Three ways to get team members to value your proactive initiatives

Self-managing teams heavily rely on the proactive efforts of their members to enhance team performance. Yet, cultivating supportive reactions from team members is fundamental for the success of proactive initiatives.

Authors

Melissa Twemlow
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Maria Tims
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Svetlana Khapova
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

download the full study

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

18 December 2023

How do you respond when a team member initiates an improvement to your team’s work methods? Do you praise them for being proactive, or do you instantly roll your eyes when hearing about it? Initiating changes to improve the team’s functioning is often considered to be risky by proactive employees. Proactive behavior in a team has consequences beyond oneself – it also impacts your team members. Nonetheless, fellow team members might be unaware that their immediate response can affect whether proactive initiatives will become successful or fail to hit the mark.

Our research, published in Human Relations, reveals how team members respond to the proactive initiatives of their coworkers. The study showcases which – and why – certain types of reactions are more favorable for the team’s performance.

Proactive initiatives are more noticeable to team members than managers

With proactivity being central for organizations to thrive, managers are left wondering how they could best lend their support to their proactive employees. Particularly managers of self-managing teams receive fewer occasions to intervene or respond to their team’s proactivity. Since their teams take control of their own way of working, they often question whether their teams are proactive enough in dealing with their constantly changing work environment. According to the researchers, the decreased visibility of proactive behavior to managers requires them to accept an alternative standpoint. Managers should be more concerned about the evaluations and responses of team members instead of their own. In fact, they should not underestimate team members – the success of proactive initiatives hinges on the judgments of those who will be most impacted.

To unravel how proactive behavior takes place in a team, the researchers studied three agile software development teams responsible for improving their own performance. For five months, they observed their meetings and daily work in the office. Here, the researchers studied how team members perceived 69 of their proactive initiatives and examined whether they became successful or not. Also, they regularly interviewed team members to understand why they reacted in a particular way and what would make them change their minds.

Time for reflection

In contrast to the beliefs of their managers, the study revealed that the self-managing teams engaged in various forms of proactivity to improve their team’s functioning. For example, team members introduced additional feedback meetings with customers, set up knowledge-sharing sessions for developers, and initiated new team communication methods. Also, they proactively came up with methods to prevent (technical) problems from arising again or presented innovative ideas for a new app feature.

Getting team members on board for your proactive initiatives

While all these efforts sound valuable to the team, this does not automatically have to be the case. The researchers found that its success heavily depends on how fellow team members perceive the proactive efforts, as their involvement is usually needed to implement the ideas.

These three strategies appeared to be essential for making a proactive initiative successful:

  • Be visionary. Communicating the proactive initiative to team members with a visionary or promising tone helps to uplift team members. This was because they perceived its intentions to be genuine instead of selfish. When team members felt that the initiative was self-serving and intended to decrease their own workload, they would harshly blame and reject the proactive employee.

“Team members are more likely to support proactive initiatives when they sense that the intentions are genuine and when they can negotiate their input to the implementation”

  • Be innovative. Initiatives concerning innovative ideas are most likely to be instantly admired by team members. Team members were more willing to go along with implementing team innovations and would also feel more motivated to be proactive themselves in the future.
  • Be flexible. Seeing the added value is not enough for team members to appraise a proactive initiative. Proactive employees should allow their team members to negotiate changes to the initiative’s implementation. When team members felt they could fine-tune how and when they contributed, they were more willing to invest their time in implementing the change.

Positivity sparks proactivity

Proactive team members generally used team reflection meetings to communicate their initiative to their coworkers, who would immediately share their initial impressions. Afterward, the team would take action or refrain from implementing the improvement. When team members saw its effectiveness once implemented, they would feel motivated to share their own proactive initiative during the next team reflection meeting – a vicious cycle of proactivity. Thus, positive and encouraging reactions give team members the feeling that they can also make a difference and energize them to make proactive changes now and in the future.

“Managers should try to encourage their team members to respond more constructively and positively to proactive initiatives – coworker support takes away the risky feeling of suggesting improvements”

 

 

First impressions matter

These findings highlight that the success of initiatives to improve the team depends on how team members communicate, react to, and reflect upon the proactivity. When the first impression of team members is to criticize the initiative or blame the proactive employee, the proactive goals will not be realized. Such immediate reactions negatively shape the proactive process and withhold others from taking the ‘risk’ of being proactive in the future.

Authors

Melissa Twemlow
Erasmus University Rotterdam

Melissa Twemlow is an Assistant Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. She obtained her Ph.D. (cum laude) from the Management and Organization department at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, for which she conducted fieldwork to observe the work of agile teams. Her main research interests include proactive behavior in teams, team behavioral dynamics, and self-organizing (agile) teams. She is particularly interested in studying how peers react to the work behaviors of fellow team members during their interactions.

Maria Tims
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Maria Tims is Full Professor at the Department of Management and Organization of the VU School of Business and Economics, the Netherlands, and holds a chair in The Future of Work. In her research, she focuses on proactive work behaviors, particularly job crafting, and she is also interested in work design, proactive behaviors in teams, and self-organizing teams. Her research is published in high-end international journals in the fields of psychology and management. She is Associate Editor of Organizational Psychology Review.

