The Downside of Proactivity

A while ago I wrote a post on “proactive” behaviour, talking about the risks of encouraging people to be proactive, but then ignoring their input.  One of my readers recently posted this comment regarding the post:

I have a team member who is very proactive, but as you say this can be a double edged sword. The feedback he gives sometimes isn’t well received – by myself or by others, possibly because he speaks the truth but doesn’t understand that things can’t be changed quickly it takes time and priorities needs to shift. You say “help your team understand when to engage in proactive behaviour, and when it might not be welcome.”, do you have any advice on how I can do this.

I don’t have any perfect answers for Beverly’s question, but I do have a couple of places to start:

First, when communicating about ideas, projects and decisions, note which items are up for discussion, and which ones the decisions are not reversible. That may help the employee channel his energy.

Second, if they employee has a valid point, but resources and priorities don’t allow for a fast response, it might be worth taking the time to have the team review priorities. Perhaps this is important enough to shift priorities?  If not, the employee will at least feel that his concerns have been heard.

Third, it might be worthwhile to examine your own reaction to his feedback. You note that his comments are often “the truth”, yet there is resistance to change.  Could it be more than priorities and time? Is it possible you find him threatening, or annoying? Or that he has thrown a monkey wrench into the works again? Are you really listening to him, or are you already dismissing his concerns?

Finally, consider whether it is the content of his comments, or the manner in which they are expressed. Perhaps he can be coached to provide feedback in a more persuasive, supportive manner.

No matter what you do, a frank conversation needs to be the beginning of the process. My guess is that he believes that he is adding value by proactively noting issues that needs action.  The first step to a solution is to work together to identify the problem, and a plan to address it.

What is Proactive Behaviour?

Being proactive is good, right?  Most of the available literature on strategy, leadership and effectiveness in the workplace supports the idea that leveraging our human capital, by encouraging them to behave in a proactive way can improve performance.

It looks as if we also recruit people and make performance judgements based at least in part on our perceptions of their “agentiveness” or proactivity.  A recent study found that both men and women were more likely to get an interview when their reference letters emphasized activity or proactivity rather than socio-emotional behaviours.

Researchers have been looking at proactive behaviour in the workplace for almost 15 years.  They have found that, at least in the West, proactive behaviour consists of the following (Grant, Gino, and Hofmann, p. 535):

Taking charge.  Includes behaviours such as:

• Try to bring about improved procedures for the work unit
• Try to correct a faulty procedure or practice
• Try to implement solutions to pressing organizational problems

Voice.  Includes behaviours such as:

• Speak up with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures
• Communicate opinions about work issues to others, even if their opinions differ or others disagree
• Develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect this store

Upward influence, which includes behaviours such as:

1. Discuss production issues with the store leaders
2. Discuss work issues with the store leader

For many people, proactive behaviour is second nature. But many struggle with this type of behaviour.  Perhaps due to a set of implicit beliefs about the appropriate behaviour in the workplace, created through culture, family life, educational experience or the cumulative impact of workplaces not receptive to employee proactivity.

Proactive people want to be heard, want their contributions acknowledged.  If they feel that their contributions will fall on deaf ears, they will be de-motivated and their productivity will suffer.

What does this mean in practice?  Don’t encourage proactive behaviour or even input, if a decision has already been made, or if the input is not going to be part of the decision-making process.

Monitor your own behaviour.  Are you receptive to proactive behaviour?  Do you see proactive behaviour as a threat to your control, authority or status? How do you reward proactive behaviour?  Try to make your implicit expectations of followers and leaders explicit,  to help your team understand when to engage in proactive behaviour, and when it might not be welcome.

Proactivity is something that is commonly touted as a route to improved decision-making and performance.  Yet it can be a two-edged sword.  Encouraging a team to behave proactively, but unconsciously being unreceptive to proactive behaviour is a recipe for decreased performance and productivity.

