an attitudes. When people act the same, it is a kind of validation of the logic of their world (Byrne, 1971). Disagreements result in
inconsistency in that world, which is associated with anxiety and confusion (Byrne, 1971). A second model for the similarity attraction effect is the information processing perspective (Ajzen, 1971), which states that attraction is determined on the available information one has about the other. If the information is favourable, then attraction will occur.
When subgroups are created on the basis of similarity and time evolves, subgroups will discover more similarities with in-group members and dissimilarities with out-group members. This is followed by a greater identification within the subgroup (Janis & Mann, 1977), resulting in a stronger separation between in-group and group members. The out-group members are likely to be seen as less honest, cooperative and trustworthy than in-out-group members (Brewer, 1979). A heterogeneous team is therefore through different values and ideas more likely to suffer from conflict, reduced cohesiveness, distrust and decreased task performance within the complete team than homogenous groups, by for example
discrimination against others and tension between subgroups (Jehn et al, 1999; Haas, 2010; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). According to this perspectives does similarity in a team lead to a higher comfort level with people who have shared experiences and
communication styles and therefore lead to quicker achievement of solutions and smaller trust issues (Wasserman, 2012). Also will a more homogenous team result in higher team
16 similarity thus lead to better team performance.
The similarity perspective acknowledges the negative sides of diversity and states that dissimilarities between members in a team disrupt group processes (i.e., process of exchange, group discussions and integration of task relevant information) through classification of others as either in-group (i.e. similar) or out-group (i.e. dissimilar). Several studies found evidence consistent with this perspective. For example, Pelled et al. (1999) positively related diversity to relational conflict, and Harrison et al. (1998, 2002) showed a negative relation between diversity and social integration. Both relationships served as mediator between diversity and outcomes (Jehn et al., 1999). On the contrary, direct investigation on the actual social
categorization processes have found positive results for diversity on social integration, group-identification and relational conflict (Polzer et al., 2002; Swann et al. 2003). Findings are thus inconsistent. The inconsistent findings of these studies rise doubts about the existence of the operational part of the similarity perspective (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). The information/decision-making perspective emphasizes the positive side of
diversity, saying that “it introduces differences in knowledge, expertise, and perspectives that may help work groups reach higher quality and more creative and innovative outcomes.”(Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007, p. 517). A heterogeneous group is associated with higher innovation and creativity (Katz, 1982), whereas a homogenous team can lead to status quo, complacency and high commitment to prior actions (Vyakernam & Handelberg, 2005). In turbulent and complex environments a homogenous team will limit the amount of alternatives developed by a team to respond to environmental changes in unique ways (Vyakernam & Handelberg, 2005). However, Van Knippenberg et al. (2004) indicate that the positive relationship of diversity is often curvilinear. To benefit from the broad range of information and perspectives, team members should be able to fully understand and integrate this
17 is likely that they lack a common frame of reference, which gets in the way of fully
acknowledging all group members’ contributions (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Moderate diversity is therefore proposed to have more positive outcomes than lower or higher diversity (Dahlin, Weingart & Hinds, 2005).
Due to inconsistent findings and the fact that no cumulative insights have developed in the literature, diversity research is very confusing. Harrison & Klein (2007) assessed the diversity literature and found an interchangeably use of the term diversity in the literature which can be a source for these inconsistent findings. Seldom they found explicit definitions about the nature of differences and the distribution of differences of diversity. Therefore, Harrison & Klein (2007) tried to clarify the diversity literature and define the term diversity as: “the distribution of differences among the members of a unit with respect to a common attribute ‘X’” (Harrison & Klein, 2007, p. 1200). While minimal diversity is mostly clear (i.e., there are no differences on attribute X among the members of a unit), the meaning and
distribution of maximal diversity is often ambiguous. Maximal diversity with for example personality can be when half of the team scores very high on the attribute and the other half scores low, or when the trait is evenly distributed, or when one person surpasses the others and many more options. Because of this, the construct of diversity is foggy in the literature. Harrison and Klein therefore propose for a deeper understanding of the within-unit
differences. They proposed that diversity is not about one thing, but about three. They constructed three typologies of diversity in order to make clear how to operationalize a theoretical viewpoint about diversity : “(a) separation: differences in position or opinion among unit members, (b) variety: differences in kind or category, primarily of information, knowledge or experience among unit members and (c) disparity: differences in concentration of valued social assets or resources such as pay and status among unit members” (2007:1200). Nevertheless, for some factors as subject of diversity it is still not clear where to classify
18 them. It is possible that factors overlap in two or three typologies. This is the case for this study.
