Personnel ReviewEmerald Article: Operationalising critically reflective work behaviourMarianne van Woerkom, Marcel Croon

Article information:

To cite this document: Marianne van Woerkom, Marcel Croon, (2008),"Operationalising critically reflective work behaviour", Personnel Review, Vol. 37 Iss: 3 pp. 317 - 331

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480810862297

Downloaded on: 09-08-2012

References: This document contains references to 57 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

This document has been downloaded 2171 times since 2008. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

François Des Rosiers, Jean Dubé, Marius Thériault, (2011),"Do peer effects shape property values?", Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 510 - 528http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150376

Hui Chen, Miguel Baptista Nunes, Lihong Zhou, Guo Chao Peng, (2011),"Expanding the concept of requirements traceability: The role of electronic records management in gathering evidence of crucial communications and negotiations", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 63 Iss: 2 pp. 168 - 187http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111135646

Fang Shuqiong, Yang Baoan, Yu Yin, (2008),"Construction of evaluation index system of national energy security based on CAS theory and PSR model", Kybernetes, Vol. 37 Iss: 9 pp. 1297 - 1307http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684920810907580

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITEIT VAN TILBURG

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Operationalising criticallyreflective work behaviour

Marianne van Woerkom and Marcel CroonTilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to operationalise critical reflection. Although criticalreflection is widely recognised as a crucial element in individual and organisational learning, not manyinstruments exist to measure critical reflection in the context of work organisations.

Design/methodology/approach – Critical reflection was operationalised by using a combination ofa literature review and a survey.

Findings – Critically reflective work behaviour was defined as a set of connected activities carriedout individually or in interaction with others, aimed at optimising individual or collective practices, orcritically analysing and trying to change organizational or individual values. Based on the survey, aninstrument was developed for measuring six dimensions of critically reflective work behaviour,namely, critical opinion-sharing, asking for feedback, challenging group-think, openness aboutmistakes, experimentation and career awareness.

Research limitations/implications – Future research should focus on the predictive validity ofthe instrument by relating it to performance appraisals from supervisors or to ratings of innovativebehaviour. Further research could also focus on inter-rater reliability by contrasting self-ratings withratings from colleagues and supervisors.

Practical implications – In combination with an instrument measuring organisational climate, theinstrument may play a role in relating the work behaviour of employees to job characteristics andperceptions of organisational climate.

Originality/value – The concept of critically reflective work behaviour focuses on the role of thebehaviour of all employees in the organisation in becoming a learning company.

Keywords Critical thinking, Workplace learning, Workplace training

Paper type Research paper

Reflection and critical reflection especially are widely recognised as crucial elements inlearning processes in organisations (Rigano and Edwards, 1998) and as pivotal indeveloping learning organisations (Tjosvold, 1991; Vince, 2001). The process ofreflecting on prior learning to determine whether what one has learned is justifiedunder present circumstances (Mezirow and Associates, 1990) and of questioning boththe practices of the organisation and the underlying assumptions underpinning suchpractices (Farrell and Mavondo, 2004) may be of even more importance toorganisational survival than elaborating established meaning schemes. By askingcritical questions and confronting the basic assumptions underpinning prevailingorganisational norms and values, employees help prevent stagnation anddysfunctional habits (Argyris and Schon, 1996). Therefore, HR professionals need tobe able to identify and analyse critically reflective work behaviour of employees in theorganisation.

There are, however, not many theories about critical reflection in the context of theworkplace (Marsick, 1988; Schippers et al., 2005; Van Woerkom, 2004). Also, since there

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Criticallyreflective work

behaviour

317

Received 14 August 2006Revised 7 February 2007

Accepted 15 May 2007

Personnel ReviewVol. 37 No. 3, 2008

pp. 317-331q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0048-3486DOI 10.1108/00483480810862297

is not one consistent theory on critical reflection (Currie and Knights, 2003), there islittle consistency in the definitions of the concept of critical reflection (Brookfield, 2000;Brooks, 1999; Calderhead, 1989; Finlay and Gough, 2003). Brookfield (2000) identifiesfour different and often conflicting, intellectual traditions that inform the usage of theterm critical reflection. In the tradition of ideology critique, critical reflection refers tochallenging dominant ideology, illuminating and transforming power relations(Alvesson and Willmott, 1996) and examining assumptions that managementdecisions are justified solely on the basis of efficiency and profit (Cunliffe, 2004). In thepsychotherapeutically inclined tradition critical reflection means becoming criticallyaware of how and why the structure of psycho-cultural assumptions has come toconstrain the way people see themselves and their relationships and examining andtaking actions to change their lives in essential ways (Mezirow and Associates, 1990).In the tradition of analytic philosophy and logic critical reflection means the disciplinedmental activity of evaluating arguments or propositions, and making judgments thatcan guide the development of beliefs and actions (Ennis, 1962, 1993). In the tradition ofpragmatist constructivism, criticality concerns constructing and deconstructing one’sown experiences and meanings on the basis of dialogue and multiple lenses providedby others and rejecting universal and generalisable truths (Brookfield, 2000; King andKitchener, 1994).

