
A friend of ours recently told us a story about a new colleague – let’s call him Max. When Max first began his new job, his supervisor encouraged him to come forward with new ideas on how to improve the team’s ways of working. Over time, Max found there were several procedures that unnecessarily complicated his work and so he raised these issues with his supervisor. Although the boss was interested, he told Max he didn’t have the time to review these suggestions. Max brought up his ideas again a few weeks later, and this time his supervisor was downright harsh – he shot down Max’s suggestions by pointing out fatal flaws that would prevent them from being implemented.
A few weeks later still, Max later learned that some of the suggestions he’d made had been implemented — but only after one of Max’s colleagues proposed them.
Max’s story piqued our curiosity. What happened here? Most organizational leaders want their employees to be proactive and suggest new ways of making their work better. And, indeed, research shows that organizations with proactive employees perform better: they maintain their profitability in highly dynamic work environments, in part because they are better able to adapt to changing circumstances. But as Max’s story highlights, proactivity can be a double-edged sword. Sometimes being proactive can appear helpful. But being proactive can also appear annoying, or even obnoxious.
So what makes the difference? This was the driving question behind a study co-authored by one of us published in the Journal of Management. In three samples we asked a total of 1,235 employees, their supervisors, and their co-workers to fill out a survey, and linked their responses to job performance evaluations conducted by the supervisors. Employees, co-workers, and supervisors rated the extent to which their organization was open to displays of personal initiative. In addition, subjects completed a self-assessment about their own levels of initiative-taking and political skill.
Whether proactivity was perceived as helpful or obnoxious hinged on employees’ levels of political skill. Those with more political skill were also more accurate in their perception of how much their organizations valued proactivity, while employees lower in political skill were essentially “blind” to the opportunities they faced – no matter how many cues the organization offered that proactivity would be rewarded. Employees low in political skill were also more likely to behave proactively when the organization didn’t favor it.
We also found that engaging in proactive behavior in an organization is a risky endeavor. Do it right, and you’re rewarded. Do it wrong, and you’re punished. Employees with higher levels of political skill were able to leverage their proactivity into more favorable performance evaluations from their supervisors. But the less politically skilled employees were actually rated worse by their supervisors when they engaged in more proactive behavior.
For managers, our study highlights that asking employees to be proactive isn’t always a good thing. Don’t assume that all of your employees know when and how to take the initiative – some people might require additional support to understand when such behavior is appreciated, and when it’s not. Indeed, some managers might even need to ask their employees to dial back their enthusiasm if the work environment does not appreciate their suggestions, or if they need to build particular interpersonal skills first.
For employees, our study suggests that sticking out of the crowd when they don’t possess the necessary political skill does not seem to be the best option. Without an adequate understanding of when personal initiative is appreciated, being proactive can do more harm than good.
But does that mean those without political skill should refrain from being proactive altogether? No, not at all – because political skill can be taught. Employees can seek feedback or mentoring from peers, colleagues, and supervisors. Max, for example, reached out to the employee who successfully suggested the same ideas, who gave Max some tips on when and how to approach their supervisor.
The great English novelist George Orwell once said, “There is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’” The same applies to our workplaces: even when we have best intentions in mind and want to show our personal initiative for a cause we care about, our efforts can backfire. Being proactive requires an understanding of when it is appreciated. And if that’s not a skill you have, it’s a skill you need to learn.
Source: HBR
.Gostou do artigo? Comente e compartilhe! Cadastre seu email e assine nossa newsletter e receba gratuitamente artigos com informações valiosas sobre assessoramento executivo em sua casa!Participe de nossa Enquete e escolha o(s) tópico(s) que você gostaria de ver publicados aqui!!Confira também nossos diversos serviços para assessoras executivas. Clique aqui e saiba mais![.