2.2.2 Proactive Personality
The construct of proactive personality is grounded in the social interactionist perspective (Bandura, 1977), which states that people are capable to create or enact on their environment (Bateman and Crant, 1993; Fuller, Marler & Cox, 2010). The construct is used as a
personality trait to explain differences in people their propensity to take actions in order to influence, manipulate and/or control their environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Locke and Latham (2004) describe proactive personality as a ‘strong’ personality trait, “a personality trait that is less constrained by situations than weak ones” (2004:935). In this way the attribute is very unique and engaging (Fuller & Marler, 2009). People with proactive personalities are likely to engage in proactive behavior (Seibert et al., 2001). This behavior includes “taking personal initiative in a broad range of activities and situations” (Seibert et al., 2001:847) and “taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones” (Crant,
2000:436). Crant (2000) created an integrative framework of proactive behavior in which he categorized it in two ways: general actions to reflect broad categories of proactive behavior (e.g. challenging the status quo, creating favourable conditions) and contextual proactive behavior to capture specific behaviors that occur in limited domain (e.g. career management). Individuals who are less or not proactive do not show initiatives to spot or act on
opportunities and produce changes. They rather react to changes in the environment, instead of initiating one’s own.
2.2.3 Diversity of Proactivity
Diversity of proactivity is very difficult to categorize. Harrison and Klein (2007) suggested to classify each type of diversity into one of the three typologies of diversity (i.e. separation, variety and disparity). These typologies have different perspectives about the effects of
19 diversity and are grounded in different theories. However, Harrison and Klein (2007) do not offer a helping hand when a typology suits in more than one of these typologies. The typo logy where to classify factors such as proactivity is ambiguous. Because there are many arguments pro and against diversity of proactivity, this study measures diversity of proactivity according two of the three typologies: separation and variety. Since proactivity is not an indicator of power distance, the typology ‘disparity’ is excluded for this trait. First, this section will explain the argumentation for diversity as separation, whereupon the consequences for measurements for this typology follows. Second, argumentation and consequences for measurements for diversity as variety are given. In the end, the conclusion will be made that proactivity as subject of diversity is a trait for which the two perspectives of diversity can occur at the same time.
On the one hand, diversity of proactivity falls under separation. First, because separation is the most convenient typology to use when variables are measured at interval level (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Next to that is the definition of separation: “ a composition of differences in (lateral) position or opinion among unit members, primarily of value, belief, or attitude; disagreement or opposition.” (Harrison & Klein, 2007, p. 1203) The construct of proactivity measures people’s propensity to take actions in order to make changes in their environment. In working environments this means that people from different levels of
proactivity have other working styles, as people can differ in opinion about the way the work should be done. Proactive people are continuously seeking for opportunities and
improvements and have an active working style. On the opposite, passive people are doing what have to be done, react on changes and have a passive working style. Work-style
dissimilarity can be seen as a similar construct to value diversity (Williams, Parker & Turner, 2007), because people with different work approaches have different values about work. It is likely that disagreement and opposition can arise between members who differ in proactivity.
20 Therefore it is important to see diversity of proactivity as dissimilarities in opinions and values, and classify proactivity under separation.
When using the separation typology, Harrison and Klein (2007) propose to use a certain definition of maximum diversity. Under this typology the maximum diversity of proactivity would be when half of the unit members are at the lowest and half of the unit members at the highest endpoint of proactivity. The similarity perspective is the foundational theory for this typology of diversity (Harrison & Klein, 2007). This perspective would suggest that diversity of proactivity will lower team performance, because subgroups will be created on the basis of disagreement or opposition about differences in work style. This can lead to conflict and can hinder group processes.