Svetlana Khapova
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Svetlana N Khapova is Full Professor of Careers and Organization Studies at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. She is Past Division Chair of the Careers Division of the Academy of Management. Her research focuses on contemporary issues related to individuals’ career and work. She is an author (together with MB Arthur and J Richardson) of the book An Intelligent Career: Taking Ownership of Your Work and Your Life published by Oxford University Press in 2017.

Beyond Ping Pong Tables: Creating Community within Business Incubators

While global replication of business incubators seems effortless, incubators need to be adaptive to local contexts. Indeed, establishing a functioning incubator surpasses mimicking a Silicon Valley model, involving context-specific social practices. Our research finds that successfull incubators ensure creation of participation, flexibility, trust and reciprocity and balance between offering top-down support from management and adapting to bottom-up needs of members.

Authors

Amba Maria van Erkelens
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Neil Aaron Thompson
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Dominic Chalmers
Adam Smith Business School

download the full study

van Erkelens, A. M., Thompson, N. A., & Chalmers, D. (2023). The dynamic construction of an incubation context: a practice theory perspective. Small Business Economics, 1-23.

4 December 2023

Moving away from a recipe approach to collaborative and flexible incubation

People tend to associate incubators with coffee machines, printers and ping pong tables and often overlook the relational and intangible factors behind business incubation. While, these kinds of structural elements enable the replication of incubators, standardized solutions have been criticized for not being adaptive enough to local contexts. We studied how stakeholders build and reshape an incubator to be adaptive and meet the changing needs of its members. For our ethnographic study, published in the journal Small Business and Economics, we participated for four months in an incubator for social entrepreneurs. This helped us understand the details of the social practices that were central to the creation of an adaptive and collaborative incubator. 

The foundations of participation, flexibility, trust and reciprocity in an incubator

We found that entrepreneurs and incubator management perform four social practices – onboarding, gathering, lunching, and feedbacking – in which they try to find a sweet spot between entrepreneurial freedom and structured support. First, there’s onboarding – the initiation ritual that gets new members on the same page about the rules, values, and how things work around the incubator to foster participation. Second, incubator members and management come together to make shared decisions through formal gathering practice. This practice enables the incubator to flexibly adapt their services to the needs of their members. The third practice, lunching, is more than just grabbing a bite; it builds trust and fosters serendipitous encounters. And last, there’s feedbacking, where there is a purposeful co-creation of ideas, and a healthy give-and-take among members of the incubator is maintained (for a detailed description of the four practices, have a look at our full study). In other words, these social practices serve a range of purposes and have implications far beyond their surface meaning. They are foundational to the intangible, yet invaluable factors of a functional community: participation, flexibility, trust and reciprocity.

Finding the right balance

These social practices allow for multiple people involved in the incubator, from novice and expert entrepreneurs, to management and stakeholders, to shape and reshape an incubator. Ultimately, this helps keep the incubator aligned with members’ unexpected and changing needs and expectations. Each practice brings a balance between bottom-up needs and top-down structure. For example, in the onboarding practice, incubator management attempts to socialize newcomers into the incubator, but also provide space for entrepreneurs to share their stories and connect with the community. While in the gathering practice, entrepreneurs are given more agency to reshape formal support elements of the incubator. We suggest that this serves the function of preventing the incubator from being perceived as too rigid and formulaic. It’s all about finding the right balance, where the structure isn’t too strict and the freedom isn’t too wild.

Experimenting with social practices and reflecting on them

While the social practices work well for the incubator we studied, we don’t advise incubators to copy the social practices we’ve described in our study. On the contrary, we warn against the copying of practices developed elsewhere as practices need to be developed in context and in interaction with the people (their needs and desires) and the material world that are part of that context. It is important to experiment with different practices, and reflect on their effectiveness for creating desired outcomes such as participation, flexibility, trust and reciprocity. Furthermore, we hope to inspire incubators to reflect on the balance between bottom-up needs and desires and top-down structures, rather than copy them from a Silicon Valley context. We hope that this will help them to move towards a desired balance where entrepreneurs experience enough structured support, while having enough freedom to adapt the incubator to their specific and evolving needs.

Authors

Amba Maria van Erkelens
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Amba Maria van Erkelens is Assistant Professor in Entrepreneurship at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and is a member of the Groene Brein, a network of scientists that supports entrepreneurs who aim to take steps toward a new, sustainable economy. She conducts research in the fields of Social Entrepreneurship, Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Circular Entrepreneurship. (https://research.vu.nl/en/persons/amba-maria-van-erkelens)

Neil Aaron Thompson
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Neil Aaron Thompson is Associate Professor in Entrepreneurship and Organization Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. His ongoing research covers topics about Entrepreneurship as Practice, Organizational Creativity, New Venture Creation and Sustainable Development. (https://research.vu.nl/en/persons/na-thompson)

Dominic Chalmers
Adam Smith Business School

Dominic Chalmers is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the Adam Smith Business School. Dominic is principal investigator on a €1.2m European Union HIE project to support data-driven entrepreneurship across a consortium of European universities. His current research examines emerging digital entrepreneurship trends such as artificial intelligence, blockchain and multi-sided platforms. (https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/business/staff/dominicchalmers/#researchinterests,biography)