Initiative in work teams adaptation and validation of the Personal Initiative at Group Level Scale Iniciativa en los equipos de trabajo adaptaci n y PDF

Preview

Summary

traduccion español...

Description

Revista de Psicología Social International Journal of Social Psychology

ISSN: 0213-4748 (Print) 1579-3680 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrps20

Initiative in work teams: adaptation and validation of the Personal Initiative at Group Level Scale / Iniciativa en los equipos de trabajo: adaptación y validación de la Escala de Iniciativa Personal a nivel Grupal Abel Las-Hayas, Ana Lisbona & Francisco J. Palací To cite this article: Abel Las-Hayas, Ana Lisbona & Francisco J. Palací (2018) Initiative in work teams: adaptation and validation of the Personal Initiative at Group Level Scale / Iniciativa en los equipos de trabajo: adaptación y validación de la Escala de Iniciativa Personal a nivel Grupal, Revista de Psicología Social, 33:1, 142-173, DOI: 10.1080/02134748.2017.1385240 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2017.1385240

Published online: 13 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 93

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rrps20

Revista de Psicología Social / International Journal of Social Psychology, 2018 Vol. 33, No. 1, 142–173, https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2017.1385240

Initiative in work teams: adaptation and validation of the Personal Initiative at Group Level Scale / Iniciativa en los equipos de trabajo: adaptación y validación de la Escala de Iniciativa Personal a nivel Grupal Abel Las-Hayas, Ana Lisbona, and Francisco J. Palací Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Received 14 March 2016; accepted 2 February 2017) Abstract: In this study, we conceptualize personal initiative as a collective construct and adapt and validate a scale to evaluate it with a sample of 308 Spanish participants belonging to 91 work teams. Personal initiative at group level is a behavioural syndrome in which the team shows an approach to work that is self-initiated, proactive, persistent, capable of modifying the atmosphere and pro organization. As a predictive variable, we analysed the climate for initiative as well as personal initiative at group level. The resulting variables that were analysed referred to organization and team performance, with the team productivity and innovation as the criteria, analysing radical innovation. The scale has suitable psychometric properties. The results show that there is a relationship between the two predictive variables. Furthermore, personal initiative at group level is related to team productivity, while the climate for initiative is related to innovation. Keywords: work teams; innovation; productivity; personal initiative; climate for initiative Resumen: En este estudio se conceptualiza la iniciativa personal como un constructo colectivo y se adapta y valida una escala para evaluarlo con una muestra española de 308 participantes pertenecientes a 91 equipos de trabajo. La iniciativa personal a nivel grupal es un síndrome conductual en el que el equipo manifiesta una aproximación al trabajo autoiniciada, proactiva, persistente, capaz de modificar el ambiente y pro-organización. Como variable predictora se analizó el clima para la iniciativa, además de la iniciativa personal a nivel grupal. Las variables de resultado que se han analizado se refieren al desempeño organizacional y del equipo, tomando como criterio la productividad del equipo y la innovación, analizando la innovación radical. This paper was accepted by the last editorial team. / Este artículo fue aceptado por el anterior equipo editorial. English version: pp. 142–156 / Versión en español: pp. 157–171 References / Referencias: pp. 171–173 Translated from Spanish / Traducción del español: Mary Black Authors’ Address / Correspondencia con los autores: Ana Lisbona, Facultad de Psicología, UNED, Despacho 1.49. C/ Juan del Rosal, 10, 28040 Madrid, España. E-mail: [email protected] © 2017 Fundacion Infancia y Aprendizaje

Personal initiative in work teams / Iniciativa personal en equipos de trabajo

143

La escala cuenta con unas adecuadas propiedades psicométricas. Los resultados reflejan que existe relación entre las dos variables predictoras. Además, la iniciativa personal a nivel grupal se relaciona con la productividad del equipo, mientras que el clima para la iniciativa se relaciona con la innovación. Palabras clave: equipos de trabajo; innovación; productividad; iniciativa personal; clima para la iniciativa