On the other hand, it can be argued that proactivity falls under the ‘variety’ kind of diversity. Harrison & Klein define variety as the “composition of differences in kind, source, or category of relevant knowledge or experience among unit members; unique or distinctive information.” (2007:1203) Proactive people and passive people can differ in knowledge, experience and informational resources. Both types of people have functionalities in a team (Crant, 2000). Therefore, both have other skills and capabilities. Passive people can play an important role in preserving group norms and the structure essential for group functioning and productivity. Next to that, passive people help to maintain group cohesion and harmony, which are also necessary for high level team performance (Crant, 2000). In contrast, proactive people are inclined to be creative, push forward innovative ideas, spot opportunities and have experience in discovering improvements and initiating changes (Seibert et al., 2001). In addition, an important feature of this typology is network ties (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Similarity attraction theories (Byrne, 1971; Ajzen, 1971) explain that people who are similar to each other, are attracted to each other. This advocates that passive people will be attracted by similar passive people and proactive people by proactive people. Consequently, these
21 people will develop different networks. Next to that are people with proactive personalities thought to engage more in networking behavior, because of the benefits that it can offer (e.g., access to information or resources, opportunity identification and social capital), and will therefore develop a greater network (Thompson, 2005). Based on arguments of Granovetter (1973) and Burt (2002) different network ties can deliver more unique and valuable
information. This implies that there are many indicators of diversity of proactivity leading to different valuable resources. Therefore, while it is recommended to use separation as kind of diversity for interval data, it is also important to classify proactivity under the variety
typology of diversity and control for different outcomes.
The maximum diversity for this kind typology is uniform distribution (i.e. with even spread of members across all possible categories) (Harrison & Klein, 2007). This would suggest that the team is equally divided in categories between truly passive and truly proactive individuals. So in this case, when a team has five members: one person would be truly passive, one leaning towards passive, one in the middle, one leaning towards proactive and one truly proactive. An equally divided team would lead to more valuable information. Most underlying theories of variety are consistent with the idea of the information/decision-making perspective that a team is an information processing instrument for the organization (Hinsz, Tindale & Vollrath, 1997) and different perspectives will result in higher quality resources.
All in all, proactivity can be about separation and variety. It is important to measure the effect of the different typologies separately, since separation focuses on the negative side of diversity and variety on the positive side of diversity. On the one hand, separation notes that diversity can lead to subgrouping and conflicts about certain attitudes towards workstyles which hinders group processes, on the other hand does variety state that diversity can lead to different valuable resources, since proactive and passive people have different expertise and
22 network ties. The explicit difference can be found in the operationalisation of the typologies, as both typologies define maximum diversity differently. Separation notes maximum diversity when there are two opposite groups, and variety perceives maximum diversity when the team is equally divided with reference to the trait. Next to that, is diversity as separation measured with the standard deviation and diversity as variety with the Blau’s index (see ‘Methods’ section). As a results of this, the values of diversity can differ between the two typologies and therefore lead to different outcomes.
Based on these arguments, this study acknowledges that proactivity can have the outcome of the similarity perspective (separation) and the information-decision making perspective (variety) at the same time. Hence, in the following sections will be argued that in presence of the proposed moderating variable and mediating variable the negative effect will be overruled by the positive effect.
2.3 Proactivity, Diversity of Proactivity and Performance
In this section the effects of proactivity and diversity of proactivity on team performance is elaborated. This section first focuses on the effect of a general level of proactivity on team performance. Second, drawing on diversity theories and research about groups and teams, the possible effects of diversity of proactivity on team performance are discussed. Based on these findings, propositions are set.
Proactivity is good for individual performance (Fuller & Marler, 2009), but this might not be the same for team performance. Especially in uncertain environments the presence of proactive people in a team is desirable to dynamically response to changing conditions and demands (Griffin, Neal & Parker, 2007). Proactive team members are inclined to spot
potential problems and opportunities, and make suggestions how to deal with those problems or improve the way of working (Williams et al., 2010). Also, do proactive members stimulate the team to discuss about problems and generate ideas for improvement (Williams et al.,
23 2010). While research has shown the importance for individual and organizational outcomes of individual-level activity (Fuller & Marler, 2009), research about team-level pro-activeness is minimal. At team-level, pro-pro-activeness shows similarities with individual-level pro-activeness. But, team proactive performance is not the same as the sum of individual team members’ proactive performances. Individuals in a team might behave proactively, but unless these efforts are coordinated, teams itself might not be proactive (Williams, Parker & Turner, 2010). William, Parker & Strauss (2010) argue the more proactivity there is in a team, the greater its innovation and taking charge behavior. This argument is aligned with the assumption that the sum of the positive individual effects of proactivity on individual performance is the positive effect on team performance. This study impeaches this claim by proposing that proactivity is influenced by its setting (i.e., in teams).