Despite the differences, these four intellectual traditions share a commonrationalistic bias (Ellstrom, 2001), implicitly defining critical reflection as a cognitiveand conscious process of examining assumptions and consciousness raising, whereone step logically results from a previous one. However, from a cultural perspectivelearning in organisations must not only be studied as a cognitive process (taking placein the heads of people), but also as visible actions in daily work processes (Cook andYanow, 1993; Huysman, 2000). Furthermore, many of the existing definitions of criticalreflection focus on individual reflection, while social interaction is an important sourceof reflection, and reflection is a widely recognised element in organisational learning(Cunliffe and Easterby-Smith, 2004; Vince, 2001). For these reasons, this study aims todevelop an operational definition of critically reflective work behaviour, as a set ofconnected activities carried out individually or in interaction with others, aimed atoptimising individual or collective practices, or at critically analysing and trying tochange organisational or individual values.

Up to now there is a lack of instruments to identify differences in individualcapabilities of critical reflection in the context of work organisations (Brooks, 1999;Schippers et al., 2005). One reason for this may be that all four traditions that wedescribed above have a prescriptive character and are concerned more with ideals forbetter, deeper and more liberating ways of learning rather than with theories aboutlearning processes based on empirical research. Also, in all four traditions,interpretative research traditions and post-modern perspectives are dominant, whichimplies that there is not a strong focus on the development of instruments. This studymust therefore be seen as a first attempt to develop an instrument for measuringcritically reflective work behaviour by translating theories about critical reflection intothe accompanying work behaviour needed for individual and organisational learning.

In the following sections, we analyse the literature on concrete aspects of criticallyreflective work behaviour. The identified aspects have also been validated byinterviews in seven organisations (Van Woerkom, 2003). However, because of space

PR37,3

318

limitations, these results are not presented here. Subsequently, we report anexploratory, quantitative study aimed at validating an instrument to measure thoseaspects of critically reflective work behaviour.

Aspects of critically reflective work behaviourReflective workingReflective working is easy to recognise in the literature on reflection in the workplace,and especially in Schon’s (1983) theory about reflection-in-action andreflection-on-action. Reflection-on-action refers to thinking back on what one hasdone and experimenting in the mind by formulating new hypotheses.Reflection-in-action refers to thinking about what one is doing while one is doing it,when there are still opportunities to experiment with alternative approaches. Reflectionis aimed at the assessment of assumptions implicit in beliefs about how to solveproblems (Mezirow and Associates, 1990) and is important for examining one’sexperience, in order to assess its effectiveness and to improve performance. In thisstudy we define reflective working as examining one’s work experiences both in andafter action in order to assess one’s effectiveness and to improve performance.

Openness about mistakesDespite the rather negative view of errors generally held in society and the severeconsequences that workplace errors may have for individuals and organisations, froma psychological perspective errors are great because they make it possible to learn(Keith and Frese, 2005). Errors may help to correct false assumptions, to break downpremature or inadequate “routinisation”, and stimulate exploration and newdiscoveries. In a social context like the workplace, especially openness aboutmistakes is important. Chillarege et al. (2003) define openness about mistakes as notbeing afraid to make errors. Our definition of openness about mistakes, however, alsoincludes not covering mistakes up or reacting defensively when confronted with anerror (Argyris and Schon, 1996), thus limiting possibilities for oneself and others in theorganisation to learn from them.

Asking for feedbackAs reflection should be operationalised as an interactive, dialogical action (Reynolds,1998; Vince, 2002), in which feedback from others is an important source for learning tooccur (Annett, 1969; Ashford et al., 2003; Ashford and Tsui, 1991), asking for feedbackis another important aspect of critically reflective work behaviour. The functions offeedback are assumed to be cognitive as well as motivational. According to Swift andWest (1998), the feedback search rate of a team is a useful indicator of reflectiveness,since it suggests that a group is sufficiently open in its interpretation of its world andfunctioning to value external feedback. Ashford and Tsui (1991) have operationalisedthe active feedback-seeking behaviour of managers by discriminating betweennegative and positive feedback-seeking and between direct and indirect inquirystrategies. All these scales refer to feedback on performance. In this study, asking forfeedback may, however, also refer to one’s opinions, underlying values or criteria aboutwhat is important at work, thereby stimulating a discussion on the theories-in-use(Schon, 1983) that may stimulate double-loop learning.

Criticallyreflective work

behaviour

319

ExperimentationExperimentation is often mentioned as the last step in a reflection cycle (for example,(Kolb, 1984; Korthagen, 1985). According to Dewey, the founder of the concept ofreflection, mere doing is not enough to produce learning: doing should become trying,an experiment with the world to find out what it is like. Also the concept ofreflection-in-action (Schon, 1983) is close to experimentation. When a person reflects inaction, he becomes a researcher in the practical context. He is not dependent on thecategories of established theory and technique, but constructs a new theory of theunique case. Brookfield (1987) perceives “exploring and imagining alternatives” as oneof the two central activities of critical thinking. Experimenting also relates to personalinitiative: an individual’s active and self-starting approach to work and going beyondwhat is formally required in a given job (Fay, 1998; Fay and Sonnentag, 2002). Theconcept of personal initiative, however, is broader than experimenting, and morefocused on organisational goals, whereas experimenting is focused on individuallearning by trying out new ways of working.

