Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Initiative

Overview
This book chapter explores what initiative is, where it is found most, and how it is nurtured. Initiative brings with it many positive aspects, but this chapter also addresses the consequences. The chapter explores three theories and how they are used in creating initiative within individuals. Research in this field would benefit with more data from other environments aside from the workplace.

What is Initiative?
In order to understand what personal initiative is about, just knowing the theory is not enough, what sort of people have this particular trait, is it hereditary, do individuals acquire this trait as they experience various things or maybe they are forced into it. Either way

Personal initiative (PI) is defined as a form of behaviour that results in an individual taking an active and proactive approach to work goals and tasks, it also can help individuals in persisting during difficult situation and roadblocks (Frese et al., 1997). Personal initiative can help people in succeeding at their jobs, studies and even cause other people to change, and this can cause either positive or negative effects. One of the consequences of such an active personality is that the environment is changed by the individual (if ever so slightly) (Fay & Frese, 2001). This contrasts with a more conservative approach, which is defined by doing what one is told to do, it could also mean giving up in the face of adversity and reacting to what the environment demands instead of working for the individuals own needs (Fay & Frese, 2001). PI is an important concept both for practical and theoretical reasons, practically, PI has been used in assessment centres and studies show that organisations are placing more importance in a worker’s ability to be autonomous (Fay & Frese, 2001). Companies are interested in PI because it increases organisational and individual effectiveness (Fay & Frese, 2001). PI will become more important in the future because future workplaces will require a high degree of self-reliance (Frese, 1997).

Personal Initiative
Personal initiative (PI) uses an active approach that is distinguished by its assertive and proactive nature and by overcoming issues in order to accomplish a task or a goal (Fay & Frese, 2001). Assertive implies that the goals or task are not issued or assigned by someone else, like a manager, but that the person himself or herself created these goals in order to assert themselves for different reasons (Fay & Frese, 2001). Some jobs are associated with very broad work goals; for example, managers have large goals such as to enhance departmental effectiveness or increase awareness of an organisation (Fay & Frese, 2001). These goals place an emphasis on the group rather than the individual and because of that own-goal development (development focused on the individual) difficult, because any action the manager takes can be traced back to the broad goal (Fay & Frese, 2001). Therefore, we conceptualise assertive to mean that there is a great psychological distance from some path taken as part of PI and the “normal” path (Fay & Frese, 2001). If a manager decides on a strategy to enhance effectiveness on something that is clear, that is not difficult to do, something that even other superiors talk about accomplishing, or if it is discussed on social networks, the psychological distance is small, and the actions are not PI (Fay & Frese, 2001). For a goal to be considered PI, the strategy should be suggested from one of the lower rank employees, this would imply a high psychological distance and we would consider it to be PI, because an individual without a large amount of authority is being proactive (Fay & Frese, 2001).

This doesn’t mean that people with authority cannot be assertive, if the manager decides on a strategy that is not clear or is different for his or her company, then there is a high psychological distance, and that would be PI (Fay & Frese, 2001). Other examples of PI are preparing for future demands or preventing problems are typical goals of initiative because they are both considered forms of proactive action (Fay & Frese, 2001). This assertive approach implies that one attempts to get feedback, develops signs that signify future problems, and develops plans to actively prevent those problems from happening (Fay & Frese, 2001). Implementation of long-term goals often leads to new problems, because new suggestions for work improvement, new procedures to do things, and so on are new experiences and are a change from the norm. People may not be comfortable with the change and there could be a variety of issues that come from these changes (Fay & Frese, 2001). If one does not overcome these difficulties or gives up quickly in the face of barriers, there is no initiative, therefore this implies that if individuals do not have the right personality alongside with the mentality to change, initiative cannot take effect (Fay & Frese, 2001).

Initiative In The Workplace
In order to understand what personal initiative is about, just knowing the theory is not enough, what sort of people have this particular trait, is it hereditary, do individuals acquire this trait as they experience various things or maybe they are forced into it. There are various studies linking this behaviour to the big five personality traits, to high-performance work systems that prompt people into becoming more autonomous and there also studies of children just being raised with an assertive personality.