Today’s organizations operate in changing, turbulent environments characterized by increasing levels of complexity, globalization and uncertainty which require constant adaptability and interdependence. In consequence, employees are expected to go above and beyond the technical requirements of their jobs, otherwise organizations will lose competitive advantages in their markets (Frese & Fay, 2001; Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007; Lisbona & Frese, 2012). Competitively speaking, limiting oneself to doing what one is asked does not allow for efficient performance in these environments, so individuals must deploy a broader range of behaviours (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007; Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tanner, 2008). Personal initiative is one of these new concepts in active work performance and has been defined as a behavioural syndrome targeted at work which is characterized by being self-initiated, proactive, persistent, capable of modifying the environment and pro organization (Frese & Fay, 2001; Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997; Frese et al., 2007; Lisbona & Frese, 2012). Frese and Fay (2001) developed a theoretical model of personal initiative in which they identify its background and consequences. Regarding the background, the model distinguishes between proximal causes, which include orientations, with medium specificity and oriented towards action; and distal causes, which encompass personality, knowledge, skills and abilities (Frese & Fay, 2001). Evaluations of control, self-efficacy, aspirations of control and responsibility, change orientation, dealing with mistakes and active coping are orientations that better predict personal initiative compared to distal causes, which are more general. Environmental support is one of the proximal and distal causes. Finally, the model captures the fact that initiative exerts an influence on performance both individually and organizationally. Personal initiative as a phenomenon at group level Research into personal initiative has primarily focused on the individual level, and to a lesser extent on the organizational level through the concept of climate for initiative (Baer & Frese, 2003), so not much attention has been paid to the group level of the construct. However, the literature has noted that work teams play a crucial role in achieving efficiency and competitiveness in organizations, so much so that in recent decades the group, as a basic work unit, has become a core factor in the functioning of organizations (Rico, Alcover, & Tabernero, 2010). For all of these reasons, in this study we argue for the existence of the construct of initiative at group level, which is produced inside work teams and

144

A. Las-Hayas et al.

conceptually acts as a bridge between personal initiative at individual level and personal initiative at organizational level, which has been called climate for personal initiative. This conceptualization of personal initiative as a collective phenomenon within work teams is based on certain contributions from social psychology in recent decades, more specifically on those related to cognitive social theory (Bandura, 2001) and emotional processes in work environments and their influence on performance and wellbeing (Totterdell & Niven, 2014). In this way, we identify three complementary arguments to uphold our proposal of personal initiative at group level. On the one hand, from a cognitive standpoint, when people work together they can build and share beliefs and affective experiences through a range of social learning mechanisms, so they show similar motivational and behavioural patterns when dealing with shared events (Totterdell & Niven, 2014). Thus, people who work on the same team have more chances to interact with each other and influence each other through social learning mechanisms. Yet on the other hand, from the standpoint of affective states and emotions, we have the concept of emotional contagion as a means of emotional transfer. Emotional contagion is the mechanism that induces a congruent affective state through observation of the public expression of the other person’s affective state, ‘capturing’ their emotions (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993). Recent studies have shown the effects of emotional contagion on groups and organizations. For example, Sy, Côté, and Saavedra (2005) empirically found that leaders transmit their affective states to other team members through emotional contagion. The leaders’ affects are transferred to other members, which in turn impact the group’s efforts and coordination. Bono and Ilies (2006) show empirical evidence that charismatic leaders express more positive emotions than less charismatic leaders and that their positive emotional expressions have a direct effect on the emotional states of their employees, even when the interactions are brief and casual, increasing the perceived effectiveness of the leader. These findings are congruent with the research on transformational leadership and authentic leadership (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). Finally, in addition to the influence of the leader-team member, the team members influence each other reciprocally (Ilies, Wagner, & Morgeson, 2007). More recently, emotional contagion has been used in studies on work engagement as a prime mechanism to explain work team engagement, thus speaking of ‘collective emotional states’ in which feelings are shared at the level of work team (Torrente, Salanova, & Llorens, 2013). The importance of positive emotions is underscored by the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), which states that positive emotions not only characterize employees’ wellbeing or satisfaction, but that they also produce optimal long-term functioning by expanding the thinking-action repertoires and building lasting personal resources. Finally, just as Costa, Passos, and Bakker (2014) envision work team engagement as an emerging state within the team, in our study personal initiative at group level is conceptualized as an emerging state. We view processes from a