This study argues that in team settings too much proactivity can cause disadvantages, such as inefficient information processing and destructive conflict between proactive
members. First, too much proactivity can cause inefficient information processing. When there is an abundance of proactive members, there are many members who speak up and suggest ideas. All these ideas need to be processed and considered in order to make decisions, which will take a lot of time. Another time consuming factor is that a team can be limited to fully collect and understand all perspectives and ideas (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). The collection and understanding of all information will cost a lot of time and therefore cost a lot of money. Too much ideas can thus make the information processing of a team inefficient. Second, too much proactivity in a team can cause destructive conflict between proactive members. Proactive individuals want to be dominant with their ideas (Crant, 2000). When many or all members want to be dominant, this can lead to destructive conflict between proactive members, because of clashing ideas and the fact that only one or a few ideas can proceed. Crant (2000) therefore says that there should be an appropriate balance between high
24 levels of proactivity and broad-based control in a team, in order to let proactivity be an
advantage for the team.
The proposed negative effects of proactivity in team settings will be tested by measuring the effect of the mean level of proactivity in a team on team performance.
Expected is that proactivity in a team is positively related to team performance until a certain point. This point will probably be when there is too much proactivity in a team, leading to an overload of ideas and conflict. This is rephrased in the following proposition:
Proposition 1: Proactivity (mean) in a team is related to team performance in a curvilinear inverted U-shape manner
Because proactivity is expected to be related to team performance in an inverted U-shape manner, there are two options for optimal team compositions: a homogenous team on the turning point of the shape, or diversity of this trait. Proactivity is shown to be important in a team (e.g. Griffin et al., 2007, Williams et al., 2010, Fuller & Marler, 2009), but Crant (2000) also notes that passive people have important functions in a team. A combination of proactive and passive members (diversity) can thus be important to increase team performance.
The similarity perspective suggests that homogeneity of personality traits in a team is ideal (Williams & O’Reilly, 1986). This is grounded in social categorization theories, which would suggest that proactive or passive individuals are attracted to each other and select similar people to be in their ‘in-group’ and create a subgroup in the team (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). People tend to favour in-group members more because “that interaction verifies and reinforces their own beliefs, affects, and expressed behaviors” (Harrison, Price, Gavin & Florey, 2000: 1031). The separation of in-group and out-group members result in tensions, reduced cohesiveness, distrust and conflict between the group, which will inhibit
25 group processes (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Haas, 2010). In general, this
perspective thus suggests that diversity is negatively related to team performance. Specifically for proactivity, Williams et al. (2010) found that diversity in teams can be problematic. A greater diversity of proactivity resulted in less favourable team climates, suggesting that diversity caused unhelpful conflict within the team (Williams et al., 2010). This can be caused by proactive people experiencing frustrations towards colleagues who have a passive
workstyle and prefer to react on changes in the environment, instead of initiating one’s own. Also, can proactive individuals have feelings of unfairness, in the sense that proactive people contribute more to the team effort than other members who have less proactive personalities (Williams et al., 2010). Next to that, can passive individuals also have negative emotions towards proactive individuals. In general, proactive initiatives or changes are likely to be resisted by someone, because “new initiatives can undo the good work of others.” (Crant, 2000: 67). This way passive people can feel surpassed, less appreciated and/or threatened by proactive individuals. The similarity perspective thus claims that diversity of proactivity is bad for team performance.
