Personal Projects and Organizational Lives

26 Pages·2006·0.27 MB·English

Personal Projects
and Organizational Lives
Adam M. Grant, Brian R. Little, and Susan D. Phillips
E
milylovesherjobasasoftwaredeveloper.Shelooksforwardto
PAGE PROOFS
work each morning, excels in her endeavors, enjoys and admires her
supportive team members, and is delighted with her working life. In
contrast,Robert,amanagerinalargeaccountingfirm,despiseshisjob.
Hetrudgesreluctantlytotheofficedayafterday,workshalfheartedly,
feels isolated from his colleagues, and knows deeply and with some
desperation that his work life is devoid of meaning. Why is one em-
ployeesosatisfiedandperformingwell,andtheotherneithercontent
nor productive? Why are some Emilies and Roberts of organizations
flourishingandsomefloundering?
The field of organizational behavior provides four alternative per-
spectives that help explain such differences. One focuses on personal
features,asecondonenvironmentalorcontextualfeatures,andathird
ontheinteractionofpersonsandtheircontexts.Afourthperspective,
also interactional, provides a distinctive vantage point that will be the
central concern of this chapter (compare with the social ecological
model in Little, chap. 1, this volume).
219
220 (cid:0) GRANT, LITTLE, PHILLIPS
Thestudyofpersonalfeaturesasthesourceofdelightanddiscontent
inorganizationshashadastrongtraditioninbothpersonalityandorga-
nizationalpsychology.PerhapsEmilypossessesmore“positive”person-
ality traits (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002) and more positive beliefs
aboutandorientationstowardwork(Wrzesniewski,McCauley,Rozin,&
Schwartz,1997)sothatsheisboundtobehappyinmosttasksandsur-
roundings.Robert,ontheotherhand,maybejustplainmiserable,no
matter where he trudges.
Theenvironmentalorcontextualperspectivedetectsthesourcesof
differentialflourishingatworkasbeingduetoforcesrangingfromthe
overallmacrolevelfeaturesoforganizationstothemicrolevelaspectsof
work design. At the macro level, the culture and climate of Emily’s
smaller, more decentralized organization may be more favorable than
Robert’s(Ashkanasy,Wilderom,&Peterson,2000;Rousseau,1978).Ata
middle or mesolevelof analysis,wemight findthat the socialcontext
provides Emily with more constructive relationships with supervisors
andcoworkers (Gerstner &Day,1997; Karasek&Theorell,1990) and
more appealing information (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Alternatively,
therewardsystemmightplayamajorrole:Emilymayreceivemorefa-
vorable incentives, such as compensation, benefits, promotions, and
job security, than does Robert (Gerhart & Rynes, 2003). At the micro
level, Emily’s job may provide more autonomy, feedback, skill variety,
andsignificance(Hackman&Oldham,1980),andRobert’srolemaybe
PAGE PROOFS
ambiguous,conflicted,andstraining(Katz&Kahn,1978).Inshort,Em-
ily is flourishing because her work context is maximally supportive;
Robertisflounderingbecausehisenvironmentistoxic(Danna&Grif-
fin, 1999; Frost, 2003).
Eachoftheseexplanationscanonlytakeussofar.Takencollectively,
theyservetoillustratethatinfluencesonpsychologicalexperiencesand
behaviorsinorganizationsareoftenoverdeterminedandchangeinre-
sponsetomultiplesimultaneouscauses(Hackman,1985;Weick,1974).
However,eachfocusesexclusivelyoneitherattributesoftheperson(P)
ortheenvironment(E).Athirdperspectiveexaminestheinteractionof
personsandenvironments,comprisingaP×Elensonpeopleinorga-
nizations.Theriseofaninteractionalorperson–environmentperspec-
tive in personality, environmental, community, and organizational
psychology (e.g., Argyle & Little, 1972; Little, 1987; Mischel, 2004;
Ostroff, 1993; Walsh, Craik, & Price, 2000) emphasized that as well as
the“maineffects”ofPandEininfluencingeverydaybehavior,theinter-
action(P×E)wascritical.Emilymaythriveatworkprimarilybecause
8. PERSONAL PROJECTS AND ORGANIZATIONAL LIVES (cid:1) 221
thereisafinefitbetweenhersociable,excitement-seekingpersonality
andtheratheropenandtolerantpoliciesatherboutiquesoftwarefirm.