Ongoing changes in employment relationships and with the current advancement of technology in the modern era and its usage for training have led to two emerging trends in today’s work organisations, both of which point to an increasing emphasis on an individual’s responsibility for learning and development (Major et al., 2006). Firstly, changes in the nature of the expectations that employers have of their employees along with increasing emphasis on versatile skillsets, boundless careers, and career self-management personify employees as workers who should be assertive in finding and participating in training and opportunities to improve, in order to appear desirable to their organisation and to external groups (Major et al., 2006). In this situation, individuals’ fundamental behaviour and personalities are incredibly vital to understanding which employees will be motivated toward learning and be actively engaging in development (Major et al., 2006). Secondly, the number of training opportunities and delivery channels available is increasing exponentially due to the internet, with many organisations making use of self-paced, web-based learning events and online courses that can be completed any time and any place (Major et al., 2006).

Online courses and web-based learning are often voluntary and require employees to take more initiative and responsibility from the start because this method of training is very different compared to traditional teaching experiences (Major et al., 2006). Recent studies show that individual characteristics and behaviour are the strongest predictors of engagement in development activity, this especially true when certain traits are linked to proactive activities and personalities (Major et al., 2006). Current organisations do not take responsibility for the trajectory of their employee’s careers; however, they are providing opportunities for more self-directed experiences through online courses (Major et al., 2006). This environment favours people who are motivated and take the initiative, this contributes to the organisation and their own careers (Major et al., 2006). People with these traits benefit organisation through increased organisation learning, the workforce becoming more flexible because they are more likely to take on new and different roles and the workforce is also less likely to revolt against changes in the organisation (Major et al., 2006).

The last few years the economy has put a large emphasis on faster, leaner and multinational organisation, this focus has created a changing economic climate that is fast-paced and ever-changing which individuals with proactive behaviour and initiative thrive in (McCormick et al., 2018). Following this trend, researchers are beginning to change and study the performance domain to account for behaviour such as proactivity and initiative, aspects that have not been properly conceptualisations or used as measures of job performance (McCormick et al., 2018). Researcher have defined proactive behaviour and proactivity in the workplace as individuals that engage in self-starting, future oriented behaviour in order to change their environment, their position in the organisation, improve themselves or to change their team level and make the team become more autonomous and self-driven (McCormick et al., 2018).

Proactive behaviour and initiative have been receiving extensive attention by researchers and academic field as well as from a social perspective, this makes it incredibly important for organisations to understand and consider the antecedents for such behaviour (McCormick et al., 2018). Through understanding the antecedents of proactive behaviour, mangers and team leaders can make the most optimum decisions to make elicit proactive behaviour within their team and organisation, this can be done through selection procedures or job designs (McCormick et al., 2018). When selecting individuals, organisations should focus choosing individuals that are more extraverted or show more initiative and proactive behaviours (McCormick et al., 2018). Unfortunately, selection procedures focus more on the Big Five personality (conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and emotional stability) during the selection, and very little proactivity research has focused on selection despite the potential benefits that could be associated with hiring employees who possess a proactive personality or who regularly demonstrate proactivity (McCormick et al., 2018).

A research paper conducted by Wu and Parker (2017), revealed how in some work environments there is connection between how a good leader can allow employees  exhibit proactive behaviour, but this can also be inconsistent at  time (Wu & Parker, 2017). Wu and Parker (2017) concluded that ‘leader support’ is a large indicator of whether leadership can help in employees having more initiative at work (Wu & Parker, 2017). Wu and Parker identified how through being available and offering encouragements and being a positive influence, leaders can effectively promote employee (Wu & Parker, 2017). Furthermore, according to the two researchers, some employees are more receptive to this form of leadership than others, this can receptibility can cause these employees to behave more proactively and have more initiative than others in the same position (Wu & Parker, 2017).



Transformational Leadership and Initiative
Transformational leadership is a leadership style that has been shown to correlate strongly with supporting the development of initiative within employees (McCormick et al., 2018). This correlation has caused many scholars to study this correlation and it comes to no surprise that articles have empirically demonstrated that a positive relationship exists between transformational leadership and proactive behaviour (McCormick et al., 2018). Transformational leaders motivate and support followers to go above and beyond by doing more than they feel is possible, they are leaders who personify the ideals of the organisation and are figures that foster and ethical work environment and (McCormick et al., 2018). Beyond the support that leaders give to their followers, transformational leaders are people that, a key aspect of proactive behaviour (McCormick et al., 2018). When followers are motivated to exceed expectations and are given the support and encouragement to do that, it becomes more likely that they will engage in the types of active behaviours and display more initiative when it come to their work (McCormick et al., 2018).

