IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/68584.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Proactivity routines: the role of social processes in how employees self-initiate change

Author

Listed:
  • Vough, Heather C.
  • Bindl, Uta K.
  • Parker, Sharon K.

Abstract

Proactive work behaviors are self-initiated, future-focused actions aimed at bringing about changes to work processes in organizations. Such behaviors occur within the social context of work. The extant literature that has focused on the role of social context for proactivity has focused on social context as an overall input or output of proactivity. However, in this paper we argue that the process of engaging in proactive work behavior (proactive goal striving) may also be a function of the social context it occurs in. Based on qualitative data from 39 call center employees in an energy-supply company, we find that in a context characterized by standardized work procedures, proactive goal striving can occur through a proactivity routine- a socially constructed and accepted pattern of action by which employees initiate and achieve changes to work processes, with the support of managers and colleagues. Our findings point to the need to view proactive work behaviors at a higher level of analysis than the individual in order to identify shared routines for engaging in proactivity, as well as how multiple actors coordinate their efforts in the process of achieving individually-generated proactive goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Vough, Heather C. & Bindl, Uta K. & Parker, Sharon K., 2017. "Proactivity routines: the role of social processes in how employees self-initiate change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68584, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:68584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68584/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jane E. Dutton & Susan J. Ashford & Katherine A. Lawrence & Kathi Miner-Rubino, 2002. "Red Light, Green Light: Making Sense of the Organizational Context for Issue Selling," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 355-369, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michelle She Min Ngo & Michael J. Mustafa & Muhammad Mohsin Butt, 2023. "When and why employees take charge in the Workplace: the roles of learning goal orientation, role-breadth self-efficacy and co-worker support," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 1681-1702, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James R. Detert & Linda K. Treviño, 2010. "Speaking Up to Higher-Ups: How Supervisors and Skip-Level Leaders Influence Employee Voice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 249-270, February.
    2. Karen Jehn & Elizabeth Scott, 2008. "Perceptions of Deception: Making Sense of Responses to Employee Deceit," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 327-347, June.
    3. Ryan W. Quinn & Monica C. Worline, 2008. "Enabling Courageous Collective Action: Conversations from United Airlines Flight 93," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 497-516, August.
    4. Hourieh Rahmanimehr & Asghar Sharifi, 2016. "Study the Impact of Employing Action Research on Middle School Teachers' Performance," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(12), pages 1-7, December.
    5. Gorgijevski, Alexander & Holmström Lind, Christine & Lagerström, Katarina, 2019. "Does proactivity matter? the importance of initiative selling tactics for headquarters acceptance of subsidiary initiatives," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(4).
    6. Wu, Qiang & Dbouk, Wassim & Hasan, Iftekhar & Kobeissi, Nada & Zheng, Li, 2021. "Does gender affect innovation? Evidence from female chief technology officers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    7. Michele Williams & Evan Polman, 2015. "Is It Me or Her? How Gender Composition Evokes Interpersonally Sensitive Behavior on Collaborative Cross-Boundary Projects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 334-355, April.
    8. Lionel Garreau & Serge Perrot, 2012. "Comprendre la dynamique de la socialisation organisationnelle: Une approche par le sensemaking," Post-Print halshs-00949067, HAL.
    9. Daniel Qi Chen & Yanlin Zhang & Jinghua Xiao & Kang Xie, 2021. "Making Digital Innovation Happen: A Chief Information Officer Issue Selling Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 987-1008, September.
    10. Lionel Garreau & Serge Perrot, 2012. "Comprendre la dynamique de la socialisation organisationnelle : une approche par le sensemaking," Post-Print halshs-01054809, HAL.
    11. Anna Paolillo & Jorge Sinval & Sílvia A. Silva & Vittorio E. Scuderi, 2021. "The Relationship between Inclusion Climate and Voice Behaviors beyond Social Exchange Obligation: The Role of Psychological Needs Satisfaction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    12. Sandy Kristin Piderit & Susan J. Ashford, 2003. "Breaking Silence: Tactical Choices Women Managers Make in Speaking Up About Gender‐Equity Issues," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(6), pages 1477-1502, September.
    13. Elisa Alt & Justin B. Craig, 2016. "Selling Issues with Solutions: Igniting Social Intrapreneurship in for-Profit Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 794-820, July.
    14. van den Oever, Koen, 2017. "Uncharted waters : A behavioral approach to when, why and which organizational changes are adopted," Other publications TiSEM 0136c8c2-ecdd-4f82-8ca7-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, 2007. "Developing Issue-Selling Effectiveness over Time: Issue Selling as Resourcing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 560-577, August.
    16. Conroy, Kieran M. & Collings, David G., 2016. "The legitimacy of subsidiary issue selling: Balancing positive & negative attention from corporate headquarters," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 612-627.
    17. Laura C. William, 2016. "The implementation of equality legislation: the case of disabled graduates and reasonable adjustments," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 341-359, July.
    18. Dejun Tony Kong & Liuba Y. Belkin, 2022. "You Don’t Care for me, So What’s the Point for me to Care for Your Business? Negative Implications of Felt Neglect by the Employer for Employee Work Meaning and Citizenship Behaviors Amid the COVID-19," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 645-660, December.
    19. Kerstin Fehre & Hagen Lindstädt & Alexander Picard, 2014. "Förderung von Frauen in Führungspositionen: Bezugsrahmen und empirische Analyse der unternehmerischen Maßnahmen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 37-68, February.
    20. Tomi Laamanen, 2019. "Dynamic attention-based view of corporate headquarters in MNCs," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Proactive work behaviors are self-initiated; future-focused actions aimed at bringing about changes to work processes in organizations. Such behaviors occur within the social context of work. The extant literature that has focused on the role of social context for proactivity has focused on social context as an overall input or output of proactivity. However; in this paper we argue that the process of engaging in proactive work behavior (proactive goal striving) may also be a function of the social context it occurs in. Based on qualitative data from 39 call center employees in an energy-supply company; we find that in a context characterized by standardized work procedures; proactive goal striving can occur through a proactivity routine- a socially constructed and accepted pattern of action by which employees initiate and achieve changes to work processes; with the support of managers and colleagues. Our findings point to the need to view proactive work behaviors at a higher level of analysis than the individual in order to identify shared routines for engaging in proactivity; as well as how multiple actors coordinate their efforts in the process of achieving individually-generated proactive goals.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General
    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:68584. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.