Robertmight,infact,beevenmoremiserableinsuchanenvironment
becauseatleasthecangetlostwherehecurrentlyworks.Havingtoap-
pearsociableontopofsufferingtheindignitiesofbeingunderpaidand
unappreciatedwouldbeasureprescriptionforexhaustion.Underthis
viewofinteractionism,agoodP×Efitiscentraltounderstandingthe
qualities of organizational life (Caplan, 1987; Pervin, 1989).
Inthischapter,weapplyafourthperspectivetoorganizationallives.
It,too,isaninteractionalapproach,butisdistinctiveinthatitcomprises
adynamicinteractionistratherthanmechanicalinteractionistperspec-
tive(Little,1987;seeMagnusson,1999).Thelatteressentiallyadoptsan
analysisofvarianceapproachtolookingatperson–environmentinter-
action, whereas the former attempts to locate the interaction within a
dynamic unit of analysis that carries the features of both persons and
their contexts. That unit is the personal project.
The personalproject(Little,1983, chap.1, this volume) serves as a
conceptualcarrierunitandasameasurementunitthatinherentlylinks
personsandcontexts.Atwork,thepersonalprojectconnectsindividu-
alstotheirgroupsandorganizationsbyexaminingindividualpursuits
thatoccurinconjunctionwith,aredirectedtoward,andareenactedon
behalf of other individuals, groups, and the organization as a whole.
Thatis,thepersonalprojectcapturescognitions,affect,andbehaviors
PAGE PROOFS
that influence and are influenced by the contexts in which they take
place(Little,2000).ThepersonalprojectallowsustoseeEmilyengaged
in goal-oriented actionthat both expresses her characteristicsand im-
pactshercontext.ItaffordsusglimpsesofRobertinactionorinaction,
cunningly avoiding engagement in a context he sees as demeaning.
Ourgoal,then,istoexploretherelevanceofpersonalprojectstoor-
ganizational lives. First, we define personal projects at work and ex-
ploretheirpotentialadvantagesoverthemoretraditionalunitsoftasks
andjobs.Second,wedrawonextantresearchonpersonalprojectsand
related units to illustrate how projects address some of the central
themesinorganizationallife.Weshowhowprojectsenrichourunder-
standingofworkprocesses,contexts,andoutcomes,andhowprojects
can be both predictors of job satisfaction and performance and out-
comemeasuresintheirownright.Finally,wediscussfuturedirections
fororganizationalresearchonpersonalprojectsandtheappliedimpli-
cations of personal projects for redesigning work to enhance satisfac-
tionandperformance.Areprojectsreplacingjobs?Ifso,doesthequest
222 (cid:0) GRANT, LITTLE, PHILLIPS
forincreasedsatisfactionandimprovedperformanceentailredesigning
projects rather than jobs?
DEFINING AND DISTINGUISHING THE PERSONAL
PROJECT AT WORK
Definedasan“extendedsetofpersonallyrelevantaction”(Little,Lecci,
&Watkinson,1992;seealsoLittle,1989,chap.1,thisvolume),theper-
sonal project encompasses both goals—cognitive representations of
desired outcomes (Austin & Vancouver, 1996)—and behaviors under-
takeninpursuitofgoals.Intheorganizationalcontext,itisimportantto
distinguishthepersonalprojectfromthatdescribedintheprojectman-
agementliterature(e.g.,Thompson,1967).Intheprojectmanagement
literature,aprojectisaformalendeavorundertakenbymembersofthe
organization, whereas a personal project is an individual’s subjective
construal of his or her pursuit or activity. For example, Emily’s formal
project, one that could be found in her job description, might be to
“provide liaison with the business development team,” whereas her
personalprojectmightbeto“gettheBDTeamoffourcase,onceandfor
all.”