Source: Grant, Adam, Gino, Franchesca, and Hofmann, David. “Reversing the Extraverted Leadership Advantage: The Role of Employee Proactivity”.  The Academy of Management Journal. Vo. 54. No.3 June 2011. p. 528 – 550.

Playing Well Together: Working in Teams

The millennial generation struggles to work well in teams. Just ask them.  They will tell you. And so will their employers.  Ability to work in teams has been identified by employers as an important skill for colleges and universities to develop in students.

As I’ve mentioned before in this blog, I suspect part of this is a decline in empathy which has been accelerating over the past ten years. But there has to be something more. Perhaps the rise in narcissism that Jean Twenge has been discussing also plays a part in our inability to work in teams.  Twenge notes in her recent book on narcissism that one in ten Americans in their twenties have narcissistic Personality Disorder, and one in four lean towards narcissism on the scale. This has increased dramatically over the past ten  years. 

So I looked at the Narcissism Personality Inventory (NPI) to find out why. There are seven sub-scales to the NPI: Authority, Self-Sufficiency, Superiority, Exhibitionism, Exploitatitiveness, Vanity, Entitlement. 

All of these sub-scales made sense to me, except Self-Sufficiency.  I have always been taught that being self-sufficient was a good thing, not narcissistic.   However, too much Self-Sufficiency can be a bad thing. Self-sufficiency is over-confidence in one’s own abilities and a resulting perception that you don’t have much to learn from others, and that you can live your life any way you wish.  If you are particularly high on Self-Sufficiency, perhaps you don’ t see the need to work with others, or respect their opinions. 

Add high Self-Sufficiency to high Superiority and Entitlement, and you have a recipe for disaster when working in teams.  Having a little humility might be a good thing, when working with others. 

If you’re interested, you can take the NPI yourself.  If you’re honest with yourself, it might be a bit of an eye-opener.  Maybe it’s time to get your ego in check.  Good leaders know that they need others to be successful.  Do you?

Diversity: Good and Bad

Getting ready to teach the teams and groups classes in my organizational behaviour course, I started to think about diversity and how it affects teams.

Students today are growing up with more diversity than ever in history. They are surrounded by people who are not like themselves: race, nationality, language, religion, gender.  Walk into my classroom and you will see everyone in that room.  And yet a recent study from the American Association of Colleges and Universities showed that 71% of employers want institutions to put more emphasis on is the ability to work in diverse teams.  In general, the research shows teams to be no better than individuals in terms of task efficiency and effectiveness.

So why bother with teams at all? Diverse teams appear to be better at creative problem solving and dealing with complex issues. (Guzzo, Dickinson, 1996, Annual Review of Psychology).

Why are we struggling so much with teams?  The answer may lie in the term “diversity”.  Researchers suggest that there are two types of diversity.  Surface diversity and deep diversity.  Surface diversity is that which you can see, things like race, gender or age. Typically the effects of this type of diversity wear off pretty quickly and allow a team to move through the forming and storming stages of group development effectively.  Deep diversity, however, occurs when individuals value work differently or have different attitudes about how to accomplish group goals. Too much deep diversity can badly damage group cohesiveness. (Harrison, Price and Bell, 1998, Academy of Management Journal).  I suspect that decreasing empathy among the millenial generation may be partly responsible for increasing “deep diversity”.  Afterall, if it is hard to “walk in another’s shoes”, it might be hard to collaborate, building on some else’s ideas.

Understanding the different types of diversity can help a team leader more effectively work through the first three stages of team development (forming, storming and norming).  By acknowledging issues of deep diversity early on, a team leader can manage these differences.  Often, team members bury their disagreements about project approaches in order to create group cohesiveness.  However, these disagreements linger on disrupting team efforts. By working through the conflict openly, early on, during the storming phase of team development, teams can more efficiently move to norming and performing.

As leaders, we are often tempted to ignore dissent, in order to more quickly and smoothly begin execution.  It’s easier and less painful to avoid the conflict. Don’t. Ignore. Dissent.  Take the time to come to consensus. You will be rewarded with better outcomes.