Critical opinion-sharingWhereas reflection is concerned with problem-solving and with answering “how to”questions, critical reflection is devoted to problem-posing and with answering “why”questions about the justification for the very premises on which problems are posed inthe first place (Mezirow and Associates, 1990). Organisations are the place for espousedtheories, general norms about what works that everybody agrees on (Schon, 1983).However, even if espoused theories do not work, people will be afraid to criticise them,for fear of appearing incompetent, being expelled from their professional group (Schon,1983) or to avoid the problems and uncertainty of conflicts (Swieringa and Wierdsma,1992). Thus, just as the process of critical reflection can be made possible through theassistance of others, because their feedback opens the learner up to other points ofview, it also involves the ability to withstand social pressure. People who dare tocriticise espoused theories are perceived as saying “the emperor wears no clothes” or as“troublemakers” (Brooks, 1999).

Critical opinion-sharing refers to an examination of social and political“taken-for-granteds” (Reynolds, 1998) in the organisation. Critical opinion-sharing isrelated to change-oriented forms of organisational citizenship behaviour or contextualperformance, like voice. Van Dyne and LePine (1998) conceptualise voice in aharmonious model as promotive behaviour that emphasises the expression ofconstructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticise. In addition toexpressing ideas, information and opinions (LePine and Van Dyne, 2001;Olson-Buchanan and Boswell, 2002; Van Dyne et al., 2003), in our study criticalopinion-sharing also involves asking managers and colleagues critical questions aboutthe organisation.

Challenging groupthinkIn literature on organisational learning, critical reflection on organisational values isoften approached using harmonious models that do not involve conflict. A popularexample of this is the concept of double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon, 1996).However, sometimes, critical reflection is approached using a conflict model in whichindividuals challenge groupthink (Brooks, 1999; Brookfield, 1987). Challenging

PR37,3

320

groupthink is another important aspect of critical reflection, as the latter cannot alwaysbe based on harmony with the social environment. Groupthink refers to a mode ofthinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group,when the members’ striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realisticallyappraise alternative courses of action (Janis, 1972). Challenging groupthink is related tothe concept of whistle-blowing, an example of challenging behaviour that involvesconflict (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). While whistle-blowing refers specifically toreporting illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices to persons or to organisations whomight be able to effect a remedy (Miceli and Near, 1988; Somers and Casal, 1994),challenging groupthink refers to the competency to express disagreement, even wheneveryone else is in agreement.

Career awarenessCareer awareness can be seen as a practical implication of critical self-reflection aimedat the emancipation and identity formation of the individual in relation to theorganisation. Since learning transforms who we are and what we can do, it is not justan accumulation of skills, but an experience of identity – to become a certain person or,conversely, to avoid becoming a certain person (Wenger, 1998). Apart from a process oftransforming knowledge, it thus also entails a context in which to define an identity ofparticipation. Wenger (1998) stresses that communities of practice at the workplace arenot intrinsically benevolent for the individual: they are the cradle of the self, but alsothe potential cage of the soul. Through critical self-reflection, people can learn to createone’s own identity in the communities and social practices of which one is a member(Ten Dam and Volman, 2002).

In Cunliffe’s (2004) terminology, career awareness refers to existential criticalreflexivity that is focused on the question “Who am I and what kind of person do Iwant to be in my work?” As a result of this, people become aware of their motives andthe extent to which their jobs satisfy them. Career awareness refers to the intention tomatch self-development with career development, and, if necessary, to orient oneselftowards opportunities outside one’s current job or employer. This means askingoneself fundamental questions about one’s own identity as a member of the communityof practice and the need for self-change (Marsick, 1988), aimed at self-realisation anddevelopment.

MethodProcedure and sampleOn the basis of the analysis of the literature, seven aspects of critically reflective workbehaviour could be identified. To investigate how these seven aspects can beoperationalised and to what extent these can be measured independently of each other,our next step was to carry out a first exploratory investigation into theoperationalisation of critically reflective work behaviour. For this purpose, wedeveloped scales for these seven aspects, for which items were formulated. A mailedquestionnaire employing a self-report method was used, asking for an assessment of allvariables. Respondents were chosen from two databases of former students who hadfinished secondary and tertiary education. Respondents were selected who, if they hada paid job, worked at a required educational level of at least senior secondary(vocational) education, and worked in a job that required cooperation with colleagues.

Criticallyreflective work

behaviour

321

From each database, 835 respondents were selected, resulting in a total sample of 1,670individuals. The questionnaires were sent out in June 2000; reminders were sent outtwo weeks later. Of the 1,670 questionnaires sent out, 742 valid questionnaires werereturned, resulting in a response rate of 46 per cent.