Personal initiative in work teams / Iniciativa personal en equipos de trabajo

145

lower level which combine, share and are expressed as a collective phenomenon as bottom-up emerging processes (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Rousseau, 1985). The distinction that Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) make between team processes and emerging states of the team may be useful when understanding the conceptualization of personal initiative at group level as a collective phenomenon. Compared to the inventory of actions carried out by group members in team processes, with characteristics such as being interdependent and defined by converting an input into an output through verbal, behavioural and cognitive activities so that the team objectives are achieved through the organization of a series of tasks, emerging states are more dynamic and defined as the cognitive, motivational and affective states of teams, not as the sum of the cognitive, motivational and effective states of the team members (Marks et al., 2001). That is, emerging states refer to qualities of the teams that represent the attitudes, values, cognitions, conducts and motivations that the team members have in common, not the sum of their interactions. The origin of the research into emerging processes originates in chaos theory and seems essential to understanding complexity and effectiveness in organizations (Costa et al., 2014; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Therefore, it is suggested that personal initiative at group level is a collective construct which can occur in the work team and is defined by the conceptualization of personal initiative (Frese & Fay, 2001) as a behavioural syndrome in which the team expresses an approach to work that is self-initiated, proactive, persistent, capable of changing the environment and pro organization. The study by Brav, Andersson, and Lantz (2009) uses a scale similar to ours, but they do not conceptualize group initiative as a collective phenomenon, nor do they analyse the psychometric properties of a scale conceptualized at group level. Conceptualizing personal initiative at group level means that it is a construct shared within the team, not the mere sum of individual initiatives. Thus, individual perceptions should converge, and there should be sufficient intragroup homogeneity at the level of work team. This intra-group homogeneity is a sign that this shared perception exists, that it is implicit in the very definition of the concept. The calculation of the different statistical indexes (which shall be outlined throughout this article) which allows us to statistically aggregate the individual data into team data is not merely a statistical analysis but will reinforce the fact that personal initiative at group level is something more than the sum of individual initiatives; in short, it is a shared perception on initiative as a work team. The purpose of this study is to test our conceptualization of personal initiative as a phenomenon which can take place in the work team by adapting and validating a Personal Initiative at Group Level (PIGL) Scale. From the psychometric standpoint, we hope that just like individual initiative, personal initiative at group level will reflect a single factor to explain its dimension and will show acceptable reliability and validity (convergent, discriminant and concurrent). Likewise, the relationships between this variable and outcome variables related to organizational performance will also be analysed, as explained below.

146

A. Las-Hayas et al.

Given that the climate for initiative refers to a facet of the organizational climate (Baer & Frese, 2003) and is therefore a collective phenomenon, we believe that it will be partly related to personal initiative at group level, although the latter will have greater predictive power over group phenomena. Hypothesis 1. Climate for initiative is positively related to personal initiative at group level (PIGL).