In organizational settings, we propose that the personal project of-
fers advantages over traditional units of measurement of work pro-
cesses and actions, notably tasks and jobs. A task, the most basic
PAGE PROOFS
buildingblockofwork,isanassignedpieceofworkthatanemployee
carriesout(Griffin,1987).Ajobisanaggregationofassignedtasksde-
signed to be performed by one employee (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1992;
Wong&Campion,1991).Webelievethatpersonalprojects,whichde-
rivefromandareembeddedinasocialecologicalmodelofhumanbe-
havior(Little,2000,chap.1,thisvolume),havetheadvantageofbeing
bothpersonallysalientandpitchedatamiddlescaleofactionthatsitu-
atesthemsomewherebetweentasksandjobs,asoutlinedinTable8.1.
Personal Saliency
The first advantageof the personal project is its personal saliency. Be-
causetasksandjobsaredefinedexternallyfrom amanager’s perspec-
tiveorbyanorganization’srequirements,theymaynotencapsulatethe
actionsthatarepersonallysalientandimportanttotheemployee(Taber
&Alliger,1995).Incontrast,thepersonalprojectrepresentstheactions
that are most significant and relevant in the employee’s experience.
8. PERSONAL PROJECTS AND ORGANIZATIONAL LIVES (cid:1) 223
TABLE 8.1
The Personal Project as a Unit of Work
Construct Definition Personal Saliency Scale of Action
Personal Extended set of Personally defined. Middle-range unit;
Project personally relevant Encompasses personally encompasses processes
action. relevant actions, both and outcomes of
assigned and voluntary. behavior, and multiple
acts and goals.
Task Assigned piece of Externally defined. Microscopic unit;
work that an Encompasses only focuses on the basic
employee carries assigned actions. building blocks of work
out. that employees carry
out.
Job Aggregation of Externally defined. Macroscopic unit;
assigned tasks Encompasses only focuses on the collection
designed to be assigned actions. of activities that
performed by one employees carry out.
employee.
Thisisimportantfortworeasons.First,peoplecanidentifythesameac-
tionsatmanydifferentlevelsofanalysis(Vallacher&Wegner,1987).Ata
lowlevelofanalysis,peopleidentifytheiractionsintermsofhowthey
PAGE PROOFS
areperformed,andatahighlevel,theyidentifytheiractionsintermsof
whytheyareperformed.Forinstance,somemarketersdescribetheirac-
tionsatworkintermsofsellingproducts,whereasothersdescribethem
in terms of making the world a better place (Pratt, 2000).
Second, employees in identical jobs assigned to carry out the same
tasksdiffersubstantiallyintheirdefinitionsofwhatactivitiesarepartof
theirjobs(Morrison,1994;seealsoParker,Wall,&Jackson,1997).Itap-
pearsthatthesedifferencesarisewhenemployeescognitivelyredefine
and behaviorally reshape the boundaries of their tasks and jobs.
Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) described several studies that illus-
tratehowemployeescarryoutthese“jobcrafting”activities.Forexam-
ple, hospital janitors assigned identical tasks and jobs often differ
markedlyintheactivitiesthattheyactuallycarryoutatwork:Somejani-
torsincorporatevoluntaryactionsintotheirdailyactivitiesatwork,of-
feringhelpto patientsandtimingtheirwork to increaseefficiencyfor
nurses, whereas others stick to narrowly defined and prescribed
responsibilities.
224 (cid:0) GRANT, LITTLE, PHILLIPS
Accordingly, an examination of employees’ assigned tasks and jobs
may overlook the activities that occupy the majority of their time, en-
ergy,andattention.Becauseemployeescanidentifythesameactionsat
different levels, and reshape their tasks and jobs, assessing an em-
ployee’sexperienceonthebasisofanexternaldefinitionofataskora
jobmaynotaccuratelycapturetheemployee’sactivities,pursuits,and
experiences.Conversely,afocusonthepersonalprojectsofemployees
highlightstheactivitiesandpursuitsthataremostsalientintheirwork
experiences.Whereastasksandjobsonlycaptureactivitiesassignedto
anemployee,personalprojectscanincludeanyactivityinwhichanem-
ployee is engaged at work. Projects thus allow researchers to under-
standdiscretionary,extraroleactivitiesaswellastheassignedactivities
thattasksandjobsinvolve(Roberson,Houston,&Diddams,1989).In-
deed,Pomaki,Maes,andterDoest(2004)foundthatstudiesbasedon
personally salient open elicitation formats (see Little & Gee, chap. 2,
this volume) have additional power to detect moderators of the rela-
tionsbetweenworkvariablesandoutcomes. Therefore,personalpro-
jectsmayenableresearcherstounderstandabroaderrangeofactions
thantasksandjobspermit,andtounderstandtheactionsthataremost
significant in the employee’s life.