The final dataset consisted of 503 men (67.8 per cent) and 239 women (32.2 per cent).The majority of the respondents were between 21 and 30 years old (62.6 per cent). Halfof the respondents had from 0 to 5 years’ work experience (47.3 per cent); the other halfhad six or more years’ experience (52.7 per cent). One-third of the respondents hadcompleted senior secondary vocational education (33.5 per cent), and almost two-thirdshad professional (60.8 per cent) or university (5.5 per cent) education. Ten per cent ofthe respondents worked in organisations of fewer than 20 employees. A quarter of therespondents worked in organisations of 20 to 99 employees. Another quarter worked inorganisations of 100 to 499 employees, and 38.6 per cent worked in organisations of 500employees or more. Of the respondents, 28 per cent worked in the agricultural sector,32.8 per cent worked in economic, administrative or commercial jobs, and 22.4 per centworked in technical jobs.

MeasuresEach aspect was measured using self-developed items derived from the literature anda qualitative study (Van Woerkom, 2003). The content of the items was discussedwith a panel of three experts. Reflective working (R) was measured using eight items.Critical opinion-sharing (C) was measured using seven items. Asking for feedback (F)was measured using ten items. Challenging groupthink (G) was measured usingseven items. Openness about mistakes (O) was measured using seven items.Experimentation (E) was measured using six items. Career awareness (A) wasmeasured using four items. All items could be scored from 1 to 6 (1 ¼ totallydisagree, 6 ¼ totally agree).

Treatment of missing dataA total of 84 subjects (11 per cent of the total sample) had a missing score on atleast one item, but only 344 scores (0.95 per cent of the total of 742 £49 ¼ 36,358 potential scores) were missing. Since no systematic pattern of missingdata was discernible, the missing scores were imputed by means of the regressionimputation method available in the Missing Value Analysis procedure from SPSS12.0. Since it makes weaker distributional assumptions than the other alternativesprovided by the SPSS regression imputation method, we chose the option in whicha randomly drawn observed residual is added to the expected value of the missingscore. This imputation procedure was carried out separately for each of the sevenscales. All the ensuing statistical analyses were carried out on the completed datamatrix.

Exploratory principal factor analysisAn exploratory principal factor analysis was carried out to study the structure of theentire set of 49 items. Since the present study was designed as an exploratoryinvestigation of how different aspects of critically reflective work behaviour can bemeasured and are related to each other, we had no precise hypotheses about the finalfactorial structure. For this reason we preferred an exploratory to a confirmatory

PR37,3

322

approach that would require very specific prior hypotheses about the factor structureof the scale. Although many researchers nowadays promote CFA over EFA, Haig(2005) recently discussed the role of exploratory factor analysis in the generation andevaluation of explanatory hypotheses and theories. His analysis showed that EFA stillhas a major role to play in knowledge generation and theory development in the socialand behavioural sciences. Moreover, because of the large sample size in this study, aCFA (using maximum likelihood estimation) carried out on the 49 £ 49 itemcorrelation matrix would fail to provide an acceptable statistical fit to the data unless alarge number of minor secondary factors were included in the model. In an exploratoryfactor analysis, on the other hand, the focus is more on the identification of a limitednumber of major primary factors. In our exploratory factor analysis we closelyfollowed the recommendations formulated by Fabrigar et al. (1999).

ResultsThe number of common factors was determined on the basis of a parallel analysis (see(Hayton et al., 2004), in which the eigenvalues of the observed correlation matrix arecompared to the mean and the 95th percentile of the eigenvalues of correlation matricesfor a randomly drawn data matrix with the same dimensions (number of subjects andnumber of variables) as the observed data matrix, but drawn under the assumptionthat all variables are independent. In the present application, the parallel analysis,based on a sample of 250 randomly drawn data matrices, indicated that seven commonfactors should be extracted. Consequently, a principal axis factor analysis with sevencommon factors was carried out. Since many items had clear non-normal scoredistributions, indicated by skewness and kurtosis statistics that were significantlydifferent from zero, principal axis factor analysis was preferred to maximum likelihoodestimation. Finally, the solution obtained was obliquely rotated (using the OBLIMINcriterion) to simple structure (see Table I).

Refinement of scalesThe results of the explanatory factor analysis were used to redefine the original scales.The cut-off point for considering a factor loading as high and relevant was set at 0.30.However, final decisions about the composition of the scales were also based onsubstantive criteria related to item content.

First, it is important to note that four of the original scales were neatly covered by acommon factor in the rotated solution:

. All except one of the items from the F scale loaded higher than 0.3 on a firstcommon factor. A new scale, F1, includes these nine remaining items. Two itemswhich originally belonged to the R-scale also loaded slightly higher than 0.3 onthis factor but were not included in the new scale because their wording did notmatch the content of the remaining items.

. All seven items from the O-scale loaded strongly on a second factor so that thesecond scale, O1, is identical to the original O-scale. Two items originallybelonging to the G-scale also had factor loadings slightly higher than 0.3 on thisfactor but were not included in the new O1 scale because of lack of contentvalidity.