But, homogeneity of this trait can be problematic as well. As speculated before, a homogenous team of proactive individuals is inclined to lead to inefficient information processing and destructive conflict between proactive members. So, too much proactivity is expected to decrease team performance. Next to that, is a homogenous team of passive individuals likely to result in low team performance because it lacks diverse perspectives and innovative ideas for necessary improvements. Homogeneity can still work well when the level of proactivity is not on one of the two opposites, approximately the best at the turning point of the slope of the relation between the mean level of proactivity in a team and team
26 From the information/decision-making perspective the expectation is that a
heterogeneous team will have the best team performance. More information and perspectives within an unit can be translated into better choices, plans and/or products (Widmer et al, 2009). Teams with members from different pools of informational resources will be more innovative and make more effective decisions than teams whose members are from the same pool of resources (Jackson et al., 1995). As said, both proactive and passive people have functions in a team. They both have different skills and capabilities. Proactive team members are inclined to have creative ideas and suggestions to improve the way work is done, and passive members are good in maintaining the status quo and control group cohesion and harmony (Crant, 2000). Proactive and passive team members are in this way good
complements to each other. The advantage of proactive members is that they are continuously seeking for new opportunities and have the one innovative idea after another. However, a disadvantage is that they cannot stick to one plan. In contrast, passive members are very good in maintaining the status quo, and are therefore qualified to pick out one idea of the proactive members that suits the company most, and take care of an accurate execution of that idea. As Edmondson (2001) noted that the current challenge of team management is not only to execute existing processes efficiently, but also to enact on the environment and implement renewal, the combination of proactive and passive members in a team seems very effective. Passive people do what have to be done and proactive people are good for innovativeness. The combination of these skills are likely to lead to high quality solutions and ideas which result in higher team performance. All in all, a diverse team can take advantage of differences in knowledge, skills, network ties and capabilities and therefore create greater value with the team.
This study therefore proposes that the relationship between diversity of proactivity and team performance is positive. The information/decision-making perspective will offset the
27 similarity perspective. This mainly comes through the fact that the outcomes of the
information/decision-making perspective are focused on performance outcomes compared to the similarity perspective which focuses on the relational part of team processes (Van
Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Performance outcomes are more important because the relational part of team processes can be simulated by other factors. Diversity offers many opportunities to create better team performance by differences in skills, capabilities and knowledge (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). However, there is a need for coordination to lead to better team performance. The reason why the similarity perspective claims that diversity does not work is because it proposes that such coordination can only go smoothly when people are similar and attracted to each other. Dissimilarities will thereby inhibit group processes. This study proposes that these negative consequences of diversity can be redressed by other factors. As said, the study of Watson et al. (1993) showed that heterogeneous teams who started poorly in the first place, later outperformed homogenous teams because they got familiar to each other. This bonding of people resulted in a smooth execution of team
processes, even when diversity existed. While this study focused on cultural diversity, this study expects that such effects can also occur for diversity of proactivity in teams. This study investigates in two factors which can simulate those effects: reflexivity and relational capital. Reflexivity as it stimulates an effective coordination of activities and relational capital as it describes the quality of relationships between members. Possible effects of these two factors are elaborated in further sections. .
All in all, this study does not neglect the fact that diversity in proactivity between team members can inhibit group processes, but it proposes that negative effects are not dominant and can be redressed.Expected is that diversity of proactivity in a team benefits more from the different perspectives and valuable diverse resources, than that it will inhibit group processes. This leads me to the following proposition:
28 Proposition 2: Diversity of proactivity in a team is positively related to team
performance
2.4 Reflexivity as a Mediator 2.4.1 Reflexivity
An emerging amount of studies conceptualize teams as information-processing systems which share, analyse, store and use information to execute team tasks (Hinsz et al., 1997; Nijstad, 2000; Schippers, Edmondson & West, in press). This is caused by the fact that nowadays teams have to perform more cognitive and intellectual tasks compared to physical tasks where information processing is an essential aspect of their work (Hinsz et al., 1997). Reflexivity is a process that enhances team performance through a more systematic information processing (Schippers et al., in press). Reflexivity is defined as “the extent to which group members overtly reflect upon, and communicate about the group objectives, strategies (e.g. decision-making) and processes (e.g., communication), and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances.” (West, 1996, p. 559). “It includes behaviors such as questioning, planning, exploratory learning, analysis, reviewing past events with self-awareness and coming to terms over time with a new awareness” (West, 2000:4). Reflexive teams are able to observe how certain current ways of operating can be obsolete, for example through environmental
changes (Schippers et al., 2003), and are aware of how the team works, can monitor behaviors and implement plans for improvement (Tjosvold, Tang & West, 2004). This way a reflexive team is more able to recognize problems and can therefore find solutions in a more efficient manner (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006). The process of reflexivity includes three components: reflection, planning and action (Widmer, Schippers & West, 2009). Reflection is an important factor for recognizing discrepancies between the current and ideal state of the team
29 operating which are obsolete and need to be adapted to environmental changes (Tjosvold, 1991). Planning addresses the gap between reflection and the actual action. In this phase, goals are set and ways to achieve these goals are planned (West, 1996). In the action phase these plans are implemented and executed. Gevers, vanEerde, and Rutte (2001) indicated that planning during the action phase is quite important for teams’ progress, since during the action phase plans are still developed and shaped by task feedback (Freidmann, 1966). In the end, when actions are carried out by team members and new ways of working are established, the reflection, planning and action goes further on as an iterative and ongoing process (West, 2000). The three phases can be very interrelated (Widmer et al., 2009). The main question in reflexivity literature is in what situations reflexivity is most useful and whether it is always useful.