Scale of Action
PAGE PROOFS
A second advantageof the personalprojectis its scaleof action.Tasks
aretypicallymicroscopicunitsofwork,whereasjobsareglobal,macro-
scopic units. The macroscopic nature of jobs can pose conceptual,
methodological,andpracticalchallenges.Inparticular,thejobunitof
measurement can obscure important variations in work experiences
(Mintzberg, 1973). If we merely measured job attitudes and percep-
tions,wemightfailtonoticethatEmilymayhaveaprojectortwothat
shefindsdiscouraging,andwewouldfailtolearnwhythisisthecase.
WemightalsooverlookthefactthatRobert,althoughgenerallymisera-
ble,seems to love one aspectof hiswork, whichserves ashisprimary
source of motivation. Moreover, jobs are asufficientlyglobalunitthat
employees’ evaluations of them can fluctuate substantially depending
onwhichaspectsofthejobareinfocusatthemomentofevaluation(see
Schwarz, 1999). Conceptually, these findings make it difficult for re-
searchers to discern employees’ feelings from their ratings of jobs
(Taber&Alliger,1995).Methodologically,thesefindingsleaveambigu-
oushowjobevaluationsshouldbemeasuredwithprecision.Practically,
8. PERSONAL PROJECTS AND ORGANIZATIONAL LIVES (cid:1) 225
itremainsuncertainwhetheremployees’ratingsoftheirjobsareaccu-
rate representations of their work experiences.
More molecular units of work may therefore be advantageous. In-
deed,measuringemployees’ratingsoftaskscanpredictoutcomesover
andabovetheirratingsofjobs(Taber&Alliger,1995).However,themi-
croscopicnatureoftasksposesadifferentsetofchallenges.Ataconcep-
tuallevel,employeescarryoutmanytasks,anditisnotclearwhichtasks
are relevant to understanding their behaviors and experiences. At a
methodologicallevel,itisnotevidenthowemployees’ratingsoftasks
should be aggregated.At apracticallevel,itcantakeseveralhours for
employees to provide ratings of their tasks (Taber &Alliger, 1995).
Whatorganizationalsciencemayfindofvalueareunitsofmeasure-
mentthataremoreglobalthantasks,yetnotsoglobalthattheyprevent
researchers from capturing important variations in cognition, affect,
andbehavior.Webelievepersonalprojectsmeetthesecriteria.Personal
projects are middle-range units (Little, 1983, 1989) that are generally
moremolecularthanjobsandmoremolarthantasks.1Personalprojects
aggregate employees’ experiences into personally salient chunks and
allowalargeproportionoftheirworkexperiencestobeencapsulated
byexaminingthesystemsofactivitiesinwhichtheyareengaged.Thorn-
gate (1976) argued that no explanationof socialbehavior canbe con-
currentlysimple,general,andaccurate.Webelievethesameistruefor
unitsofmeasurementofsocialbehavior.Assessmentsofjobsaresimple
PAGE PROOFS
and general, but potentially inaccurate. Assessments of tasks may be
simple and accurate, but tedious to elicit and not sufficiently general.
Thesetrade-offsbetweensimplicityandaccuracyinvolvedinmeasuring
jobsandtasksmaybepartiallymitigatedinassessmentsofpersonalpro-
jects,whichenablesresearcherstostudyactionatalevellessglobal—
and therefore more accurate—than jobs, but at a level more global—
and therefore more generalizable and representative—than tasks.
RESEARCH ON PERSONAL PROJECTS AT WORK
Wehaveproposedthatpersonalprojectscancaptureabroaderrangeof
actionthatismorepersonallysalienttoemployeesandismoreamena-
bleto accuratemeasurement thanjobs andtasks. In linewiththisno-
1Althoughthepersonalproject’shomeisasamiddle-levelunitbetweenataskandajob,the
personalprojectunitcanbeusedtomoveupanddownlevels,fromtrivialpursuitstomagnifi-
cent obsessions (Little, 1989).
