Teoría procesual simbólica

Phase 1 contributed to answering the following research questions:

A. Which organizational factors should be included in a tool mapping the Organizational Readiness for SDL within an organization?

B. How can the organizational factors from research question A. be distinguished into different levels of performance?

C. What ere the design requirements for mapping Organizational Readiness for SDL according to SDL experts?

5.1.1a Important variables according to SDL experts

The figure below shows the overview of most and least important variables according to the SDL experts by the green checkmarks. Additionally, it shows which variables the experts did not mention as one of the most important variables, but which they still consider as important enough for the development of the tool. This is shown by a black checkmark. Variables considered as unimportant are shown by a red cross.

Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3

Individual variables

Demographics & Human Capital

Age & Gender x x x

Educational degree x x Personality Proactive behavior x x Autonomy x x x Psychology Motivation √ √ √

Internal locus of control

Self-efficacy √ √ √

Pursuit of knowledge work √ √

Career satisfaction √

Mobility aspiration √

Organizational variables Job characteristics

Higher task variety √

Developmental opportunities

Policy & Culture

Build and communicate shared vision

and goals √ √ √

Fostering collaboration, teamwork, and

interaction √ √

Supportive management style √ √ √

Risk taking √ √

Innovation √ √

Learning and experimenting √ √ √

Tolerance of errors √ √

Environment of trust √ √ √

Table 1. Most and least important variables according to SDL experts.

All experts considered ‘motivation’ and ‘self-efficacy’ as important variables. At the same time, they all mentioned that ‘age and gender’ are unimportant to measure for the purpose of the tool. Expert 3 particularly stressed the importance of all policy and culture variables: “Could I choose for all the policy and culture variables at once and mention them as important?” The importance of policy and culture variables is also recognized by the other experts, given the amount of check marks.

5.1.1b Important variables according to future users

The table below provides an overview of all votes on the behalf of the future users.

Level of importance Important Neutral Unimportant

Individual variables

Demographics & Human Capital

Age & Gender I III IIIII I

Educational degree IIIII I III I

Personality

Proactive behavior IIIII IIII I

Autonomy IIIII III I

Psychology

Motivation IIIII IIIII I

Internal locus of control IIII IIII

Self-efficacy IIIII IIIII

Pursuit of knowledge work IIIII I II

Career satisfaction IIIII I III

Mobility aspiration III III II

Organizational variables Job characteristics

Higher task variety IIIII IIII

Developmental opportunities IIII IIIII

Job autonomy IIIII IIII I

Policy & Culture

Build and communicate shared

Fostering collaboration, teamwork,

and interaction II III IIII

Supportive management style IIIII I IIII

Risk taking IIII IIII I

Innovation IIIII IIIII

Learning and experimenting IIII IIII

Tolerance of errors IIIII II II

Environment of trust IIIII IIII I

Table 2. Most and least important variables according future users

All 11 future users who participated in the tally chart considered ‘motivation’ as an important variable for their own SDL behavior. However, there existed some more variation in the other

variables. ‘Self-efficacy’ was mentioned by 10 future users as important variable, ‘environment of

trust’, ‘job autonomy’, and ‘proactive behavior’ were mentioned by 9. Subsequently, ‘autonomy’ was mentioned by 8, and ‘tolerance of errors’ by 7 future users. Therefore, according to the tally chart,

future users consider ‘motivation’, ‘self-efficacy’, environment of trust’, ‘job autonomy’, and

‘proactive behavior’ as the five most important variables.

Furthermore, a small majority of 6 future users mentioned the variable ‘Age & gender’ is

unimportant for their own SDL behavior. ‘Fostering collaboration, interaction, and teamwork’ was

considered by 4 future users as unimportant. Finally, the variables pursuit of knowledge work and mobility aspiration were considered as unimportant by 2 future users, and educational degree and risk taking both by only one future user. ‘Pursuit of knowledge work’ is the only variable which future users did not mention as important variable at all.

5.1.2 Distinction of performance levels according to SDL experts

On the question how to start with making a distinction in performance levels, two out of three experts stressed the difficulty of this task. Mainly because performance levels should be based on reality, but generalizability is hard to reach in this, since every organization is different. To overcome this problem, one expert stressed that only the use of the tool might not be enough to draw conclusions. He suggested to start a conversation with the organization instead of actually measuring a performance level. The other two experts agreed that the use of an even number of performance levels, so that respondents cannot choose for the middle. The other two experts mentioned that starting with describing the ideal situation, and thereafter the least ideal situation, to provide a starting point. Therefore, it is important that all variables are clear described, so that it is clear what is exactly meant with each variable. In addition, it should be easy to understand for employees who do not have knowledge of those variables. This can be reached by use one construct per description and keep it as short and simple as possible. Subsequently, after describing both extreme performance levels, the input of professionals and resources such as existing and

validated questionnaires. For example the levels of motivation as described by Deci and Ryan, or the levels of self-efficacy described by Bandura. On expert added that it might be helpful to develop a sort of checklist. The more characteristics of organizational SDL readiness are present, the better the organization performs.

Below, a summary is provided of the most important outcomes of the explorative interviews:

 Before dividing the levels into different performance levels, it is important that all variables

are clearly described;

 Thereafter, the ideal situation can be described. So for example: “What does motivation

looks like in a situation that an employee is very self-directed in learning?”

 Ask input from professionals and existing literature in describing the other performance

levels;

 The performance levels should be easy to understand, clear. Generalizability is difficult in

developing a scan with fixed performance levels. Therefore, the descriptions should be short and containing only one concept;

 Use four performance levels instead of three or five, because respondents cannot choose

a middle level.

5.1.4 Input from SDL experts in executing the tool

All experts stressed the importance to keep the tool as simple, easy and understandable as possible. Organizational members should know the intention of the tool at a glance. In using a tool for the purpose of mapping Organizational Readiness for SDL, it was advised to focus on small groups, because there might exist differences in a large organization and focusing on smaller groups than a entire organization. Focusing on smaller groups – for example teams - makes it possible to work on concrete areas of improvement. Besides, the process is more important than the outcome of the tool. The outcome only should provide a starting point for improvement. One expert added to take phenomena behind the facts into account. Another expert mentioned something similar. He believes that the tool should be used as a resource to start the conversation about strong and weak characteristics of an organization, because it is hard to develop a tool which measures the organizational readiness in according to a certain standard. He stressed the role of subjectivity of both the researcher and the respondents. Therefore, he advised to consider the use of workshops, in order to start this conversation. In that case, the tool would only have a small role. In addition, in developing the tool, he advised to engage multiple professionals during the development process.

5.1.5 Decisions made during phase 1

 The following decisions are taken during phase 1:

 There will be a particular focus on policy and culture variables during the development

of the tool. The individual level variables will be of secondary importance.

 Therefore, some variables are not becoming part of the tool. In addition, a new

distinction in variables is made. See appendix A for this new distinction.

 In order to interpret the organizational variables in the right way, proactive behavior,

motivation, and self-efficacy will be part of the tool.

 It was decided to waive the use of questionnaires in determining to which performance