2.4.2 Reflexivity, Proactivity, Diversity of Proactivity and Team Performance
Reflexivity is most important for teams with non-routine tasks and an uncertain environment, because then evaluating and reflecting on methods is of big importance (West, 1996). After Carter & West (1998) many authors have found the positive relationship between reflexivity and team performance (e.g. De Dreu, 2002; De Dreu, 2007; Schippers et al., 2007; Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006; Tjosvold et al, 2004; Schippers et al, in press). However, not all research acknowledges the positive relationship (Moreland & McMinn, 2010). Results have been inconclusive. Moreland and McMinn (2010) conclude that the relationship between
reflexivity and team performance indicators often varies, and that the positive consequences only occur under specific circumstances. To further investigate these circumstances, many research have been conducted about contingencies of the reflexivity-team performance relationship. An example of one of those studies is that from Schippers, Homan & Van Knippenberg (2013), who found that low-performing teams scored higher on the benefit of reflexivity than already high-performing teams. Hoegl & Parboteaah (2006) found a negative
30 relationship between reflexivity and team efficiency, but they explained it by the fact that engaging in reflexive actions involves additional time and other costs (e.g. training, changing work strategies). Yet, this downsize of reflexivity is usually offset by its gains in terms of effectiveness benefits.
This study expects that a general level of proactivity in a team is related to reflexivity in an inverted u-shaped manner and that diversity of proactivity is positively related to reflexivity. The propensity to take actions (i.e. construct of proactivity) is often used in reflexivity literature. A proactive team is inclined to consciously reflect on team functioning and response immediately to environmental changes (Schippers, Homan & Van Knippenberg, 2013), while a non-reflexive team tends to be reactive rather than proactive: react defensively, have a long-term focus and do not respond quickly to environmental changes (West et al., 1996). When there are problems, proactive individuals are the ones who reflect on the situation and initiate change (Parker, Bindl & Straus, 2010). Schippers, Hartog & Koopman (2007) note that teams with more proactivity engage more in reflexivity, by measuring a positive correlation of reflexivity and a general level of pro-activeness within the team. Proactivity in a team can thus stimulate reflexivity. But, regarding the arguments in the previous section, this study proposes that there will be a positive effect until a certain point where too much proactivity leads to inefficient information processing and conflict.
Diversity of proactivity can bring different views on issues in the group (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) which stimulate the consideration of these perspectives and therefore fosters reflective behavior (González-Romá & West, 2004). Multiple perspectives and an open debate environment can be crucial for effective team reflexivity (Tjosvold et al., 2004). More diverse teams are expected to process information differently, as members may bring together different viewpoints (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).
31 Taken together that reflexivity is expected to increase team performance and
proactivity and diversity of proactivity are related to reflexivity, this study aims that the effects of proactivity and diversity of proactivity on team performance are produced through the process of reflexivity. Members in a team can have unique characteristics and knowledge. A successful team is able to access and use this distributed expertise efficiently (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2007). Thus, the characteristics and knowledge of proactive members or diversity of proactivity in a team must be used efficiently in order to lead to better team performance. Reflexivity, as a more systematic information processing activity, is a proper mechanism to lead this efficient use of expertise and information (Schippers et al., in press). Through reflexivity a team is more aware of how the team works and can apply this knowledge in order to plan activities.