226 (cid:0) GRANT, LITTLE, PHILLIPS
tion,Cropanzano,James, andCitera(1993) arguedthatexaminingan
employee’s personal projects provides a wealth of information about
theemploye’scognition,affect,andbehaviors.Toexploresomeofthis
information, we turn to recent research on personal projects at work
and illustrate the ways in which personal projects inform our under-
standingoffourkeyissuesinorganizationalbehavior.2Thefirstishow
workisdescribedandappraised:Howdopeopleidentifywhattheyare
reallydoing?Whatdotheyfindmeaningful,stressful,orvaluecongru-
ent?Second,personalprojectsenableustoexaminetherelationships
betweenactionandcontext:Forinstance,whatinfluencedoesorgani-
zationalclimatehaveonemployees’goalsandprojects?Third,personal
projectscaninformanunderstandingofworkoutcomesrelevanttoem-
ployees:towhatextentdoourappraisalsofworkinfluencejobsatisfac-
tionandperformance?Fourth,weconsiderthenotionthatthepersonal
projectsmethodology canbescaleduptoexploreorganizationalpro-
jects, not merely personal ones.
The Nature of Work: “What’s Up? How’s It Going?”
Inthissection,wedescriberesearchsuggestingthatthepersonalpro-
jectunitallowsustoassessthecontentofwork,itsidentityandmean-
ing, and the reciprocal impact of work on the self and the social and
organizational environPmAenGt. E PROOFS
Project Content. Whatpeoplethinktheyaredoingandhowthey
describe what they are doing are the starting points for personal pro-
jectsanalysis(PPA).Asdescribedinchapter2,thefirststepinPPAisto
elicit the projects in which people say they are engaged. Projects can
thenbeclassifiedinavarietyofways,enablingassessmentofdifferent
aspectsofwork.Onetypeofclassificationinvolvesdifferentphrasings
of projects. For example, describing projects in terms of avoidance
ratherthanapproach(Elliot,Sheldon,&Church,1997) orintermsof
trying rather than doing (Chambers, chap. 5, this volume; Little &
Chambers,2004)hasbeenfoundtobeassociatedwithlowerlevelsof
well-being.Asecondapproachtodescribingandclassifyingprojectsis
2Ourreviewaddressesresearchonpersonalprojectsatworkandpersonalgoalsatwork.
Althoughthegoal-settingresearchinorganizationalbehaviorhasfocusedprimarilyonexter-
nallyassignedgoals(Locke&Latham,1990,2002),aseriesofimportantandrelevantstudies
have been conducted on personal goals (see also Pomaki & Maes, 2002).
8. PERSONAL PROJECTS AND ORGANIZATIONAL LIVES (cid:1) 227
accordingtothedomainortypeofactivity(Littleetal.,1992).3Forex-
ample,Phillips,Little,andGoodine(1996,1997)studiedtheimpactof
reformintheCanadiangovernmentduringtheearly1990sthatwasin-
tendedtoevokeaculturechangetoencouragegreaterattentiontothe
management of human resources. They used PPA to explore assess-
mentsoftheworkprojectsof120managers,classifyingtheseprojects
intonineactivitydomains.4Iftheattemptsatreengineeringtheorgani-
zationalcultureweretakinghold,itwouldbeexpectedthatprojectsre-
latedtomanagingpeoplewouldbeconsiderednotonlyimportantbut
also personally meaningful, efficacious, and supported by colleagues
andtheculturegenerally.Theanalysisreflectedpoorlyonthereformat-
tempts and revealed some significant gender differences. Although
women managers rated managing people projects higher in personal
meaning,theyalsoperceivedthattheyhadmuchlesssupportforthem
fromcoworkers,superiors,ortheorganizationalclimatethandidtheir
male counterparts. Ironically, and in contrast to male managers, they
felt that there was less support for managing people projects than al-
most any other type of project. This suggests that any culture change
that was taking place was far from having the desired effects, and was
likelytoleadtodisillusionmentonthepartofwomenmanagersbefore
affecting their male colleagues (Phillips et al., 1996).
