Proactief gedrag in agile teams stimuleren vereist positieve reacties van teamleden en klanten | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 27, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1388-1302

Abstract

Abstract NL

Proactieve teamleden kunnen met hun initiatieven de manier waarop hun team werkt, verbeteren. Hoewel individuen vaak profiteren van hun eigen proactieve gedrag, hebben weinig studies onderzocht hoe teamleden dit ervaren. Dit is echter wel belangrijk, omdat teamleden de proactiviteit van hun collega’s niet automatisch als gunstig voor het team of de klanten zullen beschouwen. Op basis van vijf maanden aan observaties van drie zelfsturende agile teams en hun managers, kregen we inzicht in wanneer teamleden geneigd waren om elkaars proactieve initiatieven te ondersteunen. Onze bevindingen tonen aan dat teamleden positiever reageerden op elkaars proactieve initiatieven wanneer zij (1) hun proactiviteit bespraken tijdens reflectiemeetings, (2) externe autonomie van de klant kregen om proactief te zijn, (3) innovatieve initiatieven communiceerden, en (4) proactief voortbouwden op eerdere succesvolle initiatieven. Onze bevindingen onderstrepen dat teamleden, maar ook externen, zoals klanten, een belangrijke rol spelen bij het wegnemen van risico’s en het aanmoedigen van agile teams om proactief te zijn.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/THRM2024.3.009.TWEM
2024-06-10
2024-07-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13881302/27/3/THRM2024.3.009.TWEM.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/THRM2024.3.009.TWEM&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Walle, D. V. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29(6), 773–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063_03_00079-5
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Augustine, S., Payne, B., Sencindiver, F., & Woodcock, S. (2005). Agile project management: Steering from the edges. Communications of the ACM, 48(12), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1145/1101779.1101781
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bindl, U. K. (2019). Work-related proactivity through the lens of narrative: Investigating emotional journeys in the process of making things happen. Human Relations, 72(4), 615-645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718778086
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S.Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 567-598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolino, M., Valcea, S., & Harvey, J. (2010). Employee, manage thyself: The potentially negative implications of expecting employees to behave proactively. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X493134
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851–875. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.475
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9-10), 833–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performance, 14(1), 97-124. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1401_06
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23005-6
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fuller, B., Marler, L. E., Hester, K., & Otondo, R. F. (2015). Leader reactions to follower proactive behavior: Giving credit when credit is due. Human Relations, 68(6), 879–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714548235
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.004
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). 7 Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317–375. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903047327
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634438
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2011). The impact of inadequate customer collaboration on self-organizing Agile teams. Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.10.009
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, N., Zhao, H. H., Walter, S. L., Zhang, X. A., & Yu, J. (2015). Achieving more with less: Extra milers’ behavioral influences in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1025-1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000010
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.3707697
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.5465/257011
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Parker, S. K., Wang, Y., & Liao, J. (2019). When is proactivity wise? A review of factors that influence the individual outcomes of proactive behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015302
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with Scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Sun, J., Li, W.-D., Li, Y., Liden, R. C., Li, S., & Zhang, X. (2021). Unintended consequences of being proactive? Linking proactive personality to coworker envy, helping, and undermining, and the moderating role of prosocial motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000494
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 275-300. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X502359
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tims, M., & Parker, S. K. (2020). How coworkers attribute, react to, and shape job crafting. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619896087
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Twemlow, M., Tims, M., & Khapova, S. N. (2023). A process model of peer reactions to team member proactivity. Human Relations, 76(9), 1317-1351. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221094023
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.5465/256902
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, R., & Jiang, J. (2015). How abusive supervisors influence employees voice and silence: The effects of interactional justice and organizational attribution. Journal of Social Psychology, 155(3), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.990410
    [Google Scholar]
  35. West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.680
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhang, M. J., Law, K. S., & Wang, L. (2021). The risks and benefits of initiating change at work: Social consequences for proactive employees who take charge. Personnel Psychology, 74(4), 721-750. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12423
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/THRM2024.3.009.TWEM
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error