Transformational leadership is comprised of four dimensions (idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration) that can all be argued to play an important role in eliciting motivating proactive behaviour (McCormick et al., 2018). Idealised influence emphasises trust and ethics, it focuses on appealing to the emotions of the followers and is associated with the leader’s self-confidence and determination (Longshore & Bass, 1987). Leaders with these qualities often bring out the best in their followers which allows employees and like to exhibit proactive behaviour more often (McCormick et al., 2018). Leaders that can effectively exhibit idealised influence can communicate values and beliefs, this makes the followers more loyal to the organisation and its direction instilling pride in them (McCormick et al., 2018). Inspirational motivation is about having an appealing vision for the future, a vision that is based on values, ideals and expectations that followers can support and be motivated by (Longshore & Bass, 1987). This dimension expects leaders to provide meaningful tasks for employees and inspiring them through encouragement and enthusiastic messages in to focus on the big picture (McCormick et al., 2018). Leaders exhibiting inspirational motivation provide the energy and direction needed to fuel the actions of followers, this gives followers the energy to rise above limitations and perform at high levels (McCormick et al., 2018). If followers are challenged to meet high expectations and are motivated to do so, they are more likely to take initiative to perform proactively (McCormick et al., 2018). Intellectual stimulation involves leaders encouraging their followers to take risks, show initiative, be creative, provide input, and think ‘outside the box’ to lead down a path of innovation (McCormick et al., 2018). When followers are encouraged to perform such tasks and seek continuous improvement, they are more open to engage in proactive behaviours and be persistent in overcoming barriers. Individualised consideration refers to leaders who consider the needs, abilities, and developmental goals of followers while coaching and mentoring them (Longshore & Bass, 1987). This dimension involves leader development of followers into transformational leaders themselves (McCormick et al., 2018).

Socio-analytic Theory and Extraversion
Socio-analytic theory theorises that the level of job performance that an individual exhibits can be anticipated by the two motives (Blickle et al., 2011). The motive to get along with your co-workers and the motive to achieve status and power (Blickle et al., 2011). Socio-analytic theory proclaims that individuals with extraverted personalities are more likely to aim for status and recognition (Wihler et al., 2017). Consequently, this goal motivates individual to taking more initiative in their tasks and this becomes a behaviour that is observed by others which transfers to them as well (Wihler et al., 2017). Furthermore, social competency has proven to be an important factor to individuals’ personal adaptability (Wihler et al., 2017). However, it is not enough to just be motivated and socially competent, the environmental context and how important being extraverted is depending on the situation is also crucial in order to take initiative (Wihler et al., 2017).

Trait Activation Theory and Extraversion
Trait activation theory argues that situations stimulate personality into action and some studies show that depending on the contexts, the effect that an extraverted personality can have when it comes to being assertive, roughly doubled (Wihler et al., 2017). Context is also highly relevant to flexible performance, and empirical studies have demonstrated situations to be important to the effects of individual differences on adaptive performance (Wihler et al., 2017). Through this we can understand that for initiative to take place three things are required, social competency, a relevant situation and an extraverted personality (Wihler et al., 2017).

According to studies, these three things (social competency, relevant situation, and extraversion) will allow workers to take initiative in the correct climate, this allows people to become more adaptive when it comes to performing tasks (Wihler et al., 2017). Climate in this context describes the organizations’ ability to motivate an employee’s actions, primarily in the form of formal and informal interpersonal practices (Wihler et al., 2017). In a climate for personal initiative, the organization's practices support and assist employees in taking a proactive approach to work, and research has shown social competency to be important to personal initiative and proactivity at work (Wihler et al., 2017). This shows that a climate focused on being assertive will help employees to be more likely to innovate and better manage unanticipated situations at work, actions that are essential to adaptive performance (Wihler et al., 2017).