First, this study proposes that the effect of diversity of proactivity on team
performance is mediated by reflexivity. Proactive and passive people both have functionalities in the team that can produce higher team performance. However, when there is no
coordination of these functionalities, it is unlikely that this will lead to valuable outcomes. The two perspectives of diversity work in such a way that when they interact the processing of diverse task-relevant information is inhibited through intergroup biases (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004). So, diversity can lead to valuable diverse information, but unless this information is smoothly exchanged, processed and integrated to group-level, this diversity is not advantageous for team performance. West, Utsch, Borril & Dawson (2002) found a moderating effect of reflexivity on the relationship between knowledge diversity and innovativeness. They showed that highly diverse teams must communicate and behave reflective in order to collectively achieve a goal. A direct effect of diversity on team performance is therefore still ambiguous. Second, this study expects that the effect of a general level of proactivity on team performance is mediated by reflexivity. Individuals in a
32 team might behave proactively, but unless these efforts are coordinated, teams itself might not be proactive (Williams et al., 2010). Team members need to interact with each other about which ideas to pursue, how to meet their goals, monitor goal achievement, external conditions and coordinate interdependent activities (Marks, Mathieu & Zaccaro, 2001). This way the forces of proactive people can be combined and structured and become valuable. Reflexivity is a proper process for these interactions as it consists out of reflection, planning and action (Widmer et al., 2009). This study proposes that the addition of reflexivity to the direct
relationship explains the effect of a general level of proactivity and diversity of proactivity on team performance. The following propositions are set:
Proposition 3: Reflexivity is positively related to team performance
Proposition 4: Reflexivity mediates the relationship between diversity in proactivity and team performance
Proposition 5: Reflexivity mediates the relationship between a general level of proactivity and team performance
2.5 Relational Capital as a Moderator 2.5.1 Relational Capital
The relationship between diversity of proactivity and reflexivity is expected to be moderated by relational capital. The similarity perspective expects that diversity leads to many
obstructions in group processing activities. This study argues that relational capital can be seen as a factor that can overcome these negative effects of diversity.
Relational capital is a construct part of social capital (Moran, 2005) and falls under social network theory (Coleman, 1990). Social capital is seen as a valuable asset, because it provides access to resources through a member’s social relationships (Granovetter, 1992). There are two competing claims in social network theory: one that aims for network closure
33 (e.g., Coleman, 1990) and one that aims for structural holes (e.g., Burt, 1992) in order to maximize value. These two claims are in some way similar to the two perspectives of
diversity. According to Burt (1992) the benefits of social capital relies on non-redundant ties, since these can deliver different sources of information and resources. This argumentation is grounded on the insights of Granovetter (1973) saying that weak ties are more likely than strong ties to act as bridges to novel or more timely information. This is consistent with the information/decision-making perspective in such a way that diverse information will lead to more valuable information and better decisions. On the contrary, Coleman (1990) argues that the power of social capital derives through closed networks. Those networks can easily set norms and values, monitor behaviors and can enforce sanctions. Therefore exchange risk is reduced, and members are more willing to obtain the cooperation and resources of others (Moran,2005). This is more consistent with the similarity perspective, because it argues that cooperation can go more smoothly when people have closed networks.
However, a growing numbers of scholars see that the value of social capital is affected by more variables than only the structure of one’s ties (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Moran, 2005). Nahapiet and Ghosal (1998) distinguished structural embeddedness and relational embeddedness. Structural embeddedness is defined as “the impersonal configuration of linkages between people or units” (Nahapiet & Ghosal, 1998:244) and relational
embeddedness as “the personal relationships people have developed to each other through a history of interactions” (Nahapiet & Ghosal, 1998:244). Relational embeddedness emphasis on the quality of relationships, which can be characterized by ‘relational closeness’ (i.e. willingness to provide resources through personal familiarity) and ‘trust’ (i.e. willingness to provide resources through the believe that the contact is reliable and trustworthy) (Moran, 2005). Together, Moran (2005) defined these two factors as “relational capital”: the quality of a person’s relationship with other organizational members in terms of the degree to which
34 he or she perceives those relationships to be close and trustful.
Relational closeness refers to the personal familiarity between team members (Hansen, 1999). Relational closeness can consist out of ‘arm’s-length’ relationships or close
relationships. People are more likely to offer information, know-how or help to others who are close, than people who are more distant. For close contacts, people are more willing to take time to carefully explain or listen to novel or complex ideas (Granovetter, 1985; Uzzi, 1996). But, weak ties can provide other information and resources than an own social circle (Granovetter, 1983).