Criticallyreflective work

behaviour

323

Factor1 2 3 4 5 6 7

R1 0.125 0.060 0.083 0.169 0.122 20.090 0.101R2 0.067 0.095 0.071 0.119 0.365 0.001 0.227R3 0.138 0.260 0.237 20.128 0.020 0.060 0.020R4 0.201 0.188 0.341 0.222 0.032 20.155 0.068R5 0.108 20.064 0.215 20.037 0.284 0.006 20.095R6 0.174 0.014 0.449 20.061 0.083 0.032 0.198R7 0.334 20.091 0.170 20.141 0.253 0.022 0.277R8 0.338 20.242 0.175 20.039 0.015 20.163 0.030C1 20.118 0.036 20.001 0.018 0.599 20.198 20.135C2 20.069 0.016 0.018 0.057 0.630 20.105 20.059C3 20.023 0.036 0.059 0.139 0.487 20.150 20.382C4 0.057 20.109 0.034 20.198 0.627 0.010 20.026C5 0.106 20.078 0.085 20.107 0.611 20.002 20.095C6 0.086 0.043 20.035 0.059 0.418 20.151 20.129C7 0.172 0.105 0.002 0.115 0.050 20.077 20.106O1 0.052 0.509 20.016 0.095 20.068 20.039 20.104O2 20.058 0.346 0.088 0.043 0.075 20.113 0.049O3 0.207 0.480 20.013 20.010 20.062 20.008 20.146O4 20.067 0.610 0.000 20.068 20.010 20.053 20.097O5 20.141 0.452 20.005 20.181 20.072 0.012 0.014O6 0.140 0.397 20.054 20.160 0.163 0.114 0.097O7 20.019 0.599 20.016 20.134 20.024 20.106 20.018F1 0.469 20.079 0.096 0.015 0.008 0.021 0.060F2 0.075 0.007 20.007 0.063 0.146 20.130 20.032F3 0.474 0.087 20.078 0.076 20.064 20.053 20.057F4 0.367 0.150 0.125 0.149 0.102 0.015 20.019F5 0.331 0.069 0.169 0.012 0.263 0.063 0.025F6 0.601 0.093 20.005 0.032 20.030 20.032 20.060F7 0.304 0.069 0.031 20.123 0.254 20.093 0.132F8 0.557 20.059 0.097 20.010 0.019 20.119 20.069F9 0.588 20.083 0.041 20.111 0.033 20.164 20.039F10 0.512 20.081 0.008 20.030 0.099 20.115 20.145G1 0.176 20.077 0.103 20.060 0.261 20.238 20.218G2 0.201 0.308 20.005 0.032 0.001 0.062 20.469G3 0.061 0.054 20.024 20.105 0.216 0.003 20.376G4 0.205 0.105 0.029 0.158 0.138 20.149 20.493G5 0.073 0.167 0.069 20.079 0.140 0.014 20.436G6 0.005 20.058 20.001 20.210 0.115 0.057 20.333G7 0.029 0.379 0.131 20.087 0.167 0.153 20.381E1 20.016 0.103 0.039 20.503 20.143 20.148 20.136E2 0.022 0.161 0.011 20.552 0.067 20.083 0.016E3 20.056 0.123 20.029 20.619 0.077 20.171 0.014E4 0.031 0.001 0.089 20.128 0.037 20.606 20.026E5 0.078 0.015 0.014 20.137 0.053 20.783 0.089E6 0.110 0.084 0.003 20.128 0.062 20.751 0.114A1 20.055 0.102 0.686 0.092 20.027 20.045 0.034A2 0.014 0.044 0.411 20.004 0.148 20.131 20.026A3 20.015 20.107 0.692 20.013 20.028 0.025 20.059A4 20.097 20.049 0.981 20.037 20.112 20.011 20.103

Table I.Oblimin rotated itemfactor solution

PR37,3

324

. All seven items from the C-scale loaded strongly on a third common factor,together with a single item from the R scale. The latter item was not retained inthe new scale, C1.

. All seven items from the G-scale loaded highly on a fourth common factor andcomprise the new scale, G1.

Second, the factor structure of the items belonging to the original R, A and E scales wasless clear:

. All four items from the A-scale and three items from the R-scale loaded highly ona fifth common factor. Taking into consideration the content of the items, a newscale, A1, was constructed, which comprised all four items from the A-scale andtwo items from the R-scale that referred to reflection on one’s work motivationand development in the current job.

. The items comprising the original E-scale behaved in a particular way. On thesixth factor only the first three items from the E-scale loaded highly, whereas thelast three items were the only items that loaded highly on the seventh factor. Apositive response to the first three items indicates a preference for routine work,whereas a positive response to the last three items indicates a preference fortrying out new things. Our expectation that these two attitudes were thecontrasting poles of an underlying one-dimensional concept was not borne out.Consequently, it was decided to retain only the last three items in a new scale, E1.

Of all the seven original scales, only the concept underlying the R scale did not emergeas a clear dimension in the factor solution. The seven items belonging to R weredispersed over three different factors. Finally, only two of these items were retained inscale A; all other items were discarded from the further analyses. The Appendixdescribes the items that were included in the final questionnaire.

Table II contains the means (M) and standard deviation (SD) of the scale scores(defined as mean item responses) as well as information about the psychometricqualities of the scales.