Individualism-Collectivism
Western cultures associate extraversion with social skills, where being in social contact with others is “fun” and “rewarding” for extraverts, but extraversion could be seen differently in other cultures (Lucas et al., 2000). Individualism-collectivism is the dimension of cultures used to research extraversion across countries. Individualistic countries encourage individuals to distinguish themselves from others, whilst collectivist cultures place a large amount of importance in harmony with other people (Lucas et al., 2000). External factors such as culture could affect the way extraverts react to pleasant effects and research shows that is true (Lucas et al., 2000). The United States is an individualistic country that focuses on positive emotion and research shows that extraverts benefit greatly from living in a country that promotes extraversion (Kim et al., 2017). Germany is a country that is neither individualistic or collectivist and research shows that extraverts do not benefits as greatly in a country that is not very individualistic (Kim et al., 2017). Studies show in individualistic cultures, people are rewarded more, and people who are sensitive to rewards, like extraverts, tend to be sociable (Lucas et al., 2000). Collectivistic cultures are found to be less rewarding, which is why extraverts do not benefit as greatly in these cultures as the do in an individualistic one (Lucas et al., 2000). These findings show cultures can affect the degree of happiness extraverts can experience and the main reason why extraverts experience so much happiness is because of the rewards that can be obtained (Lucas et al., 2000).

Quizzes
 Choose the correct answer and click "Submit": {What theory requires initiative to activate through the environment?}


 * type=""}

- Socio-analytic theory - Individualism/Collectivism + Trait activation theory

Consequences
Proactive employees initiate change, they speak up and alert leaders to problems and this process can improve decision making as well as the services offered by the business and can lead to the improvement of the organisation (Schmitt et al., 2021). It is important for employers to see their followers’ initiatives as desirable because in order to nurture an autonomous work environment, leaders need to show positive reactions towards their followers (Schmitt et al., 2021). These positive reactions, encourage employees to believed that they are being taken seriously, it gives the impression that actions, opinions and ideas are being values and are effective for the situation, this sense of value help to stimulate more assertive behaviour and creates initiative in the workplace (Schmitt et al., 2021). Despite this, even though employers expect their employees to be proactive, some studies show that such assertive behaviour is not always seen as desirable (Schmitt et al., 2021). If the behaviour and values of follower do not align with the organisations or even their employers, employees may instead be penalised and not receive the right support in order to (Schmitt et al., 2021). Campbell (2000) labelled this the “initiative paradox".

As increasingly competitive organisational environments have forced managers and supervisors to place increasingly complex demands on employees, employees are expected to perform above and beyond and show initiative (Campbell, 2000). It used to be enough to perform at a satisfactory level when working on certain tasks, however these days employers expect more (Campbell, 2000). These new role expectations are especially evident in various organisational initiatives and leadership theories, such as participation, empowerment, autonomous work groups, and self-directed teams; and they all present a picture of what defines a proactive team member in an organisation (Campbell, 2000).

The emerging view of the proactive employee is of an individual highly involved and motivated, an individual who contributes with initiative and a well-developed sense of responsibility (Campbell, 2000). Researchers have noticed that organisations previously had no use for the individual, but rather only required the follower’s personality and behaviour in order to maximise effective work performance during tasks (Campbell, 2000). This old view on employee’s use have changed, the focus now is on the need to include in the person whilst making sure that their personality matches well with their work role, so that they can excel at their job (Campbell, 2000). These changes raise new issues that organisation need to learn to tackle, for employees, the new roles and expectation are more complicated and difficult, which at first glance appear impossible to accomplish (Campbell, 2000). Another is that the issue is not about finishing the right procedure or technique to motivate employees, but to instead find workers that have the right personality and goals that align with the workplace, which is something that appears to be an issue in modern times (Campbell, 2000).

Quiz
 Choose the correct answer and click "Submit": {What is needed in order to nurture initiative?}


 * type=""}

- A clear goal - Extraverted personality - Encouragement and support + All of the above

Conclusion
Initiative is often seen as an individual behaving in a proactive manner that changes the environment around them and is a well-researched area especially in a workplace setting in order to improve the efficiency of work and to give organisation an extra edge over their competition. Studies have shown that initiative requires the right personality, and according to theories extraversion is an important trait that has shown to produce many individuals with assertive behaviours. Socio-analytic theory argues that individual with good social competence is regarded as people who can take the initiative, and trait activation theory has shown that initiative activates depending on the situation and environment. Initiative provides a lot of positive benefits to workplaces under the right support, but without the encouragement and support, studies have shown assertive individual will instead sometime be penalised. Most of the research done about initiative is predominately surrounding organisations and workplaces, more info regarding other environments like schools or even from a country perspective, more insight would be useful.