Project Identity anPdA MGeanEingP.RWOeiOckF(1S999, 2003) argued that
how projects are formulated has important implications for an em-
ployee’sidentityandexperienceofmeaning(seealsoMorrison,1994;
Roberson, 1990; Taber & Alliger, 1995; Vallacher & Wegner, 1987;
Wrzesniewski&Dutton,2001).Weickdescribedhowfirefightersinthe
3Theactionsthatcomposetaskscanalsobephysical,psychological,andsocial(Wong&
Campion,1991).Instudyingpersonalprojects,wecanexaminethephysical,psychological,
andsocialactivitiesthataresalienttotheemployee.Forexample,TaberandAlliger(1995)pro-
videdaninformativedemonstrationofthisideabyaskingemployeestodescribewhattheyare
doingindifferenttasks.Thissuggeststhatemployeesmaysometimesdevotethemajorityof
theirtimeandattentiontoparticulartypesofprojectsandexpendlittleenergyandefforton
others.
4Respondentswereaskedintheprojectdumptolistbothworkandnonworkprojects.In
thePPAmatrix,theywereaskedtoselectfiveworkandfivenonworkprojectsforcloserconsid-
eration.Theworkprojectswerethenclassifiedintoninedomains:self-development,manag-
ingpeople,administration,dealingwithsuperiorsandcolleagues,politicalandpublicliaison,
financialmanagement,policyorprogramdevelopment,policyorprogramimplementation,
andstrategicplanning.ThePPAwasalsomodifiedtoincludeseveraldimensionsthatrelated
directlytothesupportiveness,ontheonehand,andthehindranceoftheorganizationclimate,
on the other hand.
228 (cid:0) GRANT, LITTLE, PHILLIPS
MannGulchdisasterperishedbecausetheyrefusedtodroptheirtools
as they attempted to escape from an unmanageable fire:
Thus,whenIaskwhyfirefighterskeeptheirtoolsandlosetheirlives,I
maybeposingtheissueinawaythatprecludesameaningfulanswer.
My question fails to address their ready-to-hand mode in which tools
disappearintoequipmentdefinedbyitsuseandavailableness….IfI
wantthemtodroptheirtools,thenIneedtounderstandwhat*their*
projectisandtheninterveneinamannerthatchangesthatprojectcon-
vincingly.Iftheyareunabletoseebeyondtheirprojectoffiresuppres-
sion, then perhaps the leader has to stop that project cold, create a
defining moment, confirm that they face an exploding fire, and reset
theprojectclearlyandfirmlyasarace.Andiftheprojectofaracere-
placestheprojectofsuppression,thenspeedandlightnessandrapid
movement toward a safe zone become the new relevancies, and any-
thingthatinterfereswiththeprojectofaracenowbecomesvisibleand
isdiscarded….Someholdoverfromtheirpriorprojectofsuppression,
orsomeinabilityorunwillingnesstoshiftprojectsunderpressure,may
constituteabsorbedcopingintheworldofawalloffire.(Weick,1999,
p.137)
Thisexampleillustratesthatpersonalprojects,notmerelyformalor-
ganizationalprojects,playanimportantroleinshapingthemeaningof
anemployee’sactions.Firefightersclungtotheirroleidentitiesandde-
finedtheirprojectsintermsofsuppressingthefire.Alternatively,chang-
PAGE PROOFS
ingtheprojecttoescapingthefiremayhavetransformedthemeaning
oftheiractionsandsavedtheirlives.Evenforthosewhoarenotliterally
putting out fires, the capacityto shift perspectives on one’s project in
theheatofthemomentmaywellbesalutary.Akeyaspectofthiscapacity
istheextenttowhichonehascommittedtoaparticularcourseofaction
(Staw,1997).Indeed,thesubtletiesofhowpeoplecommittoprojects
inthefirstplace,whatkeepsthemmotivatedtocarryouttheirprojects,
andhowtheydivestthemselvesofonesthatarenotgoingwellarecen-
tral topics in contemporary research on projects in organizational life
(Goodine, 2000).
Further,justasHackmanandOldham(1980)conductedjobdesign
researchtoascertainthecharacteristicsofmeaningfulworkbyanalyz-
ingdataatthejoblevel,analysisattheprojectlevelcanbeusedtocon-
siderthecharacteristicsofmeaningfulprojects.HackmanandOldham
(1980)foundthatthreecorejobcharacteristicsinfluencedemployees’
experiences of meaning. One of these is task identity, the extent to
which individuals were working on a whole and identifiable piece of