Personal initiative at group level and organizational performance: productivity and innovation The theoretical model developed by Frese and Fay (2001) spotlights results such as high performance and high organizational effectiveness. In our study, we focus on two important aspects of performance: team productivity and its contribution to innovation in the organization. Innovation refers to generating and implementing creative ideas, and since it allows organizations to adapt to the changing conditions of the environment, it is a key component in their success. Innovation has the potential to create value for both new and established companies, which increases with organizations that have a structure that is flatter and that are more flexible and lean as opposed to more bureaucratic organizations (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004). Innovation is also viewed by some authors as an indicator of optimal functioning and active mental health (Binnewies & Gromer, 2012). Even though there are studies that have used objective measures to evaluate innovation — such as the number of suggestions made, the number of new products or the number of patents registered — innovation at team level has often been evaluated by the team members or supervisors (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). Furthermore, it is a complex process which is grounded upon individual, group and organizational factors. The literature recognizes the importance of innovation not only for large multinationals but also for small and medium-sized companies and non-profits (Rosenbusch, Brinckmann, & Bausch, 2011). Recently, several studies have distinguished between radical and incremental innovation (Fischer et al., 2014). Incremental innovation is the ability to generate innovations that finetune and reinforce existing products and services (Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005), while radical innovation gives rise to fundamental changes in an organization’s activities or a sector compared to current practices (Camison-Zornoza, Lapiedra-Alcamí, Segarra-Cipres, & BoronatNavarro, 2004). Competitors usually respond quickly to incremental innovation; however, radical innovation is much more difficult to respond to successfully in the short term, and consequently it tends to bring increases in companies’ margins and profits. The relationship between personal initiative and innovation has been examined in numerous previous studies (Binnewies & Gromer, 2012; Binnewies, Ohly, & Sonnentag, 2007; Fischer et al., 2014; Frese, Rooks, & Sserwanga, 2014). Frese

Personal initiative in work teams / Iniciativa personal en equipos de trabajo

147

et al. (2014) found a relationship between personal initiative and innovation in rural entrepreneurs, but not in urban settings, and they found evidence in favour of the fact that the climate for initiative was related to organizational innovation. Fischer et al. (2014), in turn, further explored this relationship and empirically found that the climate for initiative was related to radical innovation, but not to incremental innovation. The definition of personal initiative leads us to think that its proactive conception means a greater importance of radical over incremental innovation. Likewise, innovation seems to depend more on organizational factors than on group factors, so just like in the study by Fischer et al. (2014), we expect the climate for initiative to be related to radical innovation and personal initiative at group level to productivity. Hypothesis 2. Personal initiative at group level (PIGL) will be positively related to work team productivity. Hypothesis 3. The climate for personal initiative will be positively related to radical innovation in the organization.

Method Development of the Personal Initiative at Group Level (PIGL) scale To generate the items on the Personal Initiative at Group Level (PIGL) Scale, we started with Frese et al.’s Self-Reported Initiative Scale (1997) adapted into Spanish by Lisbona and Frese (2012), and we modified the level of definition of the construct, going from the organization to the work team. Just as in the individual version, this new scale is comprised of seven items. The Self-Reported Initiative Scale has been used in numerous studies during the past decade and is regarded as a suitable measure of the conduct of personal initiative since it directly and broadly captures cognitions and other facets of conduct which are not always present in other techniques (Bledow & Frese, 2009). Participants The study was conducted with a sample of 399 employees (51.5% female and 48.5% male) organized into 91 work teams belonging to 60 different organizations. Of these 399 employees, 308 are members of the work teams and 91 are supervisors of these teams. Regarding the organizations, they are located in Spain (95.8%, of which: 46.0% Basque Country, 23.0% Madrid, 9.2% Galicia, 6.3% Barcelona, 5.9% Andalusia and 4.6% other) and Chile (4.2%); and they include private companies (71.3%), public administrations (17.5%), non-profit organizations (7.3%) and other kinds of organizations (3.8%). By size, they were classified into organizations with more than 250 employees (39.9%), 50 to 250 employees (22.0%), 10 to 49 employees (28.0%) and fewer than 10 employees (10.1%). The sample was comprised

148

A. Las-Hayas et al.

of a heterogeneous number of sectors: teaching and education (18.4%), hiring and temporary work (16.0%), consultancy and advisement (11.0%), training and coaching (9.6%), healthcare (9.2%), insertion and local development (7.9%), industry (7.4%), ...