Since the reliability of a scale as measured by Cronbach’s a is a function of both thenumber of items in the scale and the average inter-item correlation, we also report bothquantities here. Three scales (F1, C1, and E1) have a reliability greater than 0.8,whereas a fourth scale (A1) only falls slightly short in this respect. The two remainingscales (O1 and G1) have reliabilities smaller than 0.8 but still greater than 0.7, a valuethat, according to Lance et al. (2006), can still be considered acceptable for measuresdeveloped at an early stage of research.

No. of items a �r M SD

F1 9 0.802 0.291 30.91 0.79O1 7 0.704 0.263 40.12 0.78A1 6 0.793 0.390 40.31 0.90C1 6 0.813 0.428 40.14 0.89E1 3 0.842 0.646 40.00 10.07G1 6 0.733 0.317 40.22 0.82

Table II.Cronbach’s a and mean

inter-item correlations forthe six scales

Criticallyreflective work

behaviour

325

Scale correlationsTable III contains the correlations among the six scales. Because of the large samplesize in this study, all correlations are statistically very significant ( p , 0.001). Sincemany of these correlations are quite substantial (greater than 0.4), one might betempted to conclude that a further regrouping of the items into a smaller number ofscales should be carried out. However, such a decision should be based not only on aninspection of the inter-scale correlations, but also on a study of the discriminantvalidity of the scales. If in a subsequent study the six scales have different patterns ofcorrelation with external variables, a strong argument for defending the identity ofeach scale is obtained.

ConclusionThis paper reported a first exploratory study aimed at operationalising criticallyreflective work behaviour. Most research on learning has been conducted in educationalsettings. Ideas about learning activities therefore need to be tested against the conditionsof everyday adult learning within work organisations (Holman et al., 2001).

We have defined critically reflective work behaviour as a set of connected activitiescarried out individually or in interaction with others, aimed at optimising individual orcollective practices, or critically analysing and trying to change organisational orindividual values. We have identified six dimensions of critically reflective workbehaviour, namely critical opinion-sharing, openness about mistakes, asking forfeedback, challenging groupthink, experimenting and career awareness. The conceptof critically reflective work behaviour can function as a bridge between individual andorganisational learning. Although many models of the learning organisation focus onthe learning environment, organisations must, nonetheless, also address behaviour inthe organisation (Kargaard Thomsen and Hoest, 2001). Instead of focusing on the oftenhighlighted role that managers play in becoming a learning company (Henderson,1993), the concept of critically reflective work behaviour focuses on the behaviour of allemployees. By experimenting, asking for feedback and reflecting on career ambitions,employees learn individually, thereby developing their competences and improvingtheir performance. By critical opinion-sharing, openness about mistakes andchallenging groupthink, employees share the outcomes of their own learningprocesses with others, causing the organisation to learn and to work more effectively.We can conclude from our study that six reliable subscales of the construct criticallyreflective work behaviour come clearly to the fore. Clearly, more research into our newconstruct is needed. The fact that the items of the scale reflective working dispersed over

F1 O1 A1 C1 E1 G1

F1 –O1 0.210* –A1 0.468* 0.114* –C1 0.539* 0.191* 0.356* –E1 0.462* 0.222* 0.341* 0.460* –G1 0.369* 0.417* 0.169* 0.492* 0.243* –

Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (two-sided)Table III.Scale intercorrelations

PR37,3

326

three different factors shows the difficulty of operationalising reflection in the context ofthe workplace, when this is not translated in terms of more concrete work behaviour.The fact that the negative and the positive items of the scale experimenting loaded onseparate factors, shows that a preference for routine work is not the opposite of apreference for trying out new things. In future studies, new items should be added to thescales of experimentation and reflective working and confirmatory factor analysisshould be applied. Further, the predictive validity of the instrument could be studiedfurther by relating it to performance appraisals from supervisors or to ratings oninnovative behaviour (Janssen, 2000). Further research could also focus on inter-raterreliability by contrasting self-ratings with ratings from colleagues and supervisors.

The value of the developed instrument for practice lies mostly in diagnosticpurposes rather than in selection purposes. In combination with an instrumentmeasuring organisational climate, the instrument may play a role in relating the workbehaviour of employees to job characteristics and perceptions of organisationalclimate. An example of this is a follow-up study in the textile-printing factory (VanWoerkom, 2003). In this organisation, the questionnaire for critically reflective workbehaviour as well as an instrument to measure workplace characteristics andorganisational climate was used for a survey that was conducted among all theemployees. It turned out from the survey results and the subsequent discussions withunit managers and employees that many employees attributed their low scores oncritically reflective work behaviour to their low job autonomy and few opportunities toexercise initiative in their jobs. As a result of these outcomes, management decided toinvest energy in improving the quality of jobs and in upgrading team meetings in orderto stimulate critically reflective work behaviour.

Conceptualisationsofcritical reflectionoftenexpress ideals forbetter,deeperandmoreliberating ways of learning and can therefore be seen as emancipatory approaches toeducation (Reynolds, 1998) or as pedagogies of hope (Freire, 1994), rather than as theoriesabout learning processes that are based on empirical research. One way of keeping theconcept of critical reflection from the dangers of loss of meaning and reification is tomaintain a constant debate around it and the ways in which it is understood and practised(Brookfield, 2000). Our operationalisation of critically reflective work behaviour may feedthediscussiononwhatcritical reflection inwork organisationsentails inpractice andhowemployees and organisations may benefit from it.