Trust can be seen as a form of assurance that people can rely on the intentions and behaviors of others in order to make decisions and act (Moran, 2005). On the one hand trust can be originated by context or rationally informed expectations (i.e., experience, prejudice or cultural stereotyping), but on the other hand it can be seen as a stable attribute or value
(Kramer, 1999). Coleman’s view (which aims for network closure) is particularly sensitive to uncertainty and emphasizes the role of trust in facilitating exchange (Coleman, 1990). Trust is used to deal with the risk of betrayal: consciously or unconsciously we calculate the
likelihood and the costs of betrayal with the benefits that would result from successful co-operation (Hardin, 1993). There is always an expression of bounded rationality.
Trust is based on reputation (over time) or stereotyping (Dasgupta, 1988). This implies that closed networks will be more effective in developing trust, than in an open and rapidly fluctuating network (Coleman, 1990). In a close network, there is an ability to sanction behavior, a possible betrayal is therefore less likely to occur than in open networks. Next to that, reputations are more easily gained and lost in closed networks. More information from several resources is available about the reliability of one person’s trustworthiness and reliability. There is some consensus on the proposition that trust is developed more easily between people who are similar to each other and who have access to information about the
35 other’s previous actions and work: “predictability, familiarity and identification breed trust” (Lewis & Weigert, 1985:970). In contrast, unpredictability, uncertainty, risk and vulnerability make it less likely that trust will be developed.
2.5.2 Relational Capital, Diversity of Proactivity and Reflexivity
In general can diversity lead to the occurrence of subgrouping and inhibit group processes. Williams et al. (2010) indicate that team members can perceive themselves to be dissimilar from other team members on basis of their proactivity. Diversity can therefore lead to subgrouping and thus be problematic. This study argues that the negative effects of diversity of proactivity in a team can be rectified when the relational capital of the team is high. Next to that does this section argue that the positive effects of diversity are enhanced by relational capital.
Relational capital, the quality of social processes and interactions with colleagues, can shape the willingness of people to engage in particular behaviors (Lanzara & Patriotta, 2007), like reflexivity. Relational capital can create a climate where people trust each other and feel safe, which seems an important condition for reflexive behavior (Kramer & Tyler, 1996). This is because reflexive behavior has a certain interpersonal risk from which members can take advantage (i.e. uncertainty of betrayal). For example, Edmondson (1999) stated that people might believe that they are placing themselves at risk when they admit an error. Then they may appear to be incompetent, which can influence the people who make important decisions about promotions, raises or project assignments. But in those climates with trust and safety (i.e. the interpersonal environment), people dare to speak freely and openly reveal feelings and thoughts related to team processes (Edmondson, 1999). Hence, Edmondson (1999) found a positive link between psychological safety and team learning behavior. The conceptualization of team learning behavior in this study is very similar to the concept of reflexivity. Edmondson defines team learning behavior as: “an ongoing process of reflection
36 and action, characterized by asking questions, seeking feedback, experimenting, reflecting on results, and discussing errors or unexpected outcomes of actions” (1999: 353). Moreover, it is reasonable that this will have the same impact on reflexivity.
As said, diversity can enhance reflexivity (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). However, it can also lead to conflicts, for example in a situation where proactive people like to focus on the future, want to initiate changes and want to make decisions, while passive people like to focus on the status quo and would rather react on environmental changes. The proactive person is frustrated about the reactive attitude of the passive person, and vice versa. But, if the within-relationship between those two members is perceived as close and trustful, this frustration does not have to become a destructive conflict with negative consequences. In a psychological safe environment, task-related conflict can lead to innovation, if a debate and consideration of alternative interpretations are encouraged (West & Richter, 2008). Conflict about reactivity or proactivity can create a moment of awareness, during which a team can make time to reflect on certain issues and therefore stimulates reflexivity. Diversity can negatively impact the team climate (especially concerning interpersonal issues), but a negative effect is diminished when there is conflict acceptance or when conflicts are dealt with in a successful manner (Widmer et al., 2009). It is said that conflicts do not activate reflexivity per se, but studies (e.g. Gurtner, Tschan & Bogenstätter, 2009; Tjosvold, Hui & Yu, 2003) have shown that if the necessary circumstances (i.e. high task interdependence or a cooperative conflict-management climate) are given, conflict can generate reflexivity. It is important to have conflict acceptance or a good way to deal with conflict, in order to bring about reflexivity (Widmer et al., 2009). Hence, relational capital allows teams to benefit from internal conflicts by handling them in a constructive manner (De Dreu, 2007; Tjosvold et al., 2003).