References

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996), Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction,Sage, London.

Annett, J. (1969), Feedback and Human Behavior, Penguin Books, Baltimore, MD.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Ashford, S.J. and Tsui, A.S. (1991), “Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: the role of activefeedback seeking”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 251-80.

Ashford, S.J., Blatt, R. and VandeWalle, D. (2003), “Reflections of the looking glass: a review ofresearch on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29No. 6, pp. 773-99.

Brookfield, S.D. (1987), Developing Critical Thinkers, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Criticallyreflective work

behaviour

327

Brookfield, S.D. (2000), “The concept of critically reflective practice”, in Wilson, A.L. and Hayes, E.R.(Eds), Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,pp. 33-49.

Brooks, A.K. (1999), “Critical reflection as a response to organizational disruption”, Advances inDeveloping Human Resources, Vol. 3, pp. 67-97.

Calderhead, J. (1989), “Reflective teaching and teacher education”, Teaching and TeacherEducation, Vol. 5, pp. 43-51.

Chillarege, K.A., Nordstrom, C.R. and Williams, K.B. (2003), “Learning from our mistakes: errormanagement training for mature learners”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17No. 3, pp. 369-85.

Cook, S.D.N. and Yanow, D. (1993), “Culture and organizational learning”, Journal ofManagement Inquiry, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 373-99.

Cunliffe, A.L. (2004), “On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner”, Journal of ManagementEducation, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 407-26.

Cunliffe, A.L. and Easterby-Smith, M. (2004), “From reflection to practical reflexivity: experientallearning as lived experience”, in Reynolds, M. and Vince, R. (Eds), Organizing Reflection,Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 30-46.

Currie, G. and Knights, D. (2003), “Reflecting on a crtitical pedagogy in MBA education”,Management Learning, Vol. 34, pp. 27-49.

Ellstrom, P.E. (2001), “Integrating learning and work: problems and prospects”, Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 421-35.

Ennis, R.H. (1962), “A concept of critical thinking”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 32,pp. 81-111.

Ennis, R.H. (1993), “Critical thinking assessment”, Theory into Practice, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 179-86.

Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C. and Strahan, E.J. (1999), “Evaluating the use ofexploratory factor analysis in psychological research”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3,pp. 272-99.

Farrell, M. and Mavondo, F.T. (2004), “The effect of downsizing strategy and reorientationstrategy on a learning orientation”, Personnel Review, Vol. 33, pp. 383-402.

Fay, D. (1998), “Personal initiative: construct validation of a new concept of performance atwork”, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, (dissertation).

Fay, D. and Sonnentag, S. (2002), “Rethinking the effects of stressors: a longitudinal study onpersonal initiative”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 221-34.

Finlay, L. and Gough, B. (2003), Reflexivity. A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and SocialSciences, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Freire, P. (1994), Pedagogy of Hope, Continuum, New York, NY.

Haig, B.D. (2005), “Exploratory factor analysis, theory generation, and scientifc method”,Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 40, pp. 303-29.

Hayton, J.C., Allen, D.G. and Scarpello, V. (2004), “Factor retention decisions in exploratory factoranalysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 7,pp. 191-2005.

Henderson, I. (1993), “Action learning: A missing link in management development?”, PersonnelReview, Vol. 22, pp. 14-24.

Holman, D., Epitropaki, A.-O. and Fernie, A.-S. (2001), “Understanding learning strategies in theworkplace: a factor analytic investigation”, Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, Vol. 74, pp. 675-81.

PR37,3

328

Huysman, M. (2000), “An organizational learning approach to the learning organization”,European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 133-45.

Janis, I.L. (1972), Victims of Groupthink, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative workbehaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 287-302.

Kargaard Thomsen, H. and Hoest, V. (2001), “Employees’ perception of the learningorganization”, Management Learning, Vol. 32, pp. 469-91.

Keith, N. and Frese, M. (2005), “Self-regulation in error management training: emotion controland metacognition as mediators of performance effects”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 90, pp. 677-91.

King, P. and Kitchener, K. (1994), Developing Reflective Judgment, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,CA.

Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Korthagen, F.A.J. (1985), “Reflective teaching and pre-service teacher education in TheNetherlands”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 36, pp. 11-15.

Lance, C.E., Butts, M.M. and Michels, L.C. (2006), “The sources of four commonly reported cut-offcriteria”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9, pp. 202-20.

LePine, J.A. and Van Dyne, L. (2001), “Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms ofcontextual performance: evidence of differential relationships with big five personalitycharacteristics and cognitive ability”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 326-36.

Marsick, V.J. (1988), “Learning in the workplace: the case for reflectivity and critical reflectivity”,Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 187-98.

Mezirow and Associates, J. (1990), Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide toTransformative and Emancipatory Learning, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Miceli, M.P. and Near, J.P. (1988), “Individual and situational correlates of whistle-blowing”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 267-81.

Olson-Buchanan, J.B. and Boswell, W.R. (2002), “The role of employee loyalty and formality invoicing discontent”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 1167-74.

Reynolds, M. (1998), “Reflection and critical reflection in management learning”, ManagementLearning, Vol. 29, pp. 183-200.

Rigano, D. and Edwards, J. (1998), “Incorporating reflection into work practice”, ManagementLearning, Vol. 29, pp. 431-46.

Schippers, M.C., Den Hartog, D.N. and Koopman, P.L. (2005), “Reflexivity in teams: a measureand correlates”, ERIM Report Series Reference No. ERS-2005-069-ORG Available at SSRN.

Schon, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Somers, M.J. and Casal, J.C. (1994), “Organizational commitment and whistle-blowing”, Groupand Organization Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 270-84.

Swieringa, J. and Wierdsma, A.F.M. (1992), Becoming a Learning Organization: Beyond theLearning Curve, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.

Swift, T.A. and West, M.A. (1998), Reflexivity and Group Processes: Research and Practice, TheESRC Centre for Organisation and Innovation, Sheffield.

Ten Dam, G. and Volman, M. (2002), “Het sociale karakter van kritisch denken: didactischerichtlijnen” (“The social character of critical thinking: didactical guidelines”), PedagogischeStudieen, pp. 167-83.

Criticallyreflective work

behaviour

329

Tjosvold, D. (1991), Team Organization: An Enduring Competitive Advantage, Wiley, New York,NY.

Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence ofconstruct and predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 108-19.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S. and Botero, I.C. (2003), “Conceptualizing employee silence and employeevoice as multidimensional constructs”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40,pp. 1359-92.

Van Woerkom, M. (2003), “Critical reflection at work. Bridging individual and organisationallearning”, Dissertation, Twente University, Enschede.

Van Woerkom, M. (2004), “The concept of critical reflection and its implications for humanresource development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 6, pp. 178-93.

Vince, R. (2001), “Power and emotion in organizational learning”, Human Relations, Vol. 54,pp. 1325-51.

Vince, R. (2002), “Organizing reflection”, Management Learning, Vol. 33, pp. 63-78.

Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity, CambridgeUniversity, Press, Cambridge.

Appendix. Final questionnaire critically reflective work behaviourCritical opinion-sharing (C)

(1) I come up with ideas how things could be organised differently here.

(2) I make suggestions to my supervisor about a different working method.

(3) I give my opinion about developments at work.

(4) I call this organisation’s policy into question.

(5) I put critical questions to my supervisor about the working of this organisation.

(6) I make suggestions to my colleagues about a different working method.

Openness about mistakes (O)

(1) If I do not know what I really should know, I try to hide the fact (– ).

(2) I do not mind making mistakes.

(3) If I have not done something very well, I prefer to keep quiet about it.

(4) If people at work see that I am doing something wrong, I have the feeling that I have lostface (–).

(5) If I make a mistake, I find it hard to forgive myself (– ).

(6) If I have not done something well, I try to forget about it as soon as possible.

(7) I get embarrassed if I make a mistake (–).

Asking for feedback (F)

(1) I discuss with colleagues how I have developed.

(2) If I think I have not done my work well, I discuss this with colleagues.

(3) If I think I have done my work badly, I discuss this with my supervisor.

(4) I ask my supervisor for feedback.

(5) I ask my colleagues for feedback.

(6) I ask my customers (internal and external) what they think of my services or products.

(7) I discuss with my colleagues what I find important in my work.

PR37,3

330

(8) I invite colleagues to assess my work critically.

(9) I discuss with my colleagues our criteria for performing well.

Challenging groupthink (G)

(1) When I do not agree with the way a colleague does his work, I keep quiet (–).

(2) I do not easily express criticism of my colleagues or supervisor (–).

(3) When I do not agree with the way a colleague works, I say so.

(4) When I am the only one to disagree with the rest, I just keep quiet (– ).

(5) I easily submit to group decisions (–).

(6) When I do not agree with something at work, I find it hard to say so (–).

Experimenting (E)

(1) I like to try things out, even if it sometimes leads nowhere.

(2) I experiment with other working methods.

(3) I try out new working methods.

Career awareness (A)

(1) I am consciously occupied with my career.

(2) I think it is important to have a job in which I can develop.

(3) I think about what sort of work I would like to be doing in five years’ time.

(4) I am continually occupied with my career development.

(5) I ponder on what I find important in my work.

(6) I compare my performance with how I performed a year ago.

About the authorsMarianne van Woerkom is an assistant professor at the Department of Human Resource Sciencesof the Faculty of Social Sciences at Tilburg University (The Netherlands). Her research interestsinclude workplace learning, team learning and organisational learning. Marianne van Woerkomis the corresponding author and can be contacted at: m.vanwoerkom@uut.nl

Marcel Croon is an associate professor at the Department of Statistics and Methodology of theFaculty of Social Sciences at Tilburg University (The Netherlands). His research interests includelatent variables and multilevel statistical models.

Criticallyreflective work

behaviour

331

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints