Antecedents of Other-Centered and Self-Centered Proactive Behaviors By

Characterizing Employee Proactivity: Antecedents of Other-Centered and Self-Centered Proactive Behaviors by

Anne Janssen

a Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology

Approved Dissertation Committee

Prof. Dr. Christian Stamov Roßnagel

Prof. Dr. Sabine Sonnentag

Prof. Dr. Song Yan

Prof. Dr. Sven Voelpel

Date of Defense: 21. December 2015 für meine Jungs Micha und Mats

iii

Abstract

Contemporary work lives are characterized by frequent changes in the work environment. Such changes refer to work processes, tasks, teams, or even jobs and often go along with negative consequences like stress, turnover intentions, and reduced performance. Past research has emphasized that individual proactivity can be a coping approach in these demanding situations. Antecedents of a wide range of proactive behaviors have been identified in numerous studies. Other studies focused on the categorization of behaviors. The present dissertation aimed to integrate previous literature and provides a more parsimonious classification model through comprehensive insights into the prediction of proactive behaviors. For this purpose, three studies were conducted. The first study applied an innovative approach to develop short measurement instruments for proactive personality and supervisor support as significant antecedents of proactive behaviors. The findings of the second study reveal that proactive behaviors can be simultaneously distinguished according to their form and type and their intended target of impact. As a consequence, other-centered and self-centered proactive behavior categories were identified. Whereas felt responsibility for change positively predicted both other- and self-centered proactive behaviors, personal values (other-centered and self-centered values) affected proactive behaviors differently. The third study found that the longitudinal positive relationship between proactive personality and proactive behaviors is partially mediated by psychological empowerment. How- ever, a mediating effect only emerged for other-centered proactive behavior categories, whereas self-centered proactive behaviors were unrelated to psychological empowerment. The present dissertation thus extends the knowledge about proactive behavior characteristics and similarities and differences in the prediction of various proactive behaviors.

Contents

1 General Introduction3 Aims of the Dissertation...... 4 Setting the Stage: General Determinants...... 5 On the Relationship between Personal Values and Proactive Behaviors...... 7 On the Relationship between Personality and Proactive Behaviors...... 10 On the Relationship between Motivation and Proactive Behaviors...... 14 Overview of Research Questions...... 18

2 Study I – Following the Ants: Development of Short Scales for Proactive Personality and Supervisor Support by Ant Colony Optimization 19

3 Study II – For You or for Me? Identiﬁcation of Self-Centered and Other- Centered Proactive Behaviors 35

4 Study III – I’ve Got the Power: Psychological Empowerment Selectively Me- diates the Relationship between Proactive Personality and Proactive Behav- iors 53

5 General Discussion 71 Review of the Findings...... 71 New Insights into Antecedents of Proactive Behaviors...... 73 Future Research: Where Will the Journey Go?...... 73 Concluding Remarks...... 77

6 Bibliography 79

AcknowledgmentsI

Curriculum VitaeIII

Statutory DeclarationV

1 General Introduction

This doctoral thesis arose from an application-oriented industry project and therefore combines the view both toward contributions to IO theories and the practical implementation of research findings. The project addressed the measurement and promotion of a variety of work behaviors such as job performance and training and development participation, or organizational citizenship behavior. I decided to focus on a higher-order construct covering several work behaviors (Crant, 2000), namely proactivity. I worked on the assumption that while the “big picture” has been drawn of the factors that drive proactivity, important details are still missing of the conditions under which people choose to engage in certain proactive behaviors. Consistently, I focused on synthesizing extant models and on testing some of the implications of that synthesis. Why is proactivity worth focusing on? In our contemporary work life, it is important to be capable of quickly adapting to changing requirements, work settings, and work tasks. The current workforce—and this will become even more naturally—is faced with varying work teams, constantly developing processes and procedures and last but not least the fact that careers do no longer last a work life time, but rather change after several years (EASHW, 2002; Eurofound, 2012). Hence, employees nowadays are required to be flexible, adaptive, and open for change (Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, 2003). Being proactive is one way of meeting these challenging demands. Thus, detailed knowledge about variables enhancing employees’ engagement in proactive behaviors has both theoretical and practical implications. During the past decades, a great amount of research has been conducted to identify antecedents and consequences of proactive activities (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Parker & Collins, 2010). There is empirical evidence that both individual differences such as personality, and motives, as well as affect and environmental conditions including leadership, climate, and work design do significantly affect proactive behaviors directly and indirectly (for an overview see Bindl & Parker, 2010). As a consequence, proactive behaviors are related both to individual outcomes like job satisfaction (Koyuncu, Burke, Fixenbaum, & Tekin, 2013) and well-being (Cooper-Thomas, Paterson, Stadler, & Saks, 2014), and organizational outcomes such as the performance of the organization (Frese & Fay, 2001). In order to structure the wide range of distinct proactive behaviors, Bindl and Parker (2010) provided a comprehensive review of the proactive behavior literature and a model of individual-level proactive behaviors assuming four behavior categories (see Figure 1). First, behaviors that aim to change the unit’s or organization’s strategy in order to improve the fit with the external environment are referred to as proactive strategic behaviors. Second, there are proactive work behaviors that aim to bring about change

3 1 General Introduction

Individual outcomes Job performance Individual differences Career progression Cognitive-motivational Well-being Demographics Proactive Behavior processes Identification Knowledge & abilities Perceived capabilities § Personality Proactive work behavior Goals and aspirations § Proactive person- Team outcomes Affect-related environment fit behavior Team effectiveness processes § Proactive strategic Team performance Positive vs. negative behavior Contextual factors (self) § Proactive career Organizational Job design Positive vs. negative behavior outcomes Leadership (others) Climate Performance of organization

Appropriateness of proactive behavior Situational judgment Employee affect and values

Figure 1: Model of individual-level proactive behavior by Bindl and Parker (2010). in the internal organization or team to improve the internal environment. Third, behaviors that aim to enhance the fit between the internal organizational environment and personal preferences, skills, and abilities are referred to as proactive person-environment fit (PE fit) behaviors. Fourth, proactive career behaviors include activities aiming to further one’s career within or outside the organization. This classification has received a lot of attention and is to date the most comprehensive approach to cluster proactive behaviors. The structure of four higher-order categories implies similarities and differences across proactive behaviors in terms of antecedents. However, research on the promoting and hindering factors for these proactive behavior categories is rare thus far (Parker & Collins, 2010). We still do not know how values and certain motivational states influence the individual’s decision in which category of proactive behavior to engage in. With this dissertation, I aim to fill this gap.

Aims of the Dissertation

This doctoral thesis extends the knowledge about proactive behavior categories and their common and distinct antecedents. I intended to integrate two commonly used approaches to proactive behavior categorization. Whereas so far proactive behaviors were either classified according to their form and type (Bindl & Parker, 2010) or their intended target of impact (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010), I empirically demonstrated that a behavior can be simultaneously categorized according to both criteria. Such an integrated model is more parsimonious compared to two single classification systems and has implications for the investigation of antecedents. In Chapter1, I briefly outline the general determinants of proactivity and elaborate on the current state of the literature on proactive behavior antecedents with a focus on values, personality, and motivation.

4 Setting the Stage: General Determinants

Starting the empirical part of this thesis, in Chapter2, I address reliable and valid measurement instruments as a necessary condition of any empirical investigation. Applying Ant Colony Optimization (ACO)—an innovative item selection approach introduced by Leite, Huang, and Marcoulides (2008)—I present two short scales for proactive personality and supervisor support. These short scales reflect the application orientation of the project and the proactive personality short form was required for collecting the data analyzed in Chapter4. In Chapter3, I demonstrate the integration of two proactive behavior classification approaches. Stepwise regression analyses reveal insights into the relationship between individual differences including felt responsibility for change and personal values and other-centered (proactive strategic behaviors and proactive work behaviors) and self-centered (proactive PE fit behaviors and proactive career behaviors) proactive behavior categories. Concluding the empirical part of this thesis, in Chapter4, I further investigate the influence of employee personality (proactive personality) and motivation (psychological empowerment) on the four identified proactive behavior categories. For this study, I applied longitudinal data analysis to investigate the effect of motivation on proactive behavior over time. Finally, in Chapter5, I summarize the results and generally discuss and evaluate the conclusions from my research. Recommendations for future research and practical implications conclude Chapter5.

Setting the Stage: General Determinants

The concept of proactivity in organizational settings was first introduced in the late 1970s. In this early research, authors used the term proactive behavior with different meanings and without any common definition. It was primarily used to describe a certain type of organizational strategy that aimed to develop innovations and thus showed proactivity. These organizations were referred to as “prospectors” (e.g., Miles & Snow, 1978; Hrebiniak & Joyce 1985). In the same vein, Post and Mahon (1980) posited that organizations could show three patterns of corpo- rative response when faced with social performance or external economic issues, namely reactive, proactive, and interactive. A proactive pattern was characterized by a change of the organizational goals followed by specific actions that implement such a change towards the environment (e.g., competitors, external entities). Applying the concept of proactivity to people, researchers differentiated between proactive personality describing an individual difference similar to personality traits and proactive behaviors that describe the behavioral component of proactivity. Reichers (1987) was one of the pioneers who characterized newcomers in organizations as either proactive or nonproactive and identified the tendency to actively search for interactions with peers and supervisors as a proactive behavior. Bateman and Crant (1993) focused on the personality component of proactivity and defined as a proactive personality someone “who is relative unconstrained by situational forces, and who affects environmental change” (p. 105). As will be considered in more detail below, proactive personality was identified as a significant predictor for multiple proactive behaviors.

5 1 General Introduction

There is a wide range of work-related proactive behaviors and further activities meeting the requirements of proactivity have been subsumed under this construct. They all have in common the assumption that the individual takes initiative to improve work situations and circumstances (Crant, 2000). Instead of passively reacting and adapting to the work environment, individuals engaging in proactive behaviors aim to create novel, more favorable conditions. This requires cognitive and motivational effort since information needs to be gathered, opportunities must be identified, and each initiative must be planned. Crant (2000) discussed how to conceptualize and measure proactive behaviors which might depend on and vary across situations (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Thus, Crant suggested a framework that distinguishes general proactive behaviors that can occur in a variety of work situations and context-specific proactive behaviors that are only shown in a limited domain. During the past decade, the list of proactive behaviors discussed by Crant (2000) was extended by a large number of further behaviors described in the literature. Table 1 provides an overview over the most frequently discussed proactive activities shown by employees. Following Crant, most studies investigated the predictive value of individual and contextual variables for a certain behavior. Individual differences include demographics, abilities, personality, knowledge, and motives. The following sections will draw a detailed picture of the relationship between specific antecedents (personal values, personality, and motivation) and diverse proactive behaviors.

Table 1: Proactive behaviors with deﬁnitions; ordered by behavior categories (after Parker & Collins; 2010).

Behavior Proactive Deﬁnition / Source category behavior

PSB Issue selling the process by which individuals affect others’ attention to and understanding of the events, developments, and trends that have implications for organizational performance; Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, & Lawrence (2001) Strategic proactively surveying the organization’s environment to identify ways scanning to ensure a fit between the organization and its environment, such as identifying ways the organization might respond to emerging markets or actively searching the environment for future organizational threats and opportunities; Parker & Collins (2010) PWB Innovative work intentional creation, introduction and application of new ideas behavior within a work role, group or organization, in order to benefit role performance, the group, or the organization; Janssen (2000) Problem self-directed and anticipatory action to prevent the reoccurrence of prevention work problems; Frese & Fay (2001) Taking charge voluntary and constructive efforts, by individual employees, to effect organizationally functional change with respect to how work is executed within the contexts of their jobs, work units, or organizations; Morrison & Phelps (1999)

6 On the Relationship between Personal Values and Proactive Behaviors

Voice behavior promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize; voice is making innovative suggestions for change and recommending modifications to standard procedures even when others disagree; van Dyne & LePine (1998) PFB Job crafting the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work; Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001) Job change explicit attempts to change one’s job so that it better fits one’s skills negotiation and abilities; Ashford & Black (1996) Feedback explicit verbal requests for feedback; a type of proactive feedback inquiry seeking in which employees engage in to obtain information about their behavior; Ashford, Blatt, & VandeWalle (2003) Feedback an indirect method of attaining feedback information; it involves monitoring observing aspects of the environment, particularly other people that provide indications of how one is doing, how one compares to others; Ashford et al. (2003) Positive framing cognitive self-management mechanism to gain control; organizational entrants’ attempts to positively frame their new situations alter how they understand the situation; Ashford & Black (1996) PCB Career initiative behaviors which include career planning, skill development, and consultation with more senior personnel; active career promotion attempts; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant (2001) Proactive job “preparatory” job search means individuals gather potential job leads search through various sources; active job search finds the job seeker publicly and unambiguously communicating one’s availability; Blau (1993) Career the degree to which one regularly gathers information and plans for self-management career problem solving and decision making; Kossek, Roberts, Fisher, & Demarr (1998)

On the Relationship between Personal Values and Proactive Behaviors

From an individual perspective, personal values co-determine who and how a person is. Hence, personal values have a significant impact on behavior. Homer and Kahle (1988) emphasized the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. According to the authors, personal values influence attitudes which in turn co-determine individual behavior (see also Kruglanski, Jasko, Chernikova, Milyavsky, Babush, Baldner, & Pierro, 2015). In a similar vein, Williams (1968) suggested that personal values can be described as “criteria or standards of preference”. He further stated that “actual selections of behavior result from concrete motivations in specific situations which are

7 1 General Introduction partly determined by prior beliefs and values of the actor” (Williams, 1979). In this section, I first provide a definition of personal values and then elaborate on work-related outcomes of personal values. The explanation and consequences of individual differences in values have employed generations of researchers. In 1931, Vernon and Allport developed a first test to measure the predom- inance of six types of personal values, namely theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political, and religious values. As Harris (1934) reported, personal values codetermine vocational choice. University students enrolled in arts scored higher on aesthetic and theoretical values than engi- neering and business students, but lower on political values. It is thus plausible that our personal values also influence our choice of work-related behaviors. This was shown for manager behavior. Sosik (2005) found managers’ ratings on their traditional, collectivistic work, self-transcendent, and self-enhancement values to be positively associated with charismatic leadership which in turn was positively linked to managerial performance and followers’ organizational citizenship behavior and extra effort. Kotey and Meredith (1997) asked managers and business owners to rate their personal values, strategic (proactive and reactive) orientations, and enterprise performance. Results indicated that placing great value on achievement, power, ambition, competition, and aggressiveness comes along with over average proactivity and performance. A large cross- cultural study collected data in 17 countries and revealed that individuals’ resistance to change is negatively related to openness values and positively to conservation values (Oreg, Bayazit, Vakola et al., 2008). Low scores on resistance to change that go along with openness values are a prerequisite of proactive behavior. It is hence likely that openness values also positively affect proactivity. Today, a widely accepted model of personal values includes ten value dimensions (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003). Sample dimensions are power (i.e., “social status and prestige, control or dominance over people”), self-direction (i.e., “independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring”), and benevolence (i.e., “preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact”). Numerous studies have addressed cross-cultural differences of such value dimensions (e.g., Schwartz & Bardi, 2001) and the relationship between values and personality (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). Aiming to identify other- centered and self-centered proactive behaviors, I focused on value dimensions that are likely to predict such behaviors, namely self-direction and other-direction which is similar to Bardis and Schwartz’s (2003) concept of benevolence. The potential role of other personal value dimensions is discussed in Chapter5. One frequently discussed approach in value research is the fit between personal and organizational values. Bretz and Judge (1994) investigated the role of Person-Organization (P-O) value congruence for tenure and job satisfaction and reported a positive link between perceived P-O fit and the two outcome variables. Thus, individuals that feel their personal values to match with organizational values are more likely to remain in the organization and they are more sat- isfied with their tasks. In line with this, numerous studies reported a positive effect of P-O fit

8 On the Relationship between Personal Values and Proactive Behaviors on job satisfaction (Cable & Judge, 1996; Liu, Liu, & Hu, 2010) or job performance (Arthur, Bell, Villado, & Doverspike, 2006; Hoffman & Woehr, 2006) and a negative effect on turnover (Cable & Judge, 1996; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, 2003). Lauver and Kristof-Brown (2001) had employees rated the perceived fit between their personal and their organization’s values and found a high fit to be positively related to extra-role behaviors (i.e., activities that go beyond those defined in their job description, similar to proactive behaviors). Another perspective—in addition to the fit perspective—are values as motives for proactive behaviors. This alternative approach was applied in this thesis. Seminal in the present context, Parker, Bindl, and Strauss (2010) suggested a model of proactive motivation which assumes three motivational states. First, can do motivation is a result of perceived self-efficacy and control. Second, reason to motivation may be intrinsic (i.e., individuals show an action because of its inherent joyful and interesting character), integrated (i.e., external values are “taken in” and transformed into personal values which leads to higher motivation to pursue a certain goal), or identified (i.e., the regulation process in which individuals value the outcome of a certain behavior as personally important, even though this behavior was not internally driven) motivation. Third, energized to motivation occurs when being positively affected and encourages setting proactive goals. Motivational states as predictors and mediators of proactive behaviors are elaborated in more detail below. According to this proactive motivation model, personal values can be referred to as antecedents of these motivational states (see Parker et al., 2010), which increase the likelihood to behave proactively. In addition to this indirect link between values and behavior, theoretical and empirical research suggests a direct relationship. Sheldon and Elliot’s (1999) self-concordance model proposed that individuals pursuing a goal that is in concordance with personal values put more effort into goal achievement. Thus, prosocial employees are likely to put effort into other-centered proactive behaviors because these are in accordance with their personal values. Research answering the question whether employees’ personal values also predict extra-role and proactive behaviors is rare thus far. Effects of values that have been reported mostly refer to commitment or organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Lipponen, Bardi, and Haapamäki (2008) examined personal value dimensions as predictors for OCB and found the value dimension of openness to change to affect suggestion-making. This effect was stronger among individuals highly identified with the organization than among individuals weakly identified with the organization. In a similar vein, Shao, Resick, and Hargis (2011) found a social dominance orientation to be positively related to interpersonal deviance and negative to interpersonal citizenship, whereas psychological collectivism positively predicted interpersonal citizenship. Turnipseed (2002) introduced personal ethics as a predictor for OCB and emphasized the meaning of personal values for the evaluation of ethics. He reported that “more ethical” individuals were rated higher on OCB and were perceived as more productive than “less ethical” workers.

9 1 General Introduction

Gaps in the Literature

Even though some studies have addressed the question how certain personal value dimensions are affecting extra-role behavior, values thus far have not been employed to differentiate between structurally distinct proactive behaviors. In general, knowledge about the value-proactive behavior relationship is rare, as argued in Chapter3. No empirical study exists that regressed various proactive behaviors on personal values to identify similarities and differences across behaviors. The present thesis bridges this gap and reports an empirical study on this issue in Chapter3.

On the Relationship between Personality and Proactive Behaviors

The question has been of major interest if personality traits such as the Big Five or related constructs like proactive personality predict employee proactivity (e.g., Fuller & Marler, 2009; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Müller, 2000). There is evidence that certain personality traits have a strong effect on proactive behaviors, whereas others seem to be rather irrelevant for explaining proactivity differences. This section provides an overview of the personality-proactive behavior relationship separately for the four proactive behavior categories. Here, the term personality covers the Big Five personality factors and the similar, but distinct construct of proactive personality. Costa and McCrae (1992) developed an inventory for the assessment of five personality traits, namely agreeableness (i.e., likeability; tendency to be altruistic and cooperative), conscientiousness (i.e., tendency to be purposeful, motivated, organized, and persistent), neuroticism (i.e., emotional instability), extraversion (i.e., being sociable and in need for activity and stimula- tion), and openness to experience (i.e., flexibility for and tolerance of new ideas and experiences). Bateman and Crant (1993) investigated the relationship between these five personality factors and proactive personality. The authors found proactive personality to be distinct from the Big Five, but positively related to openness to experience and conscientiousness. In line with this, later studies supported the positive link between proactive personality and conscientiousness (e.g., Crant, 1995). However, there is also empirical evidence that proactive personalities are likely to rate themselves high on extraversion (Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006) and low on neuroticism (Crant & Bateman, 2000). Fuller and Marler (2009) conducted a meta-analysis on proactive personality and reported a positive relationship between proactive personality and the factors openness to experience, extraversion, and conscientiousness and a negative link to neuroticism.

Proactive strategic behaviors

The least research has been conducted on personality as a predictor for proactive strategic

10 On the Relationship between Personality and Proactive Behaviors behaviors. In general, studies on issue selling and strategic scanning mostly consider contextual factors such as a supportive organizational culture (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997), management openness (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998), and the supervisor’s personality (Alexander, 2009) as influential variables. Literature on individual differences as predictors of issue selling is rare. One reason might be the close relatedness of issue selling to the more prominent concept of voice behavior. According to Detert and Burris (2007), issue selling describes “voice regarding a specific work improvement or employee treatment topic” (p. 871). Due to the rather general character of voice behavior and thus the validity of findings for a wider range of activities, it is plausible that more research has been conducted on this proactive behavior. The only study investigating employee personality and proactive strategic behaviors is Parker and Collins’ (2010) work on antecedents of three higher-order proactive behavior categories. The authors used a large sample of managers from the public and the private sector and found employee’s conscientiousness and proactive personality to be positively related to issue selling credibility but unrelated to issue selling willingness and strategic scanning. The unexpected non-significant association between proactive personality and issue selling willingness and strategic scanning was not discussed by Parker and Collins (2010) and awaits empirical examination. This issue is addressed in Chapter4.

Proactive work behaviors

Proactive work behaviors have more often been in focus. However, findings on the link between personality and proactive work behaviors are inconsistent at first view. Whereas Crant, Kim, & Wang (2011) found voice behavior to be unrelated to all five personality factors, other studies reported a positive link between voice and conscientiousness (Nikolaou, Vakola, & Bourantas, 2008), openness to experience, and extraversion (Tornau & Frese, 2013), and a negative relationship with neuroticism and agreeableness (LePine & van Dyne, 2001). An explanation for these differences might be the study design. Whereas Crant and colleagues (2011) conducted a field study, LePine and van Dyne (2001) collected their data on voice behavior in a three-hour experimental task. Such a controlled and time-constrained experimental setting might have promoted neurotic and agreeable tendencies and prevented voice behavior (Crant et al., 2011). Similar inconsistencies occur for taking charge. A meta-analysis conducted by Tornau and Frese (2013) revealed that taking charge is positively affected by high values of conscientiousness, openness to experience, and extraversion, and negatively affected by neuroticism. Agreeableness was unrelated to taking charge. Different findings are reported by Parker and Collins (2010) who did not find a significant link between conscientiousness and taking charge. This discrepancy might be due to the analyses. Parker and Collins (2010) regressed taking charge on conscientiousness and learning and performance goal orientation in one single regression step. Learning goal orientation was positively linked to taking charge, whereas performance goal orientation negatively affected taking charge. Individuals staying with a task and

11 1 General Introduction striving for a specific learning goal are more conscientious than employees showing a low learning goal orientation (VandeWalle, 1997). Hence, individual variance in conscientiousness might have been explained by personal goal orientation. Further proactive work behaviors that have been investigated as outcomes of certain personality factors include problem prevention and individual innovation. Both were found to be unrelated to conscientiousness (Parker & Collins, 2010). Wang, Begley, Hui, and Lee (2012) tested the moderating role of organizational culture for the relationship between conscientiousness and the employee’s innovative performance. The authors expected a stronger conscientiousness-contextual performance relationship in outcome-oriented cultures and a higher relationship between conscientiousness and innovative job performance in innovation-oriented cultures. Neither the direct effect between conscientiousness and individual innovation nor the moderator effect was significant which is in line with Parker and Collins’ (2010) findings. The positive effect of proactive personality on proactive work behaviors is undoubted and was confirmed in various studies. Fuller and Marler’s (2009) meta-analysis revealed that proactive personality is positively associated with voice behavior and taking charge. Fur- thermore, the authors reported a positive link to creativity which is closely related to innovative work behavior (Scott & Bruce, 1994). In accordance with these findings, Parker and Collins (2010) investigated the predictive value of proactive personality for a range of proactive work behaviors and reported a positive relationship to voice, taking charge, problem prevention, and individual innovation (see also Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001).

Proactive PE ﬁt behaviors

Proactive PE fit behaviors include activities such as positive framing, job change negotiation, feedback seeking/monitoring, and job crafting. Literature gives the impression that personality does not account for much variance in proactive PE fit behaviors. Gruman and Saks (2011) in their study of job starters’ proactive behavior intentions found that none of the Big Five factors significantly predicted the engagement in feedback seeking or job change negotiation. However, proactive personality was highly related to both feedback seeking and job change negotiation. Wanberg and Kammeyer-Müller (2000) measured proactive PE fit behavior during the job entry process after unemployment and, in line with Gruman and Saks (2011), found neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness unrelated to feedback seeking and positive framing. In contrast to later findings, Wanberg and Kammeyer-Müller (2000) reported that openness to experience increased the likelihood to engage in feedback seeking and positive framing. Furthermore, more extraverted individuals tend to seek out feedback. More research is needed in terms of the relationship between Big Five and job crafting. Compared to other proactive behaviors, job crafting is a relatively new construct introduced by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and defined as “the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task

12 On the Relationship between Personality and Proactive Behaviors or relational boundaries of their work” (p. 179). Thus far, no empirical studies investigated the role of the five personality factors and job crafting. Given the weak link between personality and other proactive PE fit behaviors, one would not expect strong relationship with job crafting. However, employees characterized as proactive personalities were more likely to craft their jobs than rather passive individuals (e.g., Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012). Contradictory findings were published on the predictive value of proactive personality and feedback seeking and job change negotiation. Whereas Gruman and Saks (2011) emphasized the positive link between proactive personalities and both seeking out feedback and negotiate one’s job, Parker and Collins (2010) found both relationships to be insignificant. These differences might be due to the assessment of proactive PE fit behaviors. While participants in Gruman and Saks’ (2011) study were asked to rate their intention to engage in certain behaviors when entering a new job, Parker and Collins assessed data on actual behaviors in current and past positions.

Proactive career behaviors

Finally, proactive career behaviors such as career initiative, proactive job search, and career self-management are reviewed as outcomes of personality. Similar to proactive strategic behaviors, research on the link between Big Five personality factors and proactive career behaviors is rare. A meta-analysis conducted by Kanfer, Wanberg, and Kantrowitz (2001) focused on the predictive value of the Big Five for proactive job search behavior and reported the strongest positive effects for extraversion and conscientiousness. Openness to experience and agreeableness also emerged to be positively related to engagement in job search. Neuroticism was weakly but significantly negatively linked to job search behavior. In line with this, career planning behavior was also found to be positively correlated with conscientiousness (Carless & Bernath, 2007). Parker and Collins (2010) reported a positive correlation between conscientiousness and career initiative. However, in regression analyses with multiple independent variables, conscientiousness was no significant predictor for career initiative. The positive effect of proactive personality on proactive career behaviors is rather undoubted. Various studies reported that individuals characterized as proactive personalities tend to put more effort on career self-management (Chiaburu, Baker, & Pitariu, 2006; Lambert, Eby, & Reeves, 2006) and career initiative (Seibert et al., 2001).

Gaps in the Literature

As elaborated in the previous chapter, proactive personality plays a significant role in explaining individual differences in proactive behaviors. However, it is still unknown which of the behavior categories benefits most from a proactive personality. Parker and Collins (2010) provided data on the link between proactive personality and a wide range of proactive behavior, albeit analyzed in separate regression analyses. For the first time, the present thesis analyzes the relationship between proactive personality and the four proactive behavior categories in one

13 1 General Introduction single model. Results are presented and discussed in Chapter 4 and provide a more comprehensive understanding of this relationship. In addition to direct eﬀects of proactive personality on proactive behaviors that were frequently reported, underlying motivational processes need to be considered for the explanation of individual diﬀerences in proactive behaviors. This issue is addressed theoretically in the following section and empirically in Chapter4.

On the Relationship between Motivation and Proactive Behaviors

Complementing the treatment of personal values and personality, the present section fo- cusses on motivation as a third significant predictor of behavior. As Atkinson and Birch (1970) stated, motivation cannot be observed directly, but detected by a multidimensional stream of behaviors and outcomes of these behaviors. A widely accepted definition of motivation comes from Pinder (1998) who described motivation as “a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being and that determines the ... direction, intensity, and duration of work-related behaviors” (p. 11). Pinder further suggested that motivation will “manifest itself through effort”. This is in line with Kanfer (1990) who emphasized that motivation includes components such as intensity (i.e., how much effort is shown) and persistence (i.e., how long is the effort maintained). In an organizational research context, there is a range of theories emphasizing the role of motivation for work-related outcomes. In their overview of contemporary research on work motivation, Grant and Shin (2012) discussed five core theoretical perspectives on work motivation. The authors differentiated between endogenous (psychological processes that explain motivation inside one’s head) and exogenous (contextual influences that cause, change, and alter motivation) and assigned equity theory (Adams, 1963) and expectancy-value theory (Vroom, 1964) to the group of endogenous cause theories. Goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 2006) and job design (Herzberg, 1959) were referred to as exogenous cause theories, and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) was referred to as a hybrid perspective. All theories define motivation as a crucial prerequisite for engaging in or striving for a certain behavior. Empirical research supported this assumption and found motivation to positively affect work satisfaction (Richter, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002), performance (van Knippenberg, 2000), and organizational commitment (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007) and reduce turnover intentions (Kuvaas, 2006). As introduced above, Parker and colleagues (2010) presented a model of proactive motivation. The model differentiates can do motivation, reason to motivation, and energized to motivation. According to this distinction, underlying processes such as self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation or positive affect need to be considered when attempting to describe the motivation- proactive behavior relationship. In a similar vein, Bindl and Parker (2010) suggested proximal motivational processes (e.g., self-efficacy, desire for control, felt responsibility for change, and affective commitment) as antecedents of proactive behaviors. The following section reports em-

14 On the Relationship between Motivation and Proactive Behaviors pirical ﬁndings on the role of motivation separately for the four proactive behavior categories.

Proactive strategic behaviors

Compared to proactive work behaviors, proactive strategic behaviors have been considered less in the literature. Research on the link between motivational states and strategic behaviors is therefore rare. Drawing on expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), individuals must have the confidence to succeed in a certain behavior and they need to value the expected outcome as favorable. Hence, self-efficacy, i.e., the perception that one can make one’s supervisor or organization aware of significant strategic issues is a crucial prerequisite of proactive strategic behaviors. In their study on antecedents of three proactive behavior categories, Parker and Collins (2010) identified role-breadth self-efficacy (i.e., the individual’s belief to be capable of carrying out activities beyond the prescribed job tasks) as a major predictor for strategic scanning and issue selling credibility. In line with this, Ashford and colleagues (1998) found female graduates more willing to sell gender-equity issues in their current organization when they perceived a high probability of selling success. According to Parker et al. (2010), another prerequisite of behaving proactively is a reason to do so which they referred to as the reason to motivation. One reason might be the individual’s felt responsibility to bring about change in the organization. Such a feeling of being responsible for change positively predicts issue selling credibility (Parker & Collins, 2010). The authors further reported that felt responsibility for change was unrelated to strategic scanning and issue selling willingness, however, did not discuss these findings. It seems rather implausible that the feeling to be in charge of bringing change in the organization only affects the employee’s engagement in the development of an organizational strategy by selling issues but not the time and effort that is spent to sell these issues. Further theoretical and empirical clarification of this question is provided in Chapter3. Finally, Mowday’s (1978) analyses of a teacher sample revealed that individuals with high values on both instrumental (here value and expectation of success in selling an issue) and intrinsic (here the individual’s need for achievement and power) motivation engaged more in influence attempts towards their supervisors.

Proactive work behaviors

Numerous studies provide evidence that some type of motivation is a crucial antecedent of proactive work behaviors. Starting with can do motivation manifestations, self-efficacy was found to positively affect proactive work behaviors. Parker and Collins (2010) reported that individuals who perceive themselves as capable to succeed in extra-role behaviors are more likely to engage in individual innovation, taking change, voice, and problem prevention than individuals with low role-breadth self-efficacy. Other studies supported the positive link between role-breadth self-efficacy and both individual innovation (Parker et al., 2006) and its subdimensions idea promotion and idea implementation (Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson, & Harrington,

15 1 General Introduction

2000). General self-efficacy has also been examined as an antecedent of various proactive work behaviors and turned out to positively predict idea generation (Frese, Teng, & Wijnen, 1999), taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), and voice (Tornau & Frese, 2013). Additionally, Frese and colleagues (1999) found idea generation to be positively affected by control aspiration. Research on felt responsibility for change as one motivating reason to behave proactively has revealed consistent results. Fuller, Marler, and Hester (2006) showed that employees who feel responsible for change in their organization tend to engage in voice behavior (see also Choi, 2007; Tornau & Frese, 2013). A meta-analytic review (Tornau & Frese, 2013) further found a positive relationship between felt responsibility for change and taking charge (see also Fuller & Marler, 2009; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Furthermore, problem prevention and individual innovation are positively affected by felt responsibility for change (Parker & Collins, 2010). As both Bindl and Parker (2010) and Parker and colleagues (2010) suggested, individual affective states should also be regarded as a motive for proactive engagement. Fritz and Sonnen- tag (2009) conducted a day-level study on German civil service agents. Results indicated that a positive mood in the morning leads to higher values of taking charge in the afternoon of the same day. Indicating a medium term effect, positive mood was also found to positively affect taking charge on the next workday. On the other hand, negative mood in the morning did not seem to influence the proactive behavior-neither on the same nor on the following workday. In a similar vein, Parker, Collins, and Grant (2008) reported a positive association between high arousal positive affect and taking charge. As shown by Hsiung (2012), positive mood also predicts voice and mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and employee voice behavior. Frese and Fay (2001) argued that even negative affect might encourage proactive behavior in anticipation of a positive change in the work environment. This assumption was, however, not supported in empirical studies this far. Affective organizational commitment—another representative of energized to motivation—emerged to influence proactive work behaviors. Thomas, Whitman, and Viswesvaran (2010) conducted a meta-analysis and reported a positive link between affective organizational commitment and voice.

Proactive PE ﬁt behaviors

In contrast to findings for proactive work behaviors, findings for the relationship between motivational states and one’s tendency to proactively enhance the fit between individual needs, skills, and preferences and the organizational environment are inconsistent. Parker and Collins (2010) examined the link between role-breadth self-efficacy and proactive PE fit behaviors and found self-efficacy to positively predict job-change negotiation but not feedback inquiry or feedback monitoring. The authors argued that job change negotiation relative to the other two PE fit behaviors aims more at changing the environment toward the fit between person and environment, which might make self-efficacy more important. In opposition to these findings, Gruman, Saks, and Zweig (2006) reported a positive link between self-efficacy and feedback

16 On the Relationship between Motivation and Proactive Behaviors seeking, however no significant relationship was found with job change negotiation. A day-level study conducted by Tims, Bakker, and Derks (2014) recently revealed that self-efficacy on a given day increases the likelihood to craft one’s job on that day. Job crafting in turn enhanced work enjoyment and work performance. The motivational character of felt responsibility for change does not seem to influence proactive PE fit behaviors. Parker and Collins (2010) found felt responsibility to be unrelated to feedback inquiry, feedback monitoring, and job change negotiation. Desire for control as a motive to engage in proactive PE fit behaviors was investigated by Ashford and Black (1996). The authors found desire for control to differently predict proactive behaviors during organizational entry with positive effects on job change negotiation and positive framing and no significant link with feedback seeking behaviors. Given these inconsistent results for the relationship between motives and proactive PE fit behaviors, the question is whether these distinct behaviors can be assigned to a common proactive behavior category and structurally comparable. In order to answer this question, in this thesis two studies are conducted that test the factor structure of proactive behaviors (Chapter 3 and Chapter4).

Proactive career behaviors

Motivational states that potentially influence one’s engagement in furthering the own career are elaborated in this section. Starting with can do motivations again, it seems necessary to differentiate between facets of self-efficacy. Role-breadth self-efficacy that refers to extra-role behaviors was found to be unrelated to career initiative (Parker & Collins, 2010). On the other hand, the more specific job-search self-efficacy positively affects job search behaviors such as keeping the CV updated or sending resumes to potential employers (Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy, Shalhoop, 2006; Saks & Ashforth, 1999). In line with this, Crossley and Stanton (2005) reported a positive link between job search self-efficacy and job search intensity. In contrast to the other three proactive behavior categories, proactive career behaviors do not intent to change the organizational environment but rather the personal situation within or outside the organization. This does not directly describe extra-role behaviors which in turn might explain why role-breadth self-efficacy seems unimportant for career initiative, whereas more specific self-efficacy is crucial. In their study on newcomer proactive behaviors, Gruman and colleagues (2006) found support for the assumed positive relationship between self-efficacy and networking behavior, one dimension of career self-management. Desire for control seems a plausible predictor for career initiative since one’s career is nothing that one would leave to chance. Even though empirical evidence on this claim is rare, Ashford and Black (1996) confirmed that control aspirations are positively associated with newcomer networking behavior. In 2004, King noted that empirical research on the impact of self-efficacy and desire for control on proactive career behaviors was thus far neglected. And it seems that the past decade did not bring much new insights. Chapter4 addresses the question how psychological empowerment—which contains different motivational

17 1 General Introduction aspects such as self-efficacy and locus of control—affects proactive work behaviors. In a longitudinal study, Hirschi, Lee, Porfeli, and Vondracek (2013) examined the relationship between positive affect and proactive career behaviors. Analyses revealed that individuals reporting to be in a positive mood were more likely to proactively engage in career behaviors six months later.

Gaps in the Literature

Proactive work behaviors and their underlying motivational processes have been studied intensively with relatively consistent results. For the remaining three proactive behavior categories, research on their links to motivational states is either rare or inconsistent. This thesis aims to clarify these inconsistencies by regressing all proactive behaviors on psychological empowerment (Chapter4). Psychological empowerment is a multidimensional construct that measures motivational states similar to self-eﬃcacy, locus of control, self-determination, and P-O ideal ﬁt (Spreitzer, 1995). The focus of this thesis was to further the knowledge about behavior categories. Therefore, Chapter4 considers both the single proactive behaviors and the four proactive behavior categories as outcomes of psychological empowerment.

Overview of Research Questions

The present thesis aims to demonstrate the beneﬁts and shortcomings of an algorithm- based approach to shorten original scales. Reliable and valid short scales are a crucial prerequisite for answering three major research questions. Given the aforementioned research gaps, these research questions are as follows:

1) Can proactive behaviors be distinguished into other-centered and self-centered proactive behavior categories?

2) Does the impact of personal values and proactive personality diﬀer between other-centered and self-centered proactive behaviors?

3) How do motivational processes aﬀect the relationship between individual diﬀerences and proactive behaviors?

18 2 Study I

Following the Ants: Development of Short Scales for Proactive Personality and Supervisor Support by Ant Colony Optimization

Anne B. Janssen, Martin Schultze, and Adrian Grötsch

accepted for publication in European Journal of Psychological Assessment

Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)

Original Article Following the Ants Development of Short Scales for Proactive Personality and Supervisor Support by Ant Colony Optimization

Anne B. Janssen,1 Martin Schultze,2 and Adrian Grötsch3 1Jacobs University Bremen, Germany, 2Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, 34A-SIDE GmbH Braunschweig, Germany

Abstract. Employees’ innovative work is a facet of proactive work behavior that is of increasing interest to industrial and organizational psychologists. As proactive personality and supervisor support are key predictors of innovative work behavior, reliable, and valid employee ratings of these two constructs are crucial for organizations’ planning of personnel development measures. However, the time for assessments is often limited. The present study therefore aimed at constructing reliable short scales of two measures of proactive personality and supervisor support. For this purpose, we compared an innovative approach of item selection, namely Ant Colony Optimization (ACO; Leite, Huang, & Marcoulides, 2008) and classical item selection procedures. For proactive personality, the two item selection approaches provided similar results. Both five-item short forms showed a satisfactory reliability and a small, however negligible loss of criterion validity. For a two- dimensional supervisor support scale, ACO found a reliable and valid short form. Psychometric properties of the short version were in accordance with those of the parent form. A manual supervisor support short form revealed a rather poor model fit and a serious loss of validity. We discuss benefits and shortcomings of ACO compared to classical item selection approaches and recommendations for the application of ACO.

Keywords: Ant Colony Optimization algorithm, item selection, innovative work behavior, proactive personality, supervisor support

The present paper addresses a frequent challenge in organi- but which so far relied on time-consuming original scales zational and industrial psychology – collecting substantial (e.g., Crant, 1995; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & amounts of reliable data in a short period of time. Usually, Sowa, 1986). Shorter scales reduce questionnaire length, data on work-related constructs are gathered at the which can improve data quality by decreasing the cognitive workplace and during work hours. Companies hence load from long questionnaires (Galesic, 2006; Rolstad, often restrict the time and costs the data collection should Adler, & Rydén, 2011; see Bradburn, 1978). Also, lower take. In order to receive the relevant information from nonresponse rates and less uniform answers have been employees and supervisors, investigators tend to employ found for shorter questionnaires (Crawford, Couper, & short though valid and reliable measures. Scale develop- Lamias, 2001; Galesic & Bosnjak, 2009). Based on those ment and scale shortening of reliable measures have there- employee ratings, it is possible to predict a wide range of fore been of interest in the literature for quite some time individual and organizational outcomes. An extended (e.g., MacDonald & Paunonen, 2002; Stocking & Swanson, inventory of thoroughly developed short scales that cover 1993). Most researchers use traditional approaches rooted organization-focused individual and contextual factors will in classical test theory or item response theory (Rammstedt further both the understanding of work-related psychologi- & Beierlein, 2014). cal processes and their practical implementation. In contrast to previous studies (e.g., Rogers, Creed, Searle, & Hartung, 2010; Wester, Vogel, O’Neil, & Danforth, 2012), we employed Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) – an item selection approach originally introduced Innovative Work Behavior by Leite, Huang, and Marcoulides (2008). ACO controls for other approaches’ limitation that shortening original As the domain to apply the ACO approach to, we chose scales often comes with a loss of validity (e.g., Rammstedt innovative work behavior, defined as the extent to which & Beierlein, 2014). Using ACO, we generated two short employees generate new and novel ideas, disseminate those scales of proactive personality and supervisor support. ideas and the ideas of others, implement innovations These scales allow practitioners to measure individual dif- themselves, or help others to do so (Axtell et al., 2000; ferences that are frequently included in employee surveys Ng, Feldman, & Lam, 2010). As innovation has become

Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015 DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000299 21 Author’s personal copy (e-offprint) 2 A. B. Janssen et al.: Scale Short Form Development by ACO more critical to a firm’s survival in the long run (Choi & In case of reducing an already validated scale, classical Chang, 2009; Sampson, 2007), innovative work behavior approaches potentially have a substantial downside: poor has come to be seen as a more critical component of an items can be detected through item reliability or item-total employee’s performance contribution to a firm (Welbourne, correlation (i.e., item discrimination). However, depending Johnson, & Erez, 1998; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Hence, on the excluded single item, the statistics for the remaining innovative work behavior gives substantial information on items and the overall test will change. Hence, a stepwise employees’ overall job performance. Crant (2000) suggests item selection for the development of a short form will that individual innovation is predicted by proactive person- result in different sets of items depending on the order of ality and supervisor support (see also Bindl & Parker, eliminated items. Stepwise selection is therefore unlikely 2010). to provide the best solution for a scale’s short version. This Proactive personality refers to ‘‘one who is relatively problem can be avoided when using IRT items since these unconstrained by situational forces and who effects are independent and omitting an item does not influence the environmental change’’ (Bateman & Crant, 1993, p. 105). item statistics of the remaining items. Seibert, Kraimer, and Crant (2001) reported a positive asso- The resulting statistical quality measures, whether they ciation between proactive personality and individual inno- stem from analyses based on CTT or IRT, should be com- vation (see also Parker & Collins, 2010). Similar results bined with aspects derived from judgmental and, possibly, were found by Parker, Williams, and Turner (2006) who ad hoc strategies to provide a short form with the best reli- also tested the relation between proactive personality and ability, internal structure, and validity possible (e.g., Kruyen innovation mediated by flexible role orientation and et al., 2013; Stanton, Sinar, Balzer, & Smith, 2002; Ziegler, role breadth self-efficacy. Proactive personality was posi- 2014). Ziegler, Kemper, and Kruyen (2014) provide a sum- tively related to individual innovation with flexible role ori- mary of the five common mistakes within this approach to entation and role breadth self-efficacy mediating this short-form construction and solutions to them, while relationship. Maloney, Grawitch, and Barber (2011) suggest an item In addition to individual differences, Crant (2000) selection strategy within this framework and Stanton and assumed that the organizational environment including colleagues (2002) provide an overview of best practices supervisor support affects innovative work behavior. as well as possible compromises, when these cannot be met. In terms of individual innovation, the influence of supervi- In this article, we use an alternative approach based on sor support is discussed controversially in the literature. ACO (Leite et al., 2008). This approach addresses some Ohly, Sonnentag, and Pluntke (2006) reported a negative major challenges occurring during item selection for effect of supervisor support on idea suggestion, whereas short-form development by establishing a measurement Axtell and colleagues (2000) did not find any significant model in the framework of confirmatory factor analysis relationship between the two variables. On the other hand, (CFA) and repeatedly estimating this measurement model Axtell et al. (2000) found empirical support for their with different sets of selected items. The following section assumption that supervisor support and idea implementa- gives a brief introduction to this approach. It should be tion are positively associated. noted, that this approach will select items based on the statistical properties of the short version and the items included in it. Theoretical considerations, such as the rela- Short Scale Development tive importance of an item, must be investigated separately to ensure that the shortened scale also meets validity criteria Short scale development strategies can be grouped into that are not easily included in the ACO selection process. three major categories: statistics-driven, judgmental, and ad hoc (e.g., Kruyen, Emons, & Sijtsma, 2013). Within the statistics-driven category, the most often used Ant Colony Optimization approaches are rooted in classical test theory (CTT) and use reliability estimates, factor loadings, item-total correla- ACO was first proposed by Colorni, Dorigo, and Maniezzo tions, or the results of factor analyses as indicators of item (1991) as a meta-heuristic for solving a wide array of com- quality, opting to retain those items that show the greatest binatorial problems and is applicable in many cases in extent of unidimensionality. Additionally, item difficulties which a problem has many possible solutions with varying and the distribution of items in a sample are often used degrees of quality. This approach does not require an opti- as selection criteria pertaining to the internal structure, mal solution to exist, but instead focuses on finding a solu- while correlations of items with external criteria can also tion within the set of possible solutions that best meets be used to determine which items are best retained in short certain criteria. One type of problem with many possible forms. However, many of these statistics suffer from the solutions – some more adequate than others – is the con- sample dependence of the obtained estimates thus making struction of shortened scales. In this context any combina- cross validation in a new sample necessary. This can be tion of selected items is a possible solution and these avoided by using techniques based on item response theory possible solutions vary in their degree of adequacy. This (IRT), which implement stricter assumptions about item adequacy can be comprised of many different facets. characteristics but result in sample-independent item As pointed out above, traditional approaches determine statistics. the adequacy of shortened scales via properties of the items.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015 Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing

22 Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)

A. B. Janssen et al.: Scale Short Form Development by ACO 3

As a significant advantage, this approach enables adaptive manner (random selection of items, evaluation of the short- item selection based on multiple criteria simultaneously. ened version, update of the probability) a short version of a These criteria include classic criteria such as scale reliabil- scale is constructed iteratively. This procedure is repeated ity or item discrimination, but ACO also allows considering for at least 100 iterations. However, each time the best- the short form’s correlation with an external criterion or the so-far solution is updated, the count starts again with 1. If correlation between subscales of the parent form. In their a best-so-far solution is not improved after 100 iterations, original article, Leite et al. (2008) included the regression this solution is referred to as the overall best solution. on an external variable to ensure that the shortened scale In the present study, we aimed at constructing useable, optimally depicts a known relationship to an external reliable short scales via the ACO approach. While Leite criterion. and colleagues (2008) emphasized the value of ACO for The ACO framework has its name from an analogy of the reduction of large and complex scales, we were also the employed problem-solving technique to the behavior interested in constructing a functional short form of an of colonies of ants. In their search of the shortest way already relatively short original scale. Thus, we conducted between the formicary and a food source and back, different ACO short-form construction for a one-dimensional and ants randomly choose a path, leaving a pheromone trace on relatively short original scale and a more complex two- the ground. On the shortest path, an ant needs the least time, dimensional scale with numerous items. Due to their high so that the pheromone trace accumulates faster than on any practical relevance in the IO research, we employed scales other track and becomes more intensive (Deneubourg & for proactive personality and supervisor support predicting Goss, 1989; Deneubourg, Pasteels, & Verhaeghe, 1983). innovative work behavior. In addition to the presentation of As Watkins (1964) reported, the likelihood for an ant fol- two ACO short scales that will enable organizations to lowing a path increases with the intensity of the pheromone assess these constructs in a fraction of the previous assess- trace. Therefore, the shortest track between the formicary ment time, we discuss the added value of this approach and the food source is more likely to be taken than any compared to classical items’ selection procedures and the other path. Finally, most ants will take the shortest path, shortcomings that come along with an algorithm-based whereas other tracks are rarely used. The idea of rewarding scale reduction. the most promising alternative is now applied to the item selection process. To apply this technique to constructing shortened scales, a pheromone function must be defined. This function determines the degree to which the selections made in one short Materials and Methods scale are rewarded and therefore become more likely selec- We conducted two empirical studies. In the first study, we tions in the next iteration. This function can contain any aimed at developing short forms of two reliable and valid number of criteria, such as the overall model fit of the mea- scales commonly used in the organizational research – surement model, reliability of the items, and correlations or one to assess proactive personality and a second one for regressions with other variables. At the start of the algo- supervisor support. In order to determine the added value rithm, a set of items for a short version is randomly of the ACO procedure compared to classical item selection, selected, with each item having exactly the same selection we developed both an ACO short form and a manual short likelihood. In the following, this likelihood is referred to form of the two scales. The second study used a new sam- as the pheromone level and in the first iteration this phero- ple to validate all developed short scales. mone level is set equal for all items. The examined short version attains a score based on its quality of fitting the defined criteria. Due to the origin of the approach as an emulation of the behavior of real ants, this score is called Participants pheromone (denoted u in this paper). The pheromone is then assigned to all items that were selected in this short In a first step, we collected online data of white-collar version. In order to reduce the risk of nonoptimal solutions, workers (mean age = 42.69 years, SD = 10.98, 61.2% several sets of items are compared simultaneously. The set females). In total, N = 279 observations were included in fitting the required criteria best is called best-so-far solu- the analyses. In order to validate the short scales, we used tion. Following Leite et al. (2008), the pheromone level a second independent sample of white-collar workers. of all other items not belonging to the best-so-far solution Participants were N = 155 employees with a mean age of is reduced by 5%. Thus, items that were part of a short ver- 42.27 years, SD = 10.38, and 51.3% females. sion that fulfilled the set criteria well are more likely to be selected in the next iteration than items that were part of a short version that did not fulfill the criteria well. To stay Materials within the analogy to ants’ behavior: the pheromones of the not-selected items are evaporating. Since selection like- Aimed at demonstrating the benefits of ACO for scale lihoods for poor items are only reduced without omitting reduction, we chose a short and one-dimensional scale them completely, this procedure also avoids the abovemen- and a rather complex two-dimensional scale with numerous tioned problem with changing item-total correlations of the items. In the first study, we used the supervisor support remaining items when excluding single items. In this scale developed by Kidd and Smewing (2001). Three of

Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015

23 Author’s personal copy (e-offprint) 4 A. B. Janssen et al.: Scale Short Form Development by ACO the scale’s five dimensions focused on the supervisor’s gen- We used Leite et al.’s (2008) algorithm and adapted it eral social skills (trust and respect, interpersonal skills)or onto our requirements. Even though the user is free to technical skills (expertise). However, since the main interest define any selection criteria, we recommend considering of the present study was in the prediction of individual model fit indices commonly used to rate a scale’s or a innovation and employees’development, we only employed measurement model’s quality. Leite et al. (2008) included the supervisor support dimensions career promotion the CFI, TLI, and the RMSEA. Both CFI and TLI (12 items; Cronbach’s a = 0.95, glb = 0.95) and feedback compare the target model chi-square to the null and goal setting (7 items; Cronbach’s a = 0.89, glb = 0.88). model chi-square and give hence similar information. Kidd and Smewing (2001) reported a correlation of In order to keep the algorithm parsimonious, we chose r = 0.79 between the two subscales; in our sample, we the CFI due to its relative independence of sample size found a correlation of r = 0.84. Proactive personality was (Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999) and the RMSEA to assessed by the one-dimensional 10-item proactive person- contribute to the overall pheromone of a random short ality scale by Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer (1999; scale. The pheromone contribution of the RMSEA was Cronbach’s a = 0.84, glb = 0.86). In order to test the defined as predictive validity of the two shortened scales, we 1 employed Janssen’s (2000) innovative work behavior scale u ¼ 1 À ð1Þ as the external criterion. The three-dimensional scale included RMSEA 1 þ e5À100RMSEA the subscales idea generation (Cronbach’s a =0.89, glb = 0.88), idea promotion (Cronbach’s a =0.90, and the pheromone contribution of the CFI was defined as glb = 0.89), and idea realization (Cronbach’s a = 1 u : 2 0.85, glb = 0.86) with three items each. Reliability for the CFI ¼ 45À50CFI ð Þ overall scale was Cronbach’s a = 0.95 and glb = 0.95. 1 þ e In the second sample, we applied the manually and ACO- In addition to model fit and different from Leite et al. shortened six-item supervisor support scales with the sub- (2008), reliability of the single items was chosen as a crite- scales career promotion (three items; Cronbach’s a =0.88, rion to ensure short versions that measure constructs as reli- glb = 0.88 for ACO short scale; Cronbach’s a =0.79, ably as possible. The pheromone contribution of the glb = 0.78 for manual short scale) and feedback and goal average reliability of the items was defined as setting (three items; Cronbach’s a = 0.77, glb = 0.74 for ACO short scale; Cronbach’s a = 0.78, glb = 0.77 for man- 1 u ¼ : ð3Þ ual short scale) and the five-item proactive personality scales Rel 1 þ e4À10Rel (Cronbach’s a = 0.79, glb = 0.78 for ACO short scale; Cronbach’s a = 0.81, glb = 0.82 for manual short scale). For the construction of the short form of a two- All items of the ACO and classically reduced forms and their dimensional scale assessing supervisor support, we added factor loadings are presented in the Appendix. In addition, the correlation between the two latent constructs as a crite- we assessed innovative work behavior again. All collected rion. Preliminary analysis revealed the error adjusted corre- data were self-ratings. Supervisor ratings on the employee’s lation between these two subscales to be .889 in a CFA innovative work behavior were not assessed because espe- including all items of the original version of the scale. cially idea generation as one major aspect of innovative To ensure that the constructed short version of this scale behavior is a rather cognitive process that the supervisor does matches the interrelations of the subscales found in the long not necessarily become aware of. Furthermore, the employee version as closely as possible, the pheromone contribution is rather able to rank certain innovative activities since he or of the correlation between the two latent variables was she has comprehensive information about the intention, defined as history, context, and further background of the own innova- 40ðCorrÀ0:889Þ2 : tive work behavior (Janssen, 2001). uCorr ¼ e ð4Þ In the case of the proactive personality scale, the pher- ACO Item Selection omone contributions shown in Equations 1 through 3 were combined to We chose the Ant Colony Optimization item selection : 0 5ðÞuRMSEA þ uCFI þuRel approach to shorten the original scales. A confirmatory fac- uProact ¼ ð5Þ tor analysis (CFA) framework was chosen to evaluate the 2 quality of the shortened scales. In the case of the supervisor to ensure a function that is limited to the range between support scale, items were modeled to measure the theoreti- 0 and 1 and considers reliability and model fit in an cal subscales career promotion and feedback and goal equally important manner. Because we added the crite- setting without any cross-loadings and in the case of the rion of the correlation between the two latent variables proactive personality scale items were modeled to measure for supervisor support the pheromone function was a single latent variable unidimensionally. We set the number defined as of items for the reduced scales so as to maximize the time 0:5ðÞu þ u þu þ u saved by employing the short forms while adequately iden- u ¼ RMSEA CFI Rel Corr ð6Þ tifying the measurement models. SupS 3

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015 Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing

24 Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)

A. B. Janssen et al.: Scale Short Form Development by ACO 5

to accommodate the equal importance of model fit, reli- 6 ability, and the latent correlation. All equations were adapted from those reported by 51

Leite et al. (2008). However, we used thresholds of > 0.95 = 279) in for CFI and < 0.05 for RMSEA as suggested by Hu and N

Bentler (1999). Furthermore, all equations represent logis- 41 tic functions with the highest discrimination around the inflection points. Hence, highly reliable items or those contributing to a good model fit (high CFI value and 31 low RMSEA value) result in higher values in the pheromone function and are rewarded by higher pheromone 21 levels. 11

Manual Item Selection 01 In order to evaluate the benefits of ACO, we developed short forms of the proactive personality scale and the supervisor support scale employing classical item selection approaches. We followed recommended selection criteria and deleted items with correlation r .80 indicating redundancy, factor loadings .40 and high modification indices indicating high cross-loadings. Further, items were selected so that the correlation between the two shortened latent subscales of supervisor support was similar to the one in the parent form. Though suggestions for more ele- gant selection procedures have been made (e.g., Stanton et al., 2002), we chose this approach to allow for a comparison to the strategies as they are often seen in applications (Kruyen et al., 2013).

Statistical Analysis

After completing the item selection process which was run in R version 2.15.2 and Mplus 5.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2007), we used linear regression analyses to quantify the predictive values of the parent and the short scales for the innovative work behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Results

Study 1 MSD

Means, standard deviations, zero-order correlations, and reliabilities for the original, the ACO, and the manual short < .001. scales used in sample 1 are shown in Table 1. Reliabilities p of all reduced scales decreased only moderately compared to the parent forms and Cronbach’s a were a .77 for all overall scales and all subscales and hence satisfactory. < .01. *** Following the aforementioned item selection proce- p dures, we received a set of five items for the ACO proac- 3. Idea promotion4. Idea realization 2.54 1.28 2.77 .93*** 1.29 .77*** (.90) .94*** .79*** .84*** (.85) 7. Career promotion8. Feedback & goal setting 3.07 0.90 2.78 0.93 .12 .14* .05 .06 .19** .22*** .09 .11 .08 .13* .98*** (.95) .93*** .84*** (.89) 11. CP-ACO12. FGS-ACO 2.73 3.22 1.07 0.96 .10 .09 .02 .04 .17** .16** .08 .06 .12 .10 .91*** .88*** .94*** .79*** .77*** .93*** .07 .06 .94*** (.88) .92*** .74*** (.77) tive personality scale (referred to as Proact-ACO) and a 16. FGS-man 3.29 0.95 .09 .02 .15* .08 .04 .82*** .71*** .93*** .02 .80*** .65*** .85*** .01 .90*** .63*** (.78) < .05. ** six-item ACO supervisor support scale (SupS-ACO) sample 1 p . Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of original and reduced overall scales and subscales (Cronbach’s alphas on diagonal;

including the subscales career promotion (CP-ACO) and .* criterion 2. Idea generation 3.04 1.36 .92*** (.89) scales 6. Supervisor support 2.89 0.88 .14* .05 .21*** .11 .11 (.96) scales 10. SupS-ACO 2.98 0.95 .11 .04 .18** .08 .11 .96*** .94*** .91*** .07 (.89) feedback and goal setting (FGS-ACO) with three items shortscales 14. SupS-man 15. CP-man 2.99 0.87 2.70 .13* 0.98 .04 .14* .06 .21** .10 .22*** .11 .09 .12* .94*** .90*** .89*** .93*** .91*** .07 .75*** .10 .91*** .83*** .84*** .86*** .84*** .05 .71*** (.85) .08 .91*** (.79) External 1. Innovative work behavior 2.78 1.22 (.95) Table 1 Original 5. Proactive personality 4.89 0.83 .45*** .43*** .41*** .43*** (.84) ACO short 9. Proact-ACO 4.77 0.97 .49*** .46*** .46*** .44*** .92*** .08 .09 .05 (.79) Manual 13. Proact-man 5.01 0.88 .51*** .49*** .45*** .46*** .91*** .08 .09 .04 .91*** .06 .07 .05 (.81) each. These short scales were, in a first step, employed Notes

Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015

25 Author’s personal copy (e-offprint) 6 A. B. Janssen et al.: Scale Short Form Development by ACO

Table 2. Model fit statistics of ACO and manual short forms for the proactive personality scale and the supervisor support scale in samples 1 and 2 Sample 1 Sample 2 v2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR v2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Proactive personality scale ACO short form 5.34 5 .38 1.00 0.99 .02 .02 5.56 5 .35 0.99 0.99 .03 .03 Manual short form 6.24 5 .28 0.99 0.99 .03 .02 7.99 5 .16 0.98 0.97 .06 .03 Supervisor support scale ACO short form 7.88 8 .45 1.00 1.00 .00 .02 6.08 8 .64 1.00 1.00 .00 .02 Manual short form 18.06 8 .02 0.98 0.97 .07 .03 15.84 8 .04 0.98 0.97 .08 .03

on sample 1. CFA testing a one-factor model for the ACO short forms produced deviant p-values for the prediction of proactive personality scale revealed a very good model fit innovative work behavior (see Table 3), we can still confirm with v2(df )=5.34(5), p = .38, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, the SupS-ACO and SupS-man to be as valid as the original RMSEA = 0.02, SRMR = 0.02. Similarly, for the ACO scale. This is due to the fact that all unstandardized regres- supervisor support scale, a model testing for two factors sion coefficients of both the SupS-ACO and the SupS-man also fitted the data of the first sample perfectly lay within the confidence intervals of the respective unstan- (v2(df ) = 7.88(8), p = .45, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, dardized beta coefficients of the original scale. Thus, the RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = 0.02). All model fit indices are ACO reduced supervisor support scale predicts innovative reported in Table 2. In addition to good reliability and work behavior and its subscales in a similar fashion to model fit, we required the ACO-shortened subscales of the original scale. Finally, the original proactive personality supervisor support to correlate similarly high as the subscale correlated with r = 0.92 to the Proact-ACO scale and scales in the parent form. Whereas the correlation in the with r = 0.91 to the Proact-man scale. Similarly high corre- original form was r = .84, the two subscales in the reduced lations were found between the overall supervisor support form were correlated at r = .74. It needs to be considered scale and its short versions (ACO: r = 0.96; manual: that the correlation value of r = 0.889 that was included r = 0.94). The supervisor support subscales and their in the algorithm based on the relationship between the reduced forms were associated with r =0.94forCP-ACO latent supervisor support factors. The latent correlation in and r = 0.91 for CP-man, and r =0.93forbothFGS- the short form was r = 0.883. Thus, in the latent model, ACO and FGS-man (see Table 1). the deviation was very small. Furthermore, the correlation was integrated in the ACO algorithm with a weight of one-third. We hence had to expect a deviation from the primary correlation. Same CFA analyses were con- Study 2 ducted for the manually reduced scales. For the proactive personality scale (referred to as Proact-man), we tested a In the second study, we used a separate sample to test the one-factor model which showed a very good model fit factor structure and criterion validity of the ACO and man- (v2(df ) = 6.24(5), p = .28, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, ual short forms for proactive personality and supervisor RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.02). We further received a support. Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and six-item scale for supervisor support scale (SupS-man) with reliabilities of sample 2 employed reduced scales and inno- three items for each subscale (CP-man and FGS-man). The vative work behavior scale are shown in Table 4. Results model fit for this short form was only acceptable with attest an acceptable to good reliability of the ACO short v2(df ) = 18.06(8), p = .02, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, scales with Cronbach’s a ranging between .75 and .89. RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.03. The correlation between The classically developed short forms included a supervisor the two subscales was r = 0.63 for the manifest subscales support subscale with a poor reliability of a =.70.Totest and r = 0.81 for the latent factors. the factor structure of the Proact-ACO, Proact-man, In order to test for the criterion validity of the ACO and SupS-ACO, and SupS-man, we used CFA with a one-factor the manually reduced scales, we used both the parent and model for proactive personality and a two-factor model the short forms to predict innovative work behavior for supervisor support. The overall model fit indices are and its subscales. As shown in Table 1, proactive personal- shown in Table 2 and indicate a very good model fit for ity was positively related to all innovative work behavior the ACO proactive personality scale with v2(df ) = 5.56(5), dimensions in both the original and the short version. p = .35, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, and Supporting this finding, the 95% confidence intervals of SRMR = 0.03. Compared to the ACO short form, the the unstandardized beta coefficients of the parent form cov- manually reduced proactive personality scale (Proact- ered all respective beta coefficients derived from the man) revealed a slightly weaker, however still good Proact-ACO and the Proact-man (see Figure 1). Even model fit (v2(df ) = 7.99(5), p = .16, CFI = 0.98, though the supervisor support parent and ACO and manual TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.03). The SupS-ACO

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015 Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing

26 Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)

A. B. Janssen et al.: Scale Short Form Development by ACO 7

Figure 1. Confidence intervals of unstandardized regression coefficients for regressing innovative work behavior on proactive personality, supervisor support, career promotion, and feedback and goal setting. Comparison of original scales with ACO and manual short scales in sample 1 and 2.

two-factor model fitted the data perfectly with v2(df ) idea realization. Here, two regression weights of the sub- = 6.08(8), p = .64, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = scale feedback and goal setting were not included in the 0.00, and SRMR = 0.02. Hence, the suggested factor 95% confidence intervals of the corresponding original structure was fully supported. The correlation between form’s coefficients. Thus, the classically reduced feedback CP-ACO and FGS-ACO was r = 0.78. Finally, the model and goal setting subscale revealed both poor reliability fit of the manually shortened supervisor support scale and validity. For proactive personality, both the ACO and was barely acceptable (v2(df ) = 15.84(8), p =.04, the manual short form showed highly significant positive CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08, and SRMR = associations with innovative work behavior and its three 0.03). The supervisor support subscales CP-man and subdomains. However, whereas the beta coefficient confi- FGS-man correlated at r = 0.76. In sample 2, we also cal- dence intervals of the parent form covered the unstandard- culated the regression of innovative work behavior on pro- ized regression coefficient of the ACO and manual short active personality and supervisor support. All regression form for overall innovative work behavior, idea generation, coefficients are shown in Table 3. Starting with the SupS- and idea promotion, we found deviations for idea realiza- ACO, all unstandardized regression coefficients were found tion as shown in Figure 1. to be covered by the confidence intervals of the original Irrespective of deviating predictive values for the differ- form’s beta coefficients as displayed in Figure 1. We can ent short forms, we can state that proactive personality was hence register that the external validity of the SupS-ACO confirmed to be a strong predictor of both overall innova- could also be supported on a new sample. Results indicat- tive work behavior and its three subdomains. The original ing a loss of validity were found for the SupS-man when scale and all short scales of proactive personality showed predicting overall innovative work behavior and its facet a strong positive relation to the proactive behavior outcome

Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015

27 uoenJunlo scooia Assessment Psychological of Journal European ACO by Development Form Short Scale al.: et Janssen B. A. 8 28

Table 3. Relationship between innovative work behavior and proactive personality and supervisor support. Comparison of original and short scales for proactive personality and supervisor support derived from ACO and classical item selection procedures

Sample 1 (N = 279) Sample 2 (N = 155) (e-offprint) copy personal Author’s Original scales ACO short scales Manual short scales ACO short scales Manual short scales 2015 External criterion Predictor B CI SE T B SE T B SE T B SE T B SE T Innovative work Proactive personality .66 0.51–0.81 .08 8.58*** .62 .07 9.44*** .70 .07 9.88*** .51 .09 5.87*** .54 .09 5.91*** behavior Supervisor support .19 0.02–0.35 .08 2.27* .13 .08 1.68 .18 .08 2.13* .22 .09 2.41* .30 .09 3.29** Career promotion .18 0.03–0.34 .08 2.32* .11 .07 1.66 .18 .07 2.39* .20 .08 2.37* .23 .09 2.68** Feedback & goal setting .16 0.00–0.31 .08 1.93 .12 .08 1.52 .11 .08 1.47 .19 .09 2.13* .32 .09 3.70*** Idea generation Proactive personality .69 0.52–0.86 .09 7.92*** .64 .07 8.73*** .76 .08 9.52*** .60 .09 6.42*** .65 .10 6.51*** Supervisor support .08 À0.10–0.26 .09 0.90 .04 .09 0.49 .07 .09 0.73 .14 .10 1.34 .22 .10 2.13* Career promotion .08 À0.09–0.25 .09 0.93 .03 .08 0.36 .09 .08 1.07 .12 .10 1.30 .17 .10 1.73 Feedback & goal setting .07 À0.11–0.25 .09 0.77 .05 .08 0.62 .02 .09 0.26 .12 .10 1.18 .24 .10 2.49* Idea promotion Proactive personality .63 0.46–0.79 .08 7.52*** .61 .07 8.69*** .66 .08 8.54*** .50 .09 5.47*** .52 .10 5.29*** Supervisor support .31 0.14–0.48 .09 3.64*** .24 .08 2.96** .30 .09 3.51** .31 .10 3.23** .37 .10 3.92*** Career promotion .30 0.14–0.46 .08 3.67*** .21 .07 2.93** .29 .08 3.78*** .28 .09 3.15** .31 .09 3.50** Feedback & goal setting .27 0.10–0.43 .08 3.19** .21 .08 2.62** .21 .08 2.57* .27 .09 2.90** .36 .09 4.00*** Idea realization Proactive personality .66 0.50–0.83 .08 8.03*** .59 .07 8.33*** .68 .08 8.80*** .41 .10 4.15*** .46 .11 4.32*** Supervisor support .16 À0.02–0.33 .09 1.78 .10 .08 1.22 .15 .09 1.72 .21 .10 2.06* .30 .10 2.97** Career promotion .15 À0.01–0.32 .08 1.86 .09 .07 1.28 .15 .08 1.85 .20 .09 2.10* .20 .10 2.13* Feedback & goal setting .13 À0.04–0.29 .09 1.46 .08 .08 1.05 .10 .08 1.25 .17 .10 1.76 .34 .09 3.63*** Notes.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Ó 05HgeePublishing Hogrefe 2015 Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)

A. B. Janssen et al.: Scale Short Form Development by ACO 9

2 (t-values between 4.15 and 9.88). Supervisor support and its subscales consistently predicted employees’ idea promotion, whereas idea generation and idea realization seemed

= 155) in rather unaffected by perceived supervisor support. 11 N

Discussion 01

The present study aimed to develop two reduced scales and to show some of the benefits of implementing ACO-based scale reduction for developing reliable and valid short forms of a proactive personality scale and a supervisor support scale. To achieve this, scales were shortened based on criteria concerning reliability and internal structure of the short forms and compared to variants obtained by manual scale shortening in both the initial sample and a second validation sample. Overall, the scales shortened via the ACO approach achieved acceptable reliabilities and maintained the factorial structure as well as the correlations between the factors of the original scales. Additionally the short forms were able to reproduce the predictive validity of the original forms to a large extent. The ACO-shortened scales outperformed manually shortened scales with regard to reproducing the factorial structure of the supervisor support scale. According to Smith, McCarthy, and Anderson (2000), developers of short forms should avoid nine frequent mistakes or sins to ensure the usefulness of the shortened scale. The ACO context chosen here has the inherent aim of avoiding the shortcomings of short forms that Smith and colleagues (2000) classify as sin 3 (p. 104) – dramatic reductions in the reliability of the overall scales, as well as its subscales, and sin 5 (p. 106) – a failure to maintain the original factor structure. Because the original factor structure is provided as the measurement model in the CFA and items are selected to maximize the model fit of this factor structure (with its factor interrelations) and the reliability of the chosen scales (Equations 5 and 6) both of these problems are directly minimized. This resulted in short scales with acceptable reliabilities in both samples, with Cronbach’s a ranging from .75 to .89 and a very close 1234567891 approximation of the relationship between the subscales of the supervisor support. While acceptable reliabilities were also found in the manually shortened scales, this approach

D was not as successful in reproducing the internal structure of the supervisor support scale. Validation of the shortened scales in a second sample < .001. MS (sin 7; Smith et al., 2000, p. 107) then revealed that the fac- p tor structure, reliability, and factor correlations are reproducible and not results of specific characteristics of the initial sample. To determine the criterion validity of

< .01. *** the shortened versions, innovative work behavior was p regressed on both proactive personality and supervisor support. For sample 1 these analyses showed that both ACO and manual short forms were able to reproduce the < .05. ** validation sample 2 relationship between the two predictors, namely proactive . Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of ACO-shortened overall scales and subscales (Cronbach’s alphas on diagonal; p

.* personality and supervisor support and the criterion innova-

2. Idea generation3. Idea promotion4. Idea realization 2.737. CP-ACO 2.278. 1.17 FGS-ACO 2.51 1.11 .92*** 1.16 .91***11. (.84) CP-man .92***12. FGS-man .77*** .78*** 2.38 (.88) 2.73 1.00 .76*** 0.95 (.82) .19* .17* 2.33tive 2.92 0.97 .10 0.96 work .10 .21* .29*** behavior. .25** .23** .20* .14 .17* .14 .31*** All .27** .04 .28*** unstandardized .03 .17* .00 .95*** .08 .94*** (.85) .84*** .78*** regression .75*** .90*** (.75) .84*** .89*** .03 .81*** coeffi- .93*** .11 .76*** .94*** (.70) (.83) Table 4 1. Innovative work behavior 2.50 1.065. Proact-ACO6. (.93) SupS-ACO9. Proact-man10. SupS-man 4.78 2.55 0.89Notes 0.92 .43*** 4.97 .19* .46*** 2.62 0.83 .40***cients 0.91 .11 .43*** .32*** .26**of .46*** (.77) .25** the .17* .39*** short .16* .33*** .30*** scales .93*** .04 .23** .07 were .04 (.89) covered .08 .93*** .88*** by .05 the .88*** confidence (.77) .07 (.87)

Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015

29 Author’s personal copy (e-offprint) 10 A. B. Janssen et al.: Scale Short Form Development by ACO intervals of the original scales’ regression weights what and their comparisons, which does not imply assumptions confirms high criterion validity of these scales. Such cover- about the items not included in the model. This comes at age of beta weights by confidence intervals was also found the expense of necessitating a cross-validation, because for the ACO-based short form of supervisor support in sam- the models and their comparisons are sample-dependent. ple 2. Deviations from the confidence intervals occurred for Additionally, the ACO approach allows for including the other three short scales in sample 2. The Proact-ACO external criteria (as shown by Leite et al., 2008) and, as and Proact-man did not validly predict idea realization. in the present study, for maintaining the dimensional struc- Here, the predictive value of proactive personality was ture of the long scale. Finally, though this was not done in underestimated compared to the parent form. This indicates this study, ACO allows for including theoretically important a loss of validity. However, there are two reasons to assume anchor items that need to be included in the short form of a that such loss of validity does not necessarily have negative scale. This latitude in defining the parameters of item selec- practical implications. First, both the original scale and the tion comes at the price of lacking guidelines for selection short scales predicted idea realization in a highly significant criteria. Not only are there no proven guidelines as to which way. Second, the underestimation of the relationship criteria to specify concerning specific components (e.g., between proactive personality and idea realization implies model fit, reliability, and latent correlations) and to what that Proact-ACO provides a rather conservative estimation. degree to increase or reduce pheromone levels of a certain Practitioners hence avoid the risk of focusing solely on pro- set of items but there is also no information concerning the active personality in order to explain individual differences interaction and combination of these components to one in innovative behavior which is, as we know, an outcome of specific criterion. a host of antecedents including individual and contextual The present results support Leite et al.’s (2008) sugges- factors (e.g., Axtell et al., 2000; Crant, 2000; Krause, tion that the ACO approach can be gainfully used especially 2004). Thus, the present lack of criterion validity of the for reducing multidimensional scales with many items; in Proact-ACO and the Proact-man is unlikely to have practi- that case manual item selection would imply comparing cally relevant downsides. Things are different regarding myriads of models with different sets of items. We can SupS-man. The subscale FGS-man did not validly predict hence assume to have found the best solution for a set of overall innovative work behavior and its subdomain idea items meeting the previously defined item selection criteria. realization. In contrast to the reduced proactive personality After Leite et al.’s (2008) simulation studies, the present scales, the FGS-man produced significant relationships to study is – to our knowledge – the first confirming this these two particular outcomes, whereas the regression advantage of ACO on real life data. Even though the pres- coefficients were not significant in the original scales. ent ACO results for the supervisor support scale confirmed Hence, the prediction of our criterion by SupS-man is our assumption that this approach has major benefits com- biased. pared to classical scale reduction, we encourage researchers We can conclude that Proact-ACO does not show signif- and practitioners to further evaluate the ACO item selection icant advantages compared to Proact-man in terms of approach by applying this technique on scales with a larger model fit or the prediction of the external criterion. number of items and a more complex factor structure. However, SupS-ACO seems to outperform SupS-man. According to Leite and colleagues (2008), ACO-based The ACO short form for supervisor support revealed both item selection is less recommended for unidimensional a better model fit and higher criterion validity than the man- scales with few items due to the manageable number of ual short scale. model comparisons that need to be conducted to find the best solution. We applied ACO to reduce the original proactive personality scale by one half and received a set of Benefits and Shortcomings of ACO five items with an acceptable reliability for the short form. However, analyses indicated a slight loss of criterion valid- In contrast to most CTT-based approaches, the ACO ity. Thus, regarding idea realization, items of the Proact- approach allows for simultaneous evaluation of multiple ACO assessed slightly different information on proactive statistical criteria concerning the short-form as a whole, personality than the original scale. Still, both the parent and not only those of the items themselves. This is achieved and the Proact-ACO predicted all dimensions of innovative by predefining a measurement model within the CFA work behavior positively and highly significantly which context and testing the appropriateness of this model – a allows the conclusion that the Proact-ACO also works as step often not undertaken in traditional manual short form a good measure to predict innovative work behavior and development approaches (e.g., Carr, Moss, & Harris, that the loss of criterion validity can be neglected. Manual 2005; Kruyen et al., 2013). Because these models are based item selection for the proactive personality scale generated in CTT they can be made to be much less restrictive than a similar set of items with a very good model fit as well. those most commonly found in IRT approaches. In contrast The Proact-man revealed the same small validity problems. to IRT approaches, it is not necessary to have an item set Hence, we did not identify any significant benefits of ACO that consists of theoretically interchangeable items in item when shortening a unidimensional scale with a relative selection via the ACO approach. This is possible because small number of items. These empirical findings support the evaluation of the short-form is based on CFA models Leite et al.’s (2008) suggestions.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015 Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing

30 Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)

A. B. Janssen et al.: Scale Short Form Development by ACO 11

Colorni, A., Dorigo, M., & Maniezzo, V. (1991). Distributed Conclusion optimization by ant colonies. In F. Varela & P. Bourgine (Eds.), Proceedings of ECAL91–European Conference on To sum up, the present study provides a reliable and valid Artificial Life (pp. 134–142). Paris, France: Elsevier short version of a two-dimensional supervisor support scale Publishing. assessing supervisors’ career promotion and feedback and Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and goal setting behavior with a time saving of approximately objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal two-thirds. Especially in IO psychology, the support of Applied Psychology, 80, 532–537. doi: 10.1037/0021- received from the supervisor is of major interest for numer- 9010.80.4.532 Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal ous practical and research questions. Hence, this great time of Management, 26, 435–462. doi: 10.1177/ saving while maintaining scale reliability and validity will 014920630002600304 be beneficial for any investigator collecting data in organi- Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web zational settings. surveys: Perceptions of burden. Social Science Computer Even though applying the Proact-ACO and Proact-man Review, 19, 146–162. doi: 10.1177/089443930101900202 would halve assessment time, this short version cannot fully Deneubourg, J. L., & Goss, S. (1989). Collective patterns and decision-making. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 1, replace the 10-item parent form of the proactive personality 295–311. doi: 10.1080/08927014.1989.9525500 scale because of its small lack of criterion validity. Deneubourg, J. L., Pasteels, J. M., & Verhaeghe, J. C. (1983). However, owing to the high correlation between the parent Probabilistic behaviour in ants: A strategy of errors? Journal and the short form and the replicated direction and intensity of Theoretical Biology, 105, 259–271. doi: 10.1016/S0022- of the relation to the external criterion, the short forms of 5193(83)80007-1 proactive personality can still be recommended as a reliable Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). instrument when only the proactive personality construct is Perceived organizational support. JournalofAppliedPsychol- ogy, 71, 500–507. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 of interest or for short screenings that may only include Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample very few items. As intended in the study, we tested the ben- size, estimation methods, and model specification on efits of the ACO approach for different lengths and com- structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural plexities of original scales compared to classical item Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 56–83. selection. According to the present results and the great doi: 10.1080/10705519909540119 range of selection possibilities, we recommend ACO for Galesic, M. (2006). Dropouts on the Web: Effects of interest and burden experienced during an online survey. Journal of item selection of multidimensional scales with a large num- Official Statistics, 22, 313–328. ber of items, whereas ACO does not carry significant ben- Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire efits compared to classical approaches when reducing length on participation and indicators of response quality in unidimensional and rather short original forms. a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 349–360. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfp031 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria ver- References sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidis- ciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor inno- fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupa- vation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of tional and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302. ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol- doi: 10.1348/096317900167038 ogy, 73, 265–285. doi: 10.1348/096317900167029/abstract Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. job performance and job satisfaction. The Academy of Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118. Management Journal, 44, 1039–1050. doi: 10.2307/ doi: 10.1002/job.4030140202/abstract 3069447 Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Kidd, J. M., & Smewing, C. (2001). The role of the supervisor in Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organiza- career and organizational commitment. European Journal tions. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 25–40. organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing doi: 10.1080/13594320042000016 members for the organization (pp. 567–598). Washington, Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a DC: American Psychological Association. determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innova- Bradburn, N. M. (1978). Respondent Burden. Proceedings of the tion-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The Survey Research Methods, DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 7, Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79–102. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua. 35–40. 2003.12.006 Carr, T., Moss, T., & Harris, D. (2005). The DAS24: A short Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H. M., & Sijtsam, K. (2013). On the form of the Derriford Appearance Scale DAS59 to measure shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. Inter- individual responses to living with problems of appearance. national Journal of Testing, 13, 223–248. doi: 10.1080/ British Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 285–298. 15305058.2012.703734 doi: 10.1348/135910705X27613 Leite, W. L., Huang, I.-C., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). Item Choi, J. N., & Chang, J. Y. (2009). Innovation implementation in selection for the development of short forms of scales the public sector: An integration of institutional and using an Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm. Multivari- collective dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, ate Behavioral Research, 43, 411–431. doi: 10.1080/ 245–253. doi: 10.1037/a0012994 00273170802285743

Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015

31 Author’s personal copy (e-offprint) 12 A. B. Janssen et al.: Scale Short Form Development by ACO

MacDonald, P., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). A Monte Carlo Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). comparison of item and person statistics based on item Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report response theory versus classical test theory. Educational and scales. Personnel Psychology, 55, 167–194. doi: 10.1111/ Psychological Measurement, 62, 921–943. doi: 10.1177/ j.1744-6570.2002.tb00108.x 0013164402238082 Stocking, M., & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely Maloney, P., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2011). Strategic constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied item selection to reduce survey length: Reduction in Psychological Measurement, 17, 277–292. doi: 10.1177/ validity? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and 014662169301700308 Research, 63, 162–175. doi: 10.1037/a0025604 Watkins, J. (1964). Laboratory experiments on the trail follow- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2007). Mplus user’s ing of army ants of the genus Neivamyrmex (Formicidae: guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Dorylinae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, Ng, T. W., Feldman, D. C., & Lam, S. S. (2010). Psychological 37, 22–28. doi: 25083355 contract breaches, organizational commitment, and innova- Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role- tion-related behaviors: A latent growth modeling approach. based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 744–751. doi: 10.1037/ measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540–555. a0018804 doi: 10.2307/256941 Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., O’Neil, J. M., & Danforth, L. work characteristics and their relationships with creative and (2012). Development and evaluation of the Gender Role proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, Conflict Scale Short Form (GRCS-SF). Psychology of Men 257–279. doi: 10.1002/job.376 & Masculinity, 13, 199–210. doi: 10.1037/a0025550 Parker,S. K.,&Collins,C. G.(2010).Takingstock:Integrating and Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Man- workplace: The role of performance and image outcome agement, 36, 633–662. doi: 10.1177/0149206308321554 expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling 323–342. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.49388995 the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Ziegler, M. (2014). Comments on Item Selection Procedures. Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 1–2. 91.3.636 doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000196 Rammstedt, B., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can’t we make it any Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short scales – shorter? The limits of personality assessment and ways to Five misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. Journal overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, of Individual Differences, 35, 185–189. doi: 10.1027/1614- 212–220. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000141 0001/a000148 Rogers, M. E., Creed, P. A., Searle, J., & Hartung, P. J. (2010). The physician values in practice scale-short form: Develop- ment and initial validation. Journal of Career Development, 38, 111–127. doi: 10.1177/0894845310363593 Rolstad, S., Adler, J., & Rydén, A. (2011). Response burden and questionnaire length: Is shorter better? A review and meta- Date of acceptance: June 15, 2015 analysis. Value in Health, 14, 1101–1108. doi: 10.1016/ Published online: November 30, 2015 j.jval.2011.06.003 Sampson, R. C. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 364–386. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634443 Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive Anne B. Janssen personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 84, 416–427. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416 Jacobs University Bremen Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do Psychology & Methods proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive Campus Ring 1 personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 28759 Bremen 845–874. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x Germany Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). Tel. +49 421 200-4751 On the sins of short-form development. Psychological E-mail [email protected] Assessment, 12, 102–111. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015 Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing

32 Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)

A. B. Janssen et al.: Scale Short Form Development by ACO 13

Appendix

Table A1. Items and CFA factor loadings of ACO and manual short forms for the proactive personality and the supervisor support scale Sample 1 (N = 279) Sample 2 (N = 155) Scale Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 Proact-ACO Wherever I have been, I have been a powerful force for 0.77 0.66 constructive change. If I see something I don’t like, I fix it. 0.53 0.53 I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others 0.54 0.67 opposition. I excel at identifying opportunities. 0.78 0.68 I can spot a good opportunity long before others can. 0.74 0.68 Proact-man Wherever I have been, I have been a powerful force for 0.74 0.62 constructive change. If I see something I don’t like, I fix it. 0.55 0.57 I excel at identifying opportunities. 0.79 0.65 I am always looking for better ways to do things. 0.57 0.65 I can spot a good opportunity long before others can. 0.74 0.71 SupS-ACO My supervisor ... CP-ACO Suggests strategies to advance my career. 0.84 0.83 Helps me identify important skills, interests, and values regarding 0.88 0.90 my career. Is realistic in discussing my career progression. 0.80 0.70 FGS-ACO Makes clear what the goals and objectives of the organization are. 0.63 0.52 Gives specific guidance as to how I can improve. 0.83 0.81 Keeps me informed of how well I am doing. 0.71 0.78 SupS-man My supervisor ... CP-man Gives me tasks requiring people who can influence my career. 0.72 0.87 Helps me identify important skills, interests, and values regarding 0.85 0.88 my career. Helps me participate in high visibility activity either inside or 0.66 0.76 outside the organization. FGS-man Agrees goals and objectives to measure my current performance. 0.74 0.73 Makes clear what the goals and objectives of the organization are. 0.71 0.54 Identifies critical job elements. 0.74 0.73

Ó 2015 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2015

3 Study II

For You or for Me? Identiﬁcation of Self-Centered and Other-Centered Proactive Behaviors

Anne B. Janssen and Christian Stamov Roßnagel

Introduction

For You or for Me? Identiﬁcation of Self-Centered and Other-Centered Proactive Behaviors

Anne B. Janssen and Christian Stamov Roßnagel Jacobs University Bremen, Germany

Abstract. Employees’ proactive behaviors have been classified either according to their intended target of impact (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Griffin et al., 2007) or their form and type (Bindl & Parker, 2010; Parker & Collins, 2010; Crant, 2000). We propose an integration of these two approaches. More specifically, we suggest that the four proactive behavior categories in Bindl and Parker’s (2010) comprehensive approach (career behaviors, work behaviors, strategic behaviors, and person-environment (PE) fit behaviors) differ both in form and type and in the intended target of impact, namely oneself or others. Results from a quantitative survey with N = 388 employees support the assumption that self-centered values predict proactive PE fit and proactive career behaviors, but are unrelated or even negatively related to proactive strategic and proactive work behaviors. Other-centered values, however, were not only positively linked to proactive strategic and proactive work behaviors, but also to proactive PE fit and proactive career behaviors. Felt responsibility for change seemed to have a global impact on proactivity at work and predicted behaviors of all proactive behavior categories. We discuss theoretical and practical implications.

Keywords: proactive behaviors, behavior classiﬁcation, personal values, felt responsibility for change

Introduction

As contemporary organizations shift work and/or their environments” (Grant & Ashford, procedures toward team-based, temporary and 2008, p. 4), which has led to a number of re- project work, employees need to be self-reliant search streams and proactivity concepts (Bindl and proactive to eﬀectively perform in those & Parker, 2010; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker environments (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). Con- & Collins, 2010). However, there is little inte- sequently, researchers have become interested grative theoretical work on the various proac- in proactivity captured as “anticipatory activity concepts (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Tor- tions that employees take to impact themselves nau & Frese, 2013). Potentially, this leads to

37 3 Study II – For You or for Me? duplicated research and incomplete use of ex- to change their work situation or work role, in tant evidence (e.g., Fuller & Marler, 2009), team member proactivity to change a team’s which might result in limited conclusions. work situation or working style, or in organi- On that backdrop, our goal was to inte- zation member proactivity to change the orga- grate two widely-used approaches to classify- nization or the organization’s way of working. ing proactive behaviors. To date, proactive be- Antecedents differed between individual task, haviors either have been classified according to team member, and organization member proac- their target of impact (Belschak & Den Har- tivity. Individual-level factors such as openness tog, 2010; Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007) or to change or role breadth self-efficacy predicted to their form and type (Bindl & Parker, 2010; all three dimensions. At the same time, team Parker & Collins, 2010; Crant, 2000). We sug- support only fostered team member proac- gest that the target and type distinctions are tivity, while organizational commitment was orthogonal such that four form and type cate- only linked to organization member proactiv- gories may be distinguished by their target of ity. In line with Griffin et al. (2007), Belschak impact. More specifically, we argue that proac- and Den Hartog (2010) proposed three foci of tive strategic behaviors and proactive work be- proactive behavior that they labeled pro-self haviors are directed at others, while proactive (“directed at facilitating the achievement of person-environment fit behaviors and proactive one’s personal or career goals”), pro-social (“di- career behaviors are directed at oneself. Con- rected at the workgroup/colleagues”), and pro- sistently, we propose that other-centered and organizational (“directed at the organization”). self-centered behaviors are predicted by proso- As hypothesized, self-rated pro-social behav- cial and egocentric values, respectively. ior was most strongly predicted by team com- In the next section, we describe the two gen- mitment, whereas self-focused proactive be- eral approaches to classifying proactive behav- havior was mainly related to career commit- iors before turning to the role of values as pre- ment. Organizational commitment was only as- dictors in the subsequent section. We then re- sociated with pro-organizational behavior. Fur- port a quantitative survey of N = 388 employ- thermore, Belschak and Den Hartog (2010) re- ees and discuss its theoretical and practical im- ported different outcomes of the three proac- plications in the final section. tive behavior sub-dimensions. While all three proactive behaviors were positively related to Two Approaches to Classifying performance-prove and performance-avoid goal Proactive Behaviors orientation, learning goal orientation was only Proactivity comprises a broad range of be- associated with pro-organizational behavior. haviors that have been structured along ei- Performance was predicted by organizational ther their target of impact or to the form and and personal proactive behavior, but unrelated type of behavior. Distinguishing the targets to interpersonal proactive behavior. of behavior, Griffin and colleagues (2007) pro- As a distinction of the form and type of posed and empirically supported that employ- proactive behaviors, Crant (2000) suggested ees can engage in individual task proactivity two classes of behaviors, namely general proac-

38 Introduction tive actions like identifying opportunities and iors, for which there is no contractual obliga- context-specific proactive behaviors such as in- tion and that are not explicitly tied to rewards novation, career management, or feedback seek- from supervisors or the organization (Morri- ing. According to Crant (2000), general actions son & Phelps, 1999; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; include a range of proactive behaviors that see also Griffin et al., 2007). Although there is can be shown in any work-related situation, substantial evidence that proactive personality whereas context-specific behaviors occur in a predicts engagement in proactive behaviors in limited domain. Bindl and Parker (2010) pre- general (e.g., Fuller & Marler, 2009), there is sented the most comprehensive classification no way of predicting from proactive personal- so far. Their model of individual-level proac- ity alone the specific type of behavior employ- tive behavior presumes four “higher-order” cat- ees will show. egories of proactive behaviors. First, proac- Findings from the related field of Organi- tive work behaviors aim at taking control of, zational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) suggest and bringing about change in, the internal or- that assessing motivational variables such as ganizational environment (e.g., taking charge, employees’ motives or values might be more voice, individual innovation). Second, proactive fruitful for predicting specific behaviors. Pen- strategic behaviors are directed at control and ner, Midili, and Kegelmeyer (1997) suggested change in the “broader unit’s strategy and its that OCB, an extra-role behavior targeting the fit with the external environment” (e.g., selling “maintenance and enhancement of the social important issues to the leader). Third, through and psychological context that supports task proactive person-environment fit behaviors, em- performance” (Organ, 1997, p. 91), may be ployees seek to improve the fit between their a proactive behavior that people consciously skills, abilities and preferences, and the orga- choose to engage in because it meets certain nizational environment (e.g., seeking feedback needs as reflected in one’s motives or values. about one’s performance). Finally, proactive ca- Confirming this broad assumption, Rioux and reer behaviors go beyond a particular job (e.g., Penner (2001) in an early study showed that career initiative, career management). Parker prosocial values motives were most strongly and Collins’s (2010) data supported the distinc- associated with OCB directed at individuals, tion of proactive work behaviors and proactive while organizational concern values motives strategic behaviors; however, proactive career were most strongly associated with OCB di- behaviors and person-environment fit behav- rected toward the organization. More recently, iors turned out to load on a single factor. Lemmon and Wayne (2015) identified egoism and altruism as motives underlying OCB such A Values-Based Integration of the that altruistic concern predicted OCB toward Classifications the organization, while egoistic obligation to- The question of the target of proactive be- ward the supervisor predicted OCB toward the haviors is essentially a question of why em- supervisor. ployees engage in proactivity. After all, proac- The motives or values approach (we will tive behaviors are instances of extra-role behav- henceforth solely refer to values) in principle

39 3 Study II – For You or for Me? seems to apply as well to the proactive behav- between achievement striving and proactive ca- iors described in the previous section. For in- reer behaviors is lacking; Moon et al.’s finding stance, Moon, Kamdar, Mayer, and Takeuchi (2008) that achievement striving is negatively (2008) showed that (self-centered) achievement related to the proactive work behavior of taking striving was negatively linked to the proactive charge may be taken as indirect evidence. Also, work behavior of taking charge, whereas the Briscoe and Hall (2006) argued that career de- more other-centered sense of duty was posi- velopment is characterized by self-direction and tively associated with taking charge. In Grant driven by personal values. Therefore, we sug- and Rothbard’s (2013) study, prosocial values, gest that but not security values were positively asso- Hypothesis 2 : Self-centered values are posi- ciated with the level of employee proactivity. tively related to proactive career behavior and Thomas, Whitman, and Viswesvaran (2010) proactive PE fit behavior but unrelated or neg- conducted a meta-analysis on the relationship atively related to proactive work behavior and between individual differences and employee proactive strategic behavior. proactivity and reported a positive link be- To gauge an antecedent’s relevance for pre- tween affective organizational commitment and dicting proactive behavior, researchers often voice behavior. In a study with a large sample control for personality factors such as proactive of supervisors, Griffin et al. (2007) found a pos- personality (e.g., Chiaburu, Baker, & Pitariu, itive relationship between organizational com- 2006; Parker & Collins, 2010). A relatively sta- mitment and organization member proactivity, ble (Lauermann & Karabenick, 2011) construct whereas the links for individual task proactiv- comparable to proactive personality that in- ity or team member proactivity were smaller or cludes a value dimension (Parker, Bindl, & even non-significant. Ghitulescu (2013) tested Strauss, 2010) is felt responsibility for change, special education teachers and found higher i.e., “an individual’s belief that he or she values of proactive work behavior for individ- is personally obligated to bring about con- uals that reported strong social ties. In sum, structive change” (Morrison & Phelps, 1999, these findings lead us to p. 407). Most generally, the likelihood to en- Hypothesis 1 : Other-centered values are pos- gage in a proactive behavior increases with the itively related to proactive work behaviors and individual’s perceived responsibility to bring proactive strategic behavior but unrelated or about change in one’s work environment (Frese, negatively related to proactive PE fit behav- Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996). There is some iors and proactive career behaviors. evidence that felt responsibility for change The opposite of a social focus of values are is positively linked to other-centered proac- self-centered values. Schwartz (1994) defined a tive behaviors such as taking charge (Morri- self-direction of values as “independent thought son & Phelps, 1999) and voice behavior (Fuller, and action-choosing, creating, exploring” (p. Marler, & Hester, 2006). Parker and Collins’s 22). A behavior that, according to Schwartz, (2010) findings suggest that felt responsibil- comes with self-centered values is achievement ity for change predicts other-centered proactive striving. Direct evidence for the relationship behaviors, but not self-centered proactive be-

40 Method haviors. To our knowledge, Parker and Collins’s of impact and form and type classifications of study has been the only one to investigate the proactive behaviors, we suggest a model that link between felt responsibility for change and posits Bindl and Parker’s (2010) four higher- proactive PE fit and career behaviors. Parker order categories of proactive behaviors on a and Collins (2010) suggested that environmen- continuum from serving a self-centered target tal change is supposed to affect the organiza- to serving an other-centered target (see Figure tion and hence hypothesized a relationship be- 1). Whereas employees themselves are the ben- tween felt responsibility for change and proac- eficiaries of activities such as striving for higher tive strategic and proactive work behaviors. career goals and PE fit, the team or even the However, the work environment also includes organization will benefit from proactive work multiple work-related aspects focusing on the or proactive strategic behaviors. employee rather than on the organization such as role conflict, autonomy, task variety, and fi- Method nancial rewards (e.g., Lambert, Hogan, & Bar- Participants and procedure. We collected on- ton, 2001). Employees engaging in job change line data of N = 113 white-collar workers from negotiation or career self-management aim to the real estate sector. Data from additional N bring about constructive change in these facets = 304 participants were derived from an on- of work environment. In addition to the other- line panel. Individuals from this subsample had centered component of felt responsibility for diverse occupational backgrounds. All partic- change, this construct is also likely to explain ipants were invited via e-mail to answer the individual differences in rather self-centered questionnaire online. Participation was volun- proactive behaviors due to its focus on the work tary. Individuals in both subsamples did not environment irrespective of the beneficiary of differ significantly in age, job tenure, or orga- the particular change. In the light of these ex- nizational tenure. Due to missing data on all planations, we hypothesize that variables, 29 cases had to be excluded from the Hypothesis 3 : Felt responsibility for change is analyses. The total sample included N = 388 positively related to all four higher-order cate- employees (mean age = 44.2 years, SD = 10.85, gories of proactive behaviors. 57.5% females, mean job tenure = 7.3 years, In sum, we posit that personal values pre- SD = 7.09, mean organizational tenure = 14.2 dict which specific proactive behaviors general years, SD = 10.7). proactivity motivation is turned into. For in- Materials. All measures were German trans- stance, as people strive for the congruence of lations of the original scales and presented in their values with their actions (Sagiv, Sverd- random order. They used self-ratings and had lik, & Schwarz, 2011; Verplanken & Holland, a 5-point Likert-type response scale, except in- 2002), a prosocial person is likely to pursue out- novative work behavior (7-point scale) and self- comes that benefit the community rather than centered values (6-point scale). just the individual, whereas a self-centered per- Proactive career behaviors. We assessed ca- son is likely to strive for outcomes primar- reer self-management with six items of a scale ily supporting oneself. Integrating the target developed by Sturges, Guest, and Mackenzie

41 3 Study II – For You or for Me?

Figure 1: Integrated model of self- and other-centered proactive behavior categories.

proactive proactive proactive proactive

strategic behaviors work behaviors PE fit behaviors career behaviors

O S

THERS ELF

BENEFICIARY OF PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR

Davey (2000). The scale showed a reliability zation?”), and issue selling credibility (Cron- of Cronbach’s α = .80). A sample item is “I bach’s α = .86; sample item is “I have been have got myself introduced to people who can successful in the past in selling issues in orga- influence my career”. nizations.”) were assessed with three items each Proactive PE fit behaviors. Job change nego- (Parker & Collins, 2010). tiation (Cronbach’s α = .81; sample item “To Antecedents. Felt responsibility for change what extent do you negotiate with others about was measured by five items developed by Ble- your task assignments and role expectations?”) dow and Frese (2009). Reliability was Cron- and feedback monitoring (Cronbach’s α = .82; bach’s α = .71. A sample item is “I person- sample item “How frequently do you observe ally feel responsible to attempt to bring about what performance behaviors your boss rewards change at work”. Prosocial values were assessed and use this as feedback on your own perfor- with 10 items of Rioux and Penner’s (2001) cit- mance?”) were measured by three items each izenship motives scale (Cronbach’s α = .88). (Parker & Collins, 2010). A sample item is “I am motivated to do my Proactive work behaviors. We used Janssen’s work because I want to help my co-workers in (2000) innovative work behavior scale with nine any way I can”. Self-centered values were mea- items (Cronbach’s α = .96). A sample item is sured by Eifler and Seipel’s (2001) four-item “During the last 12 months, I introduced in- scale (Cronbach’s α = .72). A sample item is “I novative ideas into the work environment in usually try to get the things I want even when a systematic way”. Taking charge was assessed I know it’s causing problems for other people”. by three items (Parker & Collins, 2010; Cron- Control variables. We controlled for individ- bach’s α = .87). Sample items is “How fre- ual differences that are known to be related to quently do you try to institute new work meth- proactive behaviors such as age (e.g., Axtell, ods that are more effective?” Holman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson, & Har- Proactive strategic behavior. Strategic scan- rington, 2000; Tornau & Frese, 2013), gender ning (Cronbach’s α = .84; sample item “How (e.g., LePine & van Dyne, 1998; Tornau & frequently do you identify long-term opportuni- Frese, 2013), and job and organizational tenure ties and threats for the company?”), issue sell- (e.g., Ashford & Cummings, 1985; De Dreu & ing willingness (Cronbach’s α = .93; sample Nauta, 2009; Fuller, Barnett, Hester, Relyea, & item “How much effort would you be willing Frey, 2007). to devote to selling this issue in your organi-

42 Results

Results In a ﬁrst step, to test if the eight proactive behaviors are distinct from one another, we conducted a CFA and found our assumption of distinct factors supported by a good model ﬁt (χ2(df) = 800.34(467), p = 0.00, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.04). It should be noticed that the chi-square

statistic is sensitive to sample size. This leads = 388). to significant chi-square values the larger the N sample is. The present sample size of N = 388 causes this problem so that it is recommended to use other model fit indices such as CFI, TLI, or RMSEA to evaluate the model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1998). We further conducted a CFA to analyze the higher-order structure of proactive behaviors with the four categories proactive strategic behaviors (including strategic scanning, issue selling willingness, and issue selling credibility), proactive work behaviors (including innovative work behavior and taking charge), proactive PE fit behaviors (including job change negotiation and feedback monitoring), and proactive career behaviors (including career self-management). This analysis also revealed a good model fit (χ2(df) = 127.79(59), p = 0.00, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04). Again, due to its sample size sensitivity, a significant chi-square M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. does not necessarily indicate a poor model fit. < .001.

Means, standard deviations, zero-order corre- p lations, and reliabilities of all measures are reported in Table 1.

In a second step, we conducted sepa- < .01. *** p rate stepwise regressions to predict each proactive behavior. The ﬁrst block in- < .05. **

cluded control variables age, gender, Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of all employed scales (Cronbach’s alphas on diagonal; p job tenure, and organizational tenure. 1.2. Strategic scanning3. Issue selling willingness4. Issue selling credibility5. Taking charge6. 3.47 Innovative work 3.13 behavior 0.817. Job 0.80 3.35 change negotiation .40***8. (.84) 0.83 Feedback monitoring 2.68 (.93) .40***9. Career 1.24 self-management .46***10. .48*** Felt 2.61 responsibility for (.86) 3.34 change Other-centered .34***11. values 0.88 0.86 2.88 3.16 2.67 .44*** Self-centered .30*** valuesNote. .51*** * 0.91 0.50 0.88 .57*** .20*** .45*** .28*** .24*** .33*** (.96) .20*** .48*** 4.12 .19*** .22*** .24*** .37*** (.87) 0.53 .17** .21*** .30*** .42*** .10* 2.16 .33*** .41*** (.81) .38*** 0.70 .26*** .48*** .38*** .28*** .08 .20*** .41*** .38*** .17** .24*** .42*** (.82) .19*** (.80) .13** -.16** (.71) .03 .11* .07 .06 .06 .16** .12* .03 .16** .03 .23*** .10 (.88) -.50*** (.72) Table 1:

43 3 Study II – For You or for Me? ** *** *** *** *** ** *** 16 14 18 18 23 22 04 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Career behaviors self-management Proactive career *** *** *** ** ** *** ** 09 20 14 18 17 17 03 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Feedback monitoring behaviors * ** *** ** ** *** ** 02 02 17 05 17 16 07 ...... Proactive PE ﬁt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Job change negotiation ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 15 05 04 22 10 24 24 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 work behavior Innovative behaviors *** *** ** *** *** ** 20 16 0903 0 03 30 13 Proactive work ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 charge Taking *** *** *** ** *** ** 23 10 17 06 1004 0 03 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issue selling credibility *** * *** *** *** *** * 25 21 07 16 11 09 02 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Issue − selling behaviors willingness Proactive stratigic ** *** * *** *** *** < .001. Covariates added in step 1 are age, gender, job tenure, and organizational tenure. p 21 16 10 11 05 10 01 β β β β β β β β ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stategic scanning < .01. *** p 2 2 2 R R R < .05. ** Stepwise regression analysis testing the relationship between antecedents and proactive behaviors. p change (step 3 2 Adjusted Adjusted R - step 2) Adjusted Step 2 Felt responsibility for change Step 3 Other-centered values Variable Step 1 (covariates) Self-centered values Note. * Table 2:

44 Discussion

The predictor variable felt responsibility for management). change was added to the model in a second Finally, Hypothesis 2 suggested that self- step. In order to determine the variance of centered values are positively related to proac- proactive behaviors that is explained by per- tive career behavior and proactive PE fit be- sonal values additional to felt responsibility for havior but unrelated or negatively related to change, other-centered values and self-centered proactive work behavior and proactive strate- values were added in a final third block. All gic behavior. This hypothesis was mostly sup- regression results are displayed in Table 2. ported in our analyses, except for innovative Hypothesis 3 controlled for the influence of work behavior. Consistent with our hypothesis, felt responsibility for change, assuming respon- self-centered values were positively linked to sibility is positively related to all four proac- PE fit behaviors and career behaviors. Further- tive behavior categories. Results support this more, we found self-centered personal values to hypothesis. We found positive and highly sig- be negatively related to issue selling willing- nificant relationships between felt responsibil- ness (β = -.11, p < .05). However, analyses also ity for change and all eight proactive activities. revealed a significant positive relationship be- Stepwise regression indicates the variance ex- tween self-centered values and innovative work plained for each step and the stepwise change behavior (β = .24, p < .001). in R2. Felt responsibility explained a significant amount of variance of all proactive behav- Discussion 2 iors. The changes in R from step 2 to step 3 The present study aimed to integrate two were significant for all eight outcomes indicat- common approaches for classifying proactive ing that personal values explain variance be- behaviors at work. We suggested an integra- yond felt responsibility for change. tive model of self- and other-centered proactive Hypothesis 1 was that other-centered val- behavior categories. While our findings largely ues are positively related to proactive work be- support this integration, they also indicate a haviors and proactive strategic behavior but need for further research. First of all, our analy- unrelated or negatively related to proactive ses supported a higher-order structure and thus PE fit behaviors and proactive career behav- the form and type classification of behaviors iors. This hypothesis can only partly be con- suggested by Bindl and Parker (2010). Those firmed. Analyses revealed a positive and signif- findings therefore corroborate approaches of icant link between other-centered personal val- differentiating between types of proactive be- ues and proactive strategic behaviors (strate- haviors when investigating work-related proac- gic scanning, issue selling willingness, and issue tivity. Also, as hypothesized, other-centered selling credibility), as well as proactive work be- and self-centered personal values, respectively, haviors (taking charge and innovative work be- differentially predicted types of proactive behavior). However, we found other-centered val- haviors. Stepwise regression analyses revealed ues to also predict proactive PE fit behaviors the significant predictive value of values over (job change negotiation and feedback monitor- and above the variance explained by felt re- ing) and proactive career behavior (career self- sponsibility for change; personal values co-

45 3 Study II – For You or for Me? determine the execution of proactive behaviors. shape an employee’s career is in, the better will However, in partial support of our initial hy- s/he be able to support his or her colleagues pothesis, we found an asymmetry in the predic- and the organization. tive power of values. In line with our hypothe- Also, according to Smeesters, Warlop, Van sis, self-centered personal values predicted PE Avermaet, Corneille, and Yzerbyt (2003), self- fit and proactive career behaviors and were, centered people can be further subdivided in except for innovative work behavior, unrelated terms of their social value orientation. The or negatively related to proactive strategic and first subgroup holds an individualistic orien- proactive work behaviors. Other-centered val- tation and strives to maximize the own out- ues, as posited, predicted strategic behaviors comes. This also allows the consideration of and work behaviors. Contrary to the hypoth- others’ interests as long as such a considera- esis, however, other-centered values were also tion helps to achieve the personal goals. Second positively related to career self-management, is a competitive orientation that aims to max- job change negotiation, and feedback monitor- imize one’s outcomes relative to others’ out- ing. In sum, therefore, self-centered values ap- comes. Granted that self-centered individuals pear to be the more selective of the two predic- can switch between these orientations depend- tors. ing on the situation’s requirements, it is likely Might other-centered values in general be that they show a certain amount of empathy or more encompassing and motivate employees for a prosocial attitude to reach a desired aim. For a wider range of proactive behaviors, relative to instance, an employee negotiating his or her job self-centered values? At least for PE fit behav- tasks with the supervisor aims for improving iors, this logic might hold, as Wayne and Lem- the individual work situation. However, he or mon’s (2015) line of reasoning suggests. They she, at the same time, might choose a thought- found that altruistic concern (sample item “I ful timing and approach to confront the su- care what happens to the company”; Rioux pervisor with this issue in order to consider & Penner, 2001) fully mediated the relation his/her current work situation. Such a proce- between person–organization fit and OCB di- dure requires a minimum of empathy and per- rected toward the organization. Those authors spective taking-competencies associated with argued that high PE fit (e.g., when employ- a prosocial value orientation (Declerck & Bo- ees share the organization’s goals and values) gaert, 2008; Grant & Berry, 2011). An item- enables employees to be better able to take level analysis of our proactive PE fit behaviors the perspective of the organization, or demon- and the proactive career behaviors support the strate altruistic concern for it. The higher the idea that rather self-centered activities includ- fit, the better employees can think from the ing a social interaction or perspective-taking organization’s standpoint, fulfilling their need component are also positively related to other- for altruistic concern about the organization. centered personal values (e.g., “To what extent Although completely speculative, career self- do you negotiate with others about desirable management might also be construed to be fu- job changes?”: βother-centered values = .13, p < eled by other-centered values; the better the .05; βself-centered values = .26, p < .001), whereas

46 Limitations and Practical Implications activities that do not require any direct so- their association with a P-O value misfit. An- cial interaction are linked to self-centered val- other open question is the potential mediation ues but not to other-centered values (e.g., “I of the P-O value incongruence and proactive have made plans to leave this organization behavior relationship. This needs to be clari- if it cannot offer me a rewarding career.”: fied in future research.

βother-centered values = .08, n.s.; βself-centered values = .23, p < .001). We conclude that proactive Limitations and Practical behaviors that aim at furthering one’s own ca- Implications reer or work situation require a certain amount The present study has some limitations that of prosocial values if the particular behavior in- need to be discussed. First, due to the cross- cludes the exchange with colleagues or leader- sectional design of the study, we are not able ship. to draw causal conclusions. However, the pre- On this background, future research might dictors that we included in the analyses are fruitfully consider individual differences as me- rather time-stable (see England, 1967). We can diators of the effect of personal values on hence assume that the personal values we as- proactive behaviors. Also, investigating person- sessed hardly vary over time. Thus, measur- organization (P-O) value fit as a predictor of ing personal values and proactive behaviors proactive behaviors seems worthwhile. As men- at different time points would likely have re- tioned above, self-centered activities that revealed similar relationships between the vari- quire the interaction with peers and supervisors ables. The same holds for felt responsibility for or perspective taking cannot unambiguously change. As Bierhoff, Wegge, Bipp, Kleinbeck, be predicted by either self-centered or other- Attig-Grabosch, and Schulz (2005) stated, re- centered personal values. The positive associ- sponsibility is a relatively stable personality ation between other-centered values and self- disposition and hence unlikely to vary much centered proactive behaviors might disappear over time. Second, the present study included when adding perspective taking as a mediator. self-reports only. Whereas self-reports about Furthermore, we encourage a focus on the role personal values and the perceived responsibil- of P-O value fit in light of findings that P-O ity to bring about change in one’s environ- value misfit promotes negative work attitudes ment are undoubtedly reasonable, peer or su- (e.g., uncertainty, alienation; Kristof-Brown & pervisor ratings of employees’ proactive behav- Guay, 2011) that are linked to a decrease of iors might have provided further insights into organizational citizenship behaviors (Fassina, the value-proactive behavior relationship. How- Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008). Due to the related ever, due to one subsample gained from an on- character of organizational citizenship behav- line panel, it was not possible to collect data iors and proactive behaviors, we expect that from the participants’ colleagues or supervi- proactive behaviors might also be negatively sors. More important, several of the proactive affected by P-O value incongruence. The ques- behaviors can only meaningfully be rated by tion is if there are differences between the four employees themselves. As Janssen (2001) ar- higher order categories of activities in terms of gued only the employee is capable of rank-

47 3 Study II – For You or for Me? ing certain innovation-related activities since & Collins, 2009), work engagement (Cooper- only he or she has comprehensive information Thomas, Paterson, Stadler, & Saks, 2014), ca- about the intention, history, context, and fur- reer satisfaction (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, ther background of his or her innovative work 2001), and reduce turnover intentions (Wan- behavior. Idea generation, for instance, is a cog- berg & Kammeyer-Müller, 2000). nitive process that supervisors or peers only become aware of when an employee promotes References his or her idea. Similarly, feedback monitor- Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proac- ing (i.e., observing the interaction between col- tive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of leagues and supervisors) is invisible to others. the information environment. Journal of Occu- In order to ensure the comparability of results, pational Psychology, 58 (1), 67–79. we decided to apply self-ratings for all eight Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, proactive behaviors. T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000). In sum, the present paper supports a more Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion parsimonious model of proactive behavior clas- and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occu- sification and provides novel insights into the pational and Organizational Psychology, 73 (3), role of personal values for the prediction of 265–285. proactive behaviors. Beyond this theoretical Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). impact, the present findings have some prac- Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci tical implications. Personnel selection and as- of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents sessment center measures should not only in- and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83 (2), 475–498. clude Big Five personality tests, but also measures of personal values. As Ones and Viswes- Bierhoff, H. W., Wegge, J., Bipp, T., Kleinbeck, varan (1998) reported in a literature review, U., Attig-Grabosch, C., & Schulz, S. (2005). En- social desirability does not negatively influence twicklung eines Fragebogens zur Messung von Eigenverantwortung oder: “Es gibt nichts Gutes, the validity of the Big Five personality dimen- außer man tut es”. [Development of a measure sions. By analogy, we expect personal value for responsibility]. Zeitschrift für Personalpsy- measures to be relatively unaffected by social chologie, 4 (1), 4–18. desirability. Knowing an applicant’s values al- Bindl, U., & Parker, S. (2010). Proactive work lows for a better decision if that applicant fits behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented with the organization’s values and which po- action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA sition might be best compatible with the ap- handbook of industrial and organizational psy- plicant’s attitudes. The same is true for the chology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing mem- existing workforce. Information about the em- bers for the organization (pp. 567–598). Wash- ployees’ personal values enable supervisors to ington, DC: American Psychological Associa- tion. match individual needs and job demands in such a way that proactive behaviors are more Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A situational judg- likely to be shown. Proactive behaviors, in ment test of personal initiative and its relationship to performance. Personnel Psychology, turn, further job performance (Grant, Parker, 62 (2), 229–258.

48 References

Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2006). The interplay of Management Journal, 39 (1), 37–63. boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., Relyea, C., and implications. Journal of Vocational Behav- & Frey, L. (2007). An exploratory examination ior, 69 (1), 4–18. of voice behavior from an impression manage- Chiaburu, D. S., Baker, V. L., & Pitariu, A. H. ment perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, (2006). Beyond being proactive: what (else) 19 (1), 134–151. matters for career self-management behav- Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven iors? Career Development International, 11 (7), by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proac- 619–632. tive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Paterson, N. L., Stadler, M. Behavior, 75 (3), 329–345. J., & Saks, A. M. (2014). The relative impor- Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2006). tance of proactive behaviors and outcomes for Promoting felt responsibility for constructive predicting newcomer learning, well-being, and change and proactive behavior: Exploring as- work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behav- pects of an elaborated model of work de- ior, 84 (3), 318–331. sign. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27 (8), Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organiza- 1089–1120. tions. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 435–462. Ghitulescu, B. E. (2013). Making change happen Declerck, C. H., & Bogaert, S. (2008). Social value the impact of work context on adaptive and orientation: related to empathy and the ability proactive behaviors. The Journal of Applied Be- to read the mind in the eyes. The Journal of havioral Science, 49 (2), 206–245. Social Psychology, 148 (6), 711–726. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynam- De Dreu, C. K., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest ics of proactivity at work. Research in Organi- and other-orientation in organizational behav- zational Behavior, 28, 3–34. ior: implications for job performance, prosocial Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Ap- of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic plied Psychology, 94 (4), 913–926. and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, Eiﬂer, S., & Seipel, C. (2001). Eine deutsche Version and creativity. Academy of Management Jour- einer Skala zur Erfassung von Self-Control. [A nal, 54 (1), 73–96. German version of a scale to assess self-control.] Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Get- England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of ting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor re- American managers. Academy of Management actions depend on what you value and how you Journal, 10 (1), 53–68. feel. Personnel Psychology, 62 (1), 31–55.

Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. Grant, A. M., & Rothbard, N. P. (2013). When in L. (2008). Meta-analytic tests of relationships doubt, seize the day? Security values, prosocial between organizational justice and citizenship values, and proactivity under ambiguity. Journal behavior: Testing agent-system and shared- of Applied Psychology, 98 (5), 810–819. variance models. Journal of Organizational Be- Griﬃn, M., Neal, A., & Parker, S. (2007). A new havior, 29 (6), 805-828. model of work role performance: Positive be- Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. havior in uncertain and interdependent con- (1996). Personal initiative at work: Diﬀerences texts. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2), between East and West Germany. Academy of 327–347.

49 3 Study II – For You or for Me?

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in justice as other-centered antecedents to innova- covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to un- tive citizenship behaviors within organizations. derparameterized model misspecification. Psy- Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (1), 84–94. chological Methods, 3 (4), 424–453. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Tak- Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). The changing ing charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initi- nature of performance: Implications for staffing, ate workplace change. Academy of Management motivation, and development. Frontiers of In- Journal, 42 (4), 403–419. dustrial and Organizational Psychology. San Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. of social desirability and faking on personality Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of and integrity assessment for personnel selection. effort?reward fairness and innovative work be- Human Performance, 11 (2-3), 245–269. haviour. Journal of Occupational and Organiza- Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship be- tional Psychology, 73 (3), 287–302. havior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Per- Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a mod- formance, 10 (2), 85–97. erator in the curvilinear relationships between Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). job demands, and job performance and job Making things happen: A model of proac- satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, tive motivation. Journal of Management 36 (4), 44 (5), 1039–1050. 827–856. Kristof-Brown, A., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Per- Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: son–environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Integrating and differentiating multiple proac- handbook of industrial and organizational psy- tive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36 (3), chology, Vol 3: Maintaining, expanding, and con- 633–662. tracting the organization (pp. 3–50). Washing- ton, DC: American Psychological Association Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. social psychology perspective on the causes of M. (2001). The impact of job satisfaction on organizational citizenship behavior. Human Per- turnover intent: a test of a structural measure- formance, 10 (2), 111–131. ment model using a national sample of workers. The Social Science Journal, 38 (2), 233–250. Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A moti- Lauermann, F., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Tak- vational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, ing teacher responsibility into account (ability): 86 (6), 1306–1314. Explicating its multiple components and theoretical status. Educational Psychologist, 46 (2), Sagiv, L., Sverdlik, N., & Schwarz, N. (2011). To 122–140. compete or to cooperate? Values’ impact on perception and action in social dilemma games. Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. J. (2015). Underlying European Journal of Social Psychology, 41 (1), motives of organizational citizenship behavior 64–77. comparing egoistic and altruistic motivations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Stud- Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects ies, 22 (2), 129–148. in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50 (4), 19–45. Moon, H., Kamdar, D., Mayer, D. M., & Takeuchi, R. (2008). Me or we? The role of personality and Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M.

50 References

(2001). A longitudinal model linking proactive ganizational Psychology, 83 (2), 275–300. personality and career success. Personnel Psy- Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up chology, 54 (4), 845–874. in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the Smeesters, D., Warlop, L., Van Avermaet, E., nomological net of work-related proactivity con- Corneille, O., & Yzerbyt, V. (2003). Do not cepts and their incremental validities. Applied prime hawks with doves: the interplay of con- Psychology, 62 (1), 44–96. struct activation and consistency of social value Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and orientation on cooperative behavior. Journal voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (5), and predictive validity. Academy of Management 972–987. Journal, 4 1(1), 108–119. Sturges, J., Guest, D., & Mac Davey, K. (2000). Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Moti- Who’s in charge? Graduates’ attitudes to and vated decision making: eﬀects of activation and experiences of career management and their re- self-centrality of values on choices and behav- lationship with organizational commitment. Eu- ior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psy- ogy, 82 (3), 434–447. chology, 9 (3), 351–370. Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: in the socialization process. Journal of Applied A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proac- Psychology, 85 (3), 373–385. tive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Or-

4 Study III

I’ve Got the Power: Psychological Empowerment Selectively Mediates the Relationship between Proactive Personality and Proactive Behaviors

Anne B. Janssen and Christian Stamov Roßnagel

Introduction

I’ve Got the Power Psychological Empowerment Selectively Mediates the Relationship between Proactive Personality and Proactive Behaviors

Anne B. Janssen and Christian Stamov Roßnagel Jacobs University Bremen, Germany

Abstract. The construct of proactive behaviors denotes a range of distinct work behaviors, which come with specific antecedents. To identify similarities and differences between those behaviors in terms of proactive personality and psychological empowerment, we applied an integrated model of other- and self-centered proactive behavior categories. A two-wave survey of 248 employees showed that proactive personality was positively related to both other-centered proactive behavior categories (proactive strategic behaviors and proactive work behaviors) and self-centered proactive behavior categories (proactive PE fit behaviors and proactive career behaviors). Effects were larger for other-centered behaviors. Psychological empowerment mediated this relationship, albeit only for other-centered proactive behaviors. There was no significant link between psychological empowerment and self-centered proactive behaviors. We discuss theoretical and practical implications.

Keywords: proactive behavior categories, proactive personality, psychological empowerment

Introduction

Proactivity, deﬁned as the “anticipatory ac- Informing approaches to foster proactivity, tions that employees take to impact them- considerable research has dealt with a va- selves and/or their environments” (Grant & riety of antecedents. On the organizational Ashford, 2008, p. 4) is of crucial relevance level, positive associations with proactivity to contemporary organizations, given its posi- have been found, for instance, for supervisor tive associations not only with job performance support (Scott & Bruce, 1994), job autonomy (Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009), but also with (Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006), and job con- job satisfaction (Barnett & Bradley, 2007) and trol (Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2006). On work-related wellbeing (Cooper-Thomas, Pa- the individual level, next to self-eﬃcacy (Frese, terson, Stadler, & Saks, 2014), and its neg- Teng, & Wijnen, 1999; Parker, Williams, & ative relationship with turnover (Wanberg & Turner, 2006), felt responsibility for change Kammeyer-Müller, 2000). (Janssen & Stamov Roßnagel, 2015; Tornau &

55 4 Study III – I’ve Got the Power

Frese, 2013), and organizational commitment havior (e.g., issue selling), proactive work be- (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Thomas, Whit- havior (e.g., innovative work behavior), proac- man, & Viswesvaran, 2010), proactive person- tive person-environment fit (PE fit) behav- ality (Crant, Kim, & Wang, 2011; Seibert, ior (e.g., job change negotiation), and proac- Kraimer, & Crant, 2001) has been established tive career behavior (e.g., career management). as a major predictor of proactive behaviors. Another classification approach distinguishes The present study explores the link between proactive behaviors according to their intended proactive personality and proactive behaviors target of impact such as the organization, the from a motivational perspective, which can team, or the individual (Belschak & Den Har- help understand if and how, in light of the wide tog, 2010; Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). Re- range of proactive behaviors, employees decide cently, Janssen and Stamov Roßnagel (2015) to engage in certain proactive behaviors, but integrated the two approaches and referred to not in others (see Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, Bindl & Parker’s (2010) categories of proac- 2010). To this end, building on research into tive strategic behaviors and proactive work be- mediators of the influence of proactive person- haviors as other-centered behaviors. Individuals ality, we studied psychological empowerment that proactively identify long-term opportuni- as a mediator. Our general tenet was that ties and threats for the company or come up empowerment would differentially predict self- with suggestions to improve production pro- centered and other-centered proactive behav- cesses primarily benefit the organization or the iors. team. On the other hand, individuals negotiat- In addition, we expanded the scope over ing their own work conditions and furthering earlier studies that focused on only one or the own career primarily benefit themselves. a few selected proactive behaviors from the Proactive PE fit behaviors and proactive ca- broad range of possible behaviors. As a more reer behaviors were therefore referred to as self- integrative approach, we built on classifica- centered proactive behaviors. tions of similarities and differences of the broad The present paper applies this integrated range of activities that are subsumed under model of self- and other-centered higher-order proactive behaviors. Crant (2000) was the first categories of proactive behaviors and aims to to classify behaviors according to their form identify specific direct and indirect effects of and type and distinguished general actions proactive personality and psychological em- (i.e., proactive behaviors that can be shown powerment on self- and other-centered proac- in diverse work-related situations; e.g., iden- tive behaviors (see Figure1). tifying opportunities to improve things) and context-specific behaviors (i.e., proactive be- Proactive Personality and Proactive haviors that occur in a limited domain; e.g., Behavior issue selling). A more comprehensive classi- (S)he is said to be proactive who is “rela- fication was suggested by Bindl and Parker tively unconstrained by situational forces, and (2010) who identified four higher-order behav- who effects environmental change” (Bateman ior categories, namely proactive strategic be- & Crant, 1993, p. 105). As a vital driver for

56 Introduction

H1 H5 Proactive strategic behaviors (T2) H5

H3 Proactive work behaviors (T2) Proactive Psychological H3 personality (T1) H2 empowerment (T1) Proactive PE fit H4 behaviors (T2) H4 Proactive career H5 behaviors (T2) H5 H1

Figure 1: Hypothesized mediation model for the relationship between proactive personality and self- and other- centered proactive behavior categories. employees’ proactive behaviors, proactive per- self-management (Chiaburu, Baker, & Pitariu, sonality is a relatively stable disposition re- 2006) are linked to proactive personality as lated to, but still distinct from the Big Five well. Even though researchers have consistently personality factors (Bateman & Crant, 1993). emphasized the importance of proactive per- Proactive employees are characterized by their sonality for all four proactive behavior cate- initiative to identify problems and opportu- gories, little is known which categories bene- nities, and to persist to bring about change fit most from proactive personality. Such in- rather than just passively adapt to the circum- sights would help to draw a more comprehen- stances. This proactive disposition predicts a sive picture of the personality-behavior rela- number of proactive behaviors across all four tionship. Given the structural differences of categories. Parker and Collins (2010) reported other-centered and self-centered proactive be- a positive link between proactive personality haviors, we assume differential effects for proac- and strategic scanning and issue selling, which tive personality on other-centered and self- count as proactive strategic behaviors. Fur- centered proactive behavior categories. There- ther, proactive work behaviors including voice fore, we predict (Crant et al., 2011), innovative work behav- Hypothesis 1 : Proactive personality is pos- ior (Parker et al., 2006), and taking charge itively related to proactive behaviors of all (Fuller & Marler, 2009) are also positively asso- four proactive behavior categories. Proactive ciated with proactive personality. Rather self- personality predicts other-centered (proactive centered proactive PE fit behaviors and proac- strategic and proactive work behaviors) and tive career behaviors represented by job change self-centered (proactive PE fit and proactive negotiation (Gruman & Saks, 2011) or career career behaviors) proactive behavior categories

57 4 Study III – I’ve Got the Power differently. in earlier research. Of particular interest in the present context The Mediation from Psychological is the role of psychological empowerment (PE). Empowerment Thomas and Velthouse (1990) defined PE as Complementing the work that establishes the increased intrinsic task motivation based on general personality-behavior link, research into employees’ orientation toward their work roles the mechanisms underlying that link is clearly in terms of meaning (i.e., the value of a work warranted. For one thing, in light of the wide goal relative to one’s own standards and ide- range of proactive behaviors, an employee may als), competence (i.e., one’s self-efficacy), self- decide to engage in certain proactive behav- determination (i.e., the degree of perceived au- iors, but not in others, depending on her or tonomy and choice over one’s work behaviors his proactive motivation state (see Parker et and processes), and impact (i.e., one’s feeling to al., 2010). Moreover, Chan (2006) cautioned be capable to influence and control work out- against direct interpretations of bivariate as- comes). Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason (1997) sociations between proactive personality and stated that the four PE dimensions “reflect work-related criteria. He found that proactive a proactive, rather than passive, orientation personality positively predicted work percep- to one’s work role” (p. 681) which empha- tions (e.g., procedural justice perceptions, per- sizes the relatedness of PE and proactive perceived organizational support) and work out- sonality. Proactive people are characterized by comes (e.g., job satisfaction and job perfor- their belief to be responsible and capable to mance) among employees with high situational bring about constructive change in their envi- judgment effectiveness but negatively in em- ronment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). What it ployees with low judgment effectiveness. Grant needs to turn one’s ideas into reality is the and colleagues (2009) showed that whether belief that one can “execute courses of action proactive behaviors (voice, issue selling, tak- required to deal with prospective situations” ing charge and helping) contribute to higher (Bandura, 1982, p. 122), i.e., self-efficacy. Fur- performance evaluations from supervisors de- thermore, referring to personal control theories, pends on whether employees express strong Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer (1999) posited prosocial values. Finally, Sun and van Em- that proactive individuals should be both more merik (2015) obtained evidence that proactive self-efficient and more self-determined. Empir- personality is positively associated with su- ical support was provided by Fuller and Mar- pervisor evaluations for employees with high ler’s (2009) meta-analysis on the antecedents political skill, but negatively for employees and outcomes of proactive personality. The au- low on that skill. As few mediators of the thors found both self-efficacy and autonomy proactive personality-proactive behavior rela- (which is similar to the PE-dimension of self- tionship, role breadth self-efficacy and flexible determination) to be positively predicted by role orientation (Parker et al., 2006), as well as proactive personality (see also Brown et al., job search self-efficacy (Brown, Cober, Kane, 2006). Seibert and colleagues (1999) suggested Levy, & Shalhoop, 2006) have been identified that proactive individuals tend to show more

58 Introduction effort to create work conditions and environ- in common that they aim to benefit someone ments that match their personal work values else than the individual self and can hence be and needs. Indeed, Gruman and Saks (2011) re- described as prosocial. Treating proactive be- ported that proactive employees engaged more haviors as another manifestation of extra-role in negotiating their job environments than performance, Janssen and Stamov Roßnagel rather passive colleagues. In the light of these (2015) identified more prosocial and more self- findings, we hypothesize that centered behaviors. They found employees’ mo- Hypothesis 2 : Proactive personality is posi- tivation as determined by PE to affect proso- tively related to PE. cial behaviors, suggesting a positive link of As we assume PE to work as a mediator of PE with other-centered proactivity. Similarly, the personality-behavior relationship, we now Peccei and Rosenthal (2001) reported a posi- focus on the link between PE and self-centered tive link between PE and prosocial customer- and other-centered proactive behaviors. Liter- oriented behavior in the service sector (see ature emphasizes the role of PE for a range of also Lee, Nam, Park, & Lee, 2006). In line work-related outcomes such as job performance with these findings, OCB and explicitly change- (Chiang & Hsieh, 2012), job satisfaction (Seib- oriented OCB also increase when employees ert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004), and organiza- describe themselves as psychologically empow- tional commitment (Joo & Shim, 2010). How- ered (Chiang & Hsieh, 2012; Choi, 2007). This ever, when it comes to behavioral outcomes, leads us to predict it seems that PE primarily furthers activities Hypothesis 3 : PE is positively related to the that benefit the communion rather than the other-centered proactive behaviors of strategic individual. This is especially true for extra- scanning, issue selling willingness, issue selling role behaviors which comprehend proactive be- credibility, taking charge, and innovative work haviors and organizational citizenship behav- behavior. ior (OCB). Extra-role behaviors refer to vol- On the other hand, self-centered proactive untary engagement in actions that go beyond behaviors such as the negotiation of a job the employee’s call of duty for the organization change or the aim to further one’s career might (Schaubroeck & Ganster, 1991). Schaubroeck be rather a result of a lack of empowerment and Ganster (1991) emphasized the prosocial or satisfaction (Ashford & Black, 1996). An character of extra-role behavior and defined employee’s felt need to positively change the extra-role prosocial organizational behavior as match between his/her abilities and work pref- a “behavior that is not a formal or informal erences and the actual work tasks will be likely aspect of the worker’s role but which in the to come along with reduced psychological em- aggregate promotes the organization’s goals” powerment. Proactive personalities, as a conse- (p. 569). OCB as one manifestation of extra- quence, will engage in specific proactive behav- role performance can be either directed towards iors to change this undesirable work situation. specific individuals or groups of the organi- We therefore hypothesize zation or towards the organization self (Ri- Hypothesis 4 : PE is negatively related to the oux & Penner, 2001). Both directions have self-centered proactive behaviors of job change

59 4 Study III – I’ve Got the Power negotiation, feedback monitoring, and career havior rated on 7-point Likert-type scales). self-management. Proactive personality and PE were measured at Given the assumption of a strong positive Time 1, whereas proactive behaviors were as- relationship between proactive personality and sessed at Time 2. Means, standard deviations, proactive behaviors, it is plausible that PE me- and reliabilities of all scales are reported in Ta- diates this relationship only partially. We ex- ble 1. pect that a mediated model still reveals a signif- Proactive personality. Proactive personality icant link between our predictor and the proac- was measured with a five-item short version tive outcome variables. Finally, we predict (Janssen, Schultze, & Grötsch, 2015) of Seib- Hypothesis 5 : PE partially mediates the re- ert et al.’s (1999) proactive personality scale. A lationship between proactive personality and sample item is “Wherever I have been, I have proactive behaviors. been a powerful force for constructive change”. Psychological empowerment. Participants re- Method sponded to the 12-item psychological empower- Sample and Procedure. In order to test the ment scale developed by Spreitzer (1995). The aforementioned hypotheses, we conducted a scale consists of four subscales with three items longitudinal study. N = 248 white-collar em- each. Subscales are meaning (“The work I do ployees from a broad range of occupational is meaningful to me”), competence (“I am self- fields participated voluntarily in a two-wave on- assured about my capabilities to perform my line survey. At Time 1, we measured proactive work activities”), self-determination (“I can de- personality, psychological empowerment, and cide on my own how to go about doing my control variables. Six weeks later, at Time 2, we work”), and impact (“I have a great deal of con- collected data on the four proactive behavior trol over what happens in my department”). categories. The six-week time period ensured Proactive strategic behavior. Proactive that motivational states did not affect proac- strategic behaviors were included as a latent tive behavior ratings directly during the survey. variable in the model with three scales as indi- Individuals were all participants of an online cators. First, strategic scanning (sample item panel and contacted online by the panel service “How frequently do you actively scan the en- provider. In total, N = 396 participants com- vironment to see what is happening might af- pleted the questionnaires at Time 1 and only fect your organization in the future?”); sec- they were invited to the Time 2 survey. The ond, issue-selling willingness scale (sample final longitudinal sample (N = 248) included item “How much energy would you be willing 58.5% females and 41.5% males. Age ranged to devote to selling this issue in your orga- from 16 to 65 years with a mean age of 45.5 nization?”); and third, issue-selling credibility years (SD = 10.47). (sample item “I have been successful in the past Materials. All measures were German trans- in selling issues in organizations”). All scales lations of the original versions and used self- were measured with three items each derived ratings on 5-point Likert-type response scales from Parker and Collins (2010). (proactive personality and innovative work be- Proactive work behavior. Again, we used a

60 Method latent variable for proactive work behavior that was characterized by two indicators. First, we measured taking charge with three items (Parker & Collins, 2010; sample item “How frequently do you try to bring about improved procedures in your workplace?”). Second, we assessed innovative work behavior with nine items (Janssen, 2000; sample item “During the

last 12 months, I mobilized support for innova- = 248). tive ideas”). N Proactive PE ﬁt behavior. The latent variable of proactive PE ﬁt behavior had two indicators, namely job change negotiation (sample item “To what extent do you negotiate with others (e.g., supervisor, coworkers) about desirable job changes?”) and feedback monitoring (e.g., “How frequently do you observe the characteristics of people who are rewarded by your supervisor and use this information?”) measured with three items each. Both scales were derived from Parker and Collins (2010). Proactive career behavior. Indicators of the latent proactive career behavior variable were four items of the four-dimensional career self-management scale developed by Sturges, Guest, and Mackenzie Davey’s (2000). A sample item is “I have built contacts with people

in areas where I would like to work”. M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Control variables. In the longitudinal analyses, we included control variables such as age, < .001.

gender, job tenure, and organizational tenure. p < .01. *** p < .05. ** Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of all employed scales (Cronbach’s alphas on diagonal; p 1.2. Proactive personality (T1)3. Psychological empowerment (T1)4. Strategic scanning 3.73 (T2)5. Issue 0.63 selling 3.38 willingness (T2)6. .37*** Issue 0.57 selling credibility (T2) (.89) 7. (.76) Taking charge (T2)8. 3.34 Innovative work 3.08 behavior (T2) 0.869. Job 0.84 3.33 change negotiation .30*** (T2)10. .41*** 0.83 Feedback monitoring 2.66 (T2) .31*** Career .28*** .41*** self-managementNote. 1.21 (T2) .46*** * (.86) .38*** .38*** 2.58 (.93) .42*** 3.33 .30*** 0.84 2.57 .46*** 0.84 2.80 .54*** .26*** 1.01 (.86) .36*** 0.89 .34*** .10 .37*** .28*** .13* .47*** .18** .51*** .54*** .33*** .05 .42*** .42*** (.96) .27*** .41*** .23*** .24*** (.86) .23*** .31*** .36*** .25*** .37*** .43*** .17** .49*** (.80) .37*** .34*** .27*** .30*** (.80) .46*** (.84) Table 1:

61 4 Study III – I’ve Got the Power

Results work behavior: β = .35, p < .001), proactive Before testing our hypothesized mediated PE fit behaviors (job change negotiation: β = regression model, we assessed the postulated .26, p < .001; feedback monitoring: β = .16, p four-factor model of proactive behaviors and < .05), and proactive career behaviors (career the distinctiveness of the eight proactive ac- self-management: β = .34, p < .001). These tivities. Therefore, we conducted a CFA with findings support our Hypothesis 1. Addition- eight latent factors indicated by the items of ally, we were interested in differential effects the eight dependent scales, respectively. A good of proactive personality on other-centered and model fit (χ2(df) = 719.50(406), p = 0.00, CFI self-centered proactive behaviors. For this pur- = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = pose, we conducted a separate SEM analysis 0.04) confirmed the assumption that the eight with four latent outcome variables represent- proactive behaviors are distinct from one an- ing the four proactive behavior categories. Re- other. A CFA testing the four-factor model also sults of this analysis are reported in Table3 and revealed a good model fit (χ2(df) = 83.87(38), show that proactive personalities engage more p = 0.00, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA in other-centered than in self-centered proac- = 0.05, SRMR = 0.03) and hence supported tive behaviors. The regression coefficients for a higher-order structure of proactive behav- proactive work behaviors (β = .46; CI 0.34- iors with four categories. In large samples, chi- 0.59) and proactive PE fit behaviors (β = .32) square tends to be significant due to its sample differed significantly. size sensitivity. This seems to be the case in the Furthermore, proactive personality was pos- present study. Hu and Bentler (1998) therefore itively linked to PE (β = .36, p < .001) which recommend to rather interpret model fit indices is in line with Hypothesis 2. We found PE at that are unaffected by sample size such as CFI, Time 1 to positively predict proactive strategic TLI, or RMSEA. These values indicate a good behaviors (strategic scanning: β = .16, p < .01; model fit for the present data. issue selling willingness: β = .24, p < .001; is- The four hypotheses were tested by using sue selling credibility: β = .26, p < .001) and structural equation modeling with eight out- proactive work behaviors (taking charge: β = come variables for the eight proactive behav- .17, p < .01; innovative work behavior: β = .18, iors. The hypothesized model fitted the data p < .01) at Time 2 as stated in Hypothesis 3. perfectly (χ2(df) = 2.28(4), p = 0.68, CFI = In Hypothesis 4, we predicted that PE mea- 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = sured at Time 1 would be negatively related to 0.01). All regression coefficients of the tested other-centered proactive behaviors at Time 2. mediation model are reported in Table 2. However, PE was unrelated to proactive PE fit Proactive personality was positively related to behaviors (job change negotiation: β = .2, n.s.; proactive strategic behaviors (strategic scan- feedback monitoring: β = .02, n.s.) and proac- ning: β = .35, p < .001; issue selling willing- tive career behaviors (career self-management: ness: β = .18, p < .01; issue selling credibility: β = .03, n.s.). Hence, this fourth hypothesis β = .29, p < .001), proactive work behaviors was rejected. (taking charge: β = .34, p < .001; innovative

62 Results *** 34 09 03 . . . 0 Career behaviors self-management Proactive career * 16 0201 0 0 . . . 0 Feedback monitoring behaviors *** 01 0 26 02 0 . . . Proactive PE fit 0 0 0 Job change negotiation *** ** ** 18 07 35 . . . 0 0 0 work behavior Innovative behaviors *** ** ** 34 17 06 Proactive work . . . 0 0 0 charge Taking *** *** *** 29 26 09 . . . 0 0 0 Issue selling credibility *** ** ** 18 24 09 . . . 0 0 0 Issue Other-centered proactive behaviors Self-centered proactive behaviors selling behaviors willingness Proactive stratigic *** ** * 35 16 06 β β β β β β β β < .001. Controlled for age, gender, job tenure, and organizational tenure. . . . 0 0 0 p Stategic scanning < .01. *** p < .05. ** Direct and indirect effects of proactive personality and psychological empowerment on eight proactive behaviors. p Proactive personality Psych. empowerment Proactive pers. via PE Variable Direct effects Note. * Indirect effects Table 2:

63 4 Study III – I’ve Got the Power

Finally, Hypothesis 5 assumed that PE par- When adding PE to the model in Step 3 (β tially mediates the relationship between proac- = .22, p < .001, F-change = 12.76, p < .001), tive personality and proactive behaviors. To the regression coefficient of proactive personal- test for mediation effects, according to Baron ity decreased (β = .33, p < .001). However, the and Kenny (1986), three conditions have to relationship between independent variable and be met. First, the independent variable has proactive work behaviors was still significant. to be linked to the mediating variable (con- Thus, PE partially mediated this link. dition fulfilled, see Hypothesis 2). Second, the independent variable has to be associated with Discussion the proactive outcome variables (condition ful- We sought to identify specific conditions of filled, see Hypothesis 1). Third, the mediators other-centered and self-centered behaviors. We have to be related to the dependent variables. answered the question which role PE plays for This condition was only fulfilled for other- the relationship between proactive personality centered proactive behaviors (see Hypothesis and four proactive behaviors categories. Our 3). To test for the indirect effect, we applied data indicate that proactive personality is a stepwise regression analyses with proactive significant predictor of a broad range of activ- strategic behaviors (composite scores) and with ities that aim to bring about positive change proactive work behaviors (composite scores), in the workplace. While this general finding is respectively, as dependent variables and enter- in line with extant research (e.g., Chiaburu et ing as control variables age, gender, and or- al., 2006; Fuller & Marler, 2009; Parker et al., ganizational and job tenure in Step 1, proac- 2006), we went beyond the scope of previous tive personality in Step 2, and PE in Step 3. studies by testing the effect of proactive per- The control variables of Step 1 explained 5% sonality on four proactive behavior categories (F-change = 3.50, p < .01) of the proactive in one model. This allows us to rank-order strategic behaviors variance. In Step 2, super- which proactive behaviors benefit most from visor support predicted proactive strategic be- proactive personalities. The data show that haviors (β = .44, p < .001, F-change = 60.86, employees characterized as proactive personal- p < .001). When entering PE in the model in ities tend to engage more in other-centered and Step 3 (F-change = 23.36, p < .001), the rela- thus prosocial proactive behaviors than in self- tionship between independent and dependent centered behaviors. One explanation drawing variable decreased, even though proactive per- on Vroom’s expectancy theory (1964) would sonality was still significantly related to proac- be the expected reward. Engaging in voice be- tive strategic behaviors (β = .34, p < .05). havior or issue selling will lead to a more or This indicated a partial mediation of PE. Sim- less immediate response by supervisors or col- ilar results emerged for proactive work behav- leagues. Thus, in the best case, the employee iors. Control variables explained 3% of individ- that speaks out might receive positive short- ual differences. Proactive personality alone was term feedback from various persons. Planning strongly related to proactive work behaviors (β one’s career or building network will rather = .42, p < .001, F-change = 50.49, p < .001). come along with long-term rewards. We hence

64 Discussion

Table 3: Mediation eﬀects of psychological empowerment on four proactive behavior

Other-centered proactive behaviors Self-centered proactive behaviors Proactive Proactive work Proactive PE fit Proactive career stratigic behaviors behaviors behaviors behaviors Variable β β β β Direct effects Proactive personality 0.43*** 0.46*** 0.32** 0.37** Psych. empowerment 0.32*** 0.24*** 0.03 0.11 Indirect effects Proactive pers. via PE 0.12** 0.09* 0.01 0.04 Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Controlled for age, gender, job tenure, and organizational tenure. recommend future studies to account for po- haviors needs to be considered in data collec- tential influences of perceived rewards of other- tion and model analysis. Instead, assessing only centered and self-centered proactive behaviors. one exemplar of each of the four categories al- Furthermore, we contributed to establishing lows for time and cost-saving surveys that still the higher order structure with four categories yield comprehensive information. of proactive behaviors as suggested by Bindl Distinguishing the four behavior categories is and Parker (2010). In contrast to Parker and of course highly relevant from a practical stand- Collins (2010) who found proactive PE fit be- point, given the differential relationships with haviors and proactive career behaviors to load empowerment. On the one hand, the present on one single factor, our data fitted best with study suggests that the likelihood to show a four-factor model assuming two distinct fac- other-centered proactive behaviors can be in- tors for PE fit and career behaviors. Whereas creased by boosting employees’ perception of employees engaging in PE fit behaviors focus being psychologically empowered. An empow- on improving the conditions and circumstances ering leadership and empowering work envi- of their current job and job tasks, individuals ronment including access to information, high showing proactive career behaviors intend to sociopolitical support, and a participative cli- further their career beyond the specific posi- mate will lead to higher values of PE (Spre- tion. However, both categories have in common itzer, 1996) and these in turn positively affect that they primarily aim to benefit the individ- other-centered proactive behaviors that bene- ual. Such a classification of proactive behav- fit the organization and its staff. More effort in iors has both theoretical and practical implica- enhancing employees’ PE is therefore recom- tions. Due to similar characteristics of activi- mended. Furthermore, training programs aim- ties within a behavior category, it is likely that ing to further self-efficacy and proactive think- such activities share specific antecedents and ing might lead to more proactive behavior in outcomes. This in turn can make research more general. As reported by Kirby, Kirby, and Lewis parsimonious as not each of the category’s be- (2002), students’ performance can be increased

65 4 Study III – I’ve Got the Power by a training in proactive thinking skills. It is the attractiveness of self-centered and other- plausible that the personal belief to be able to centered proactive behaviors. Whereas proac- show initiative to bring about change will also tive strategic and proactive work behaviors will result in more self-initiated activities. On the result in outcomes benefiting the organization other hand, in light of the null relationship be- and/or the team, proactive PE fit and proac- tween empowerment and self-centered behav- tive career behaviors will lead to improved work iors, personnel development measures aimed at conditions for the individual. The attractive- empowerment might fail to promote employees’ ness is hence likely to be determined by per- motivation to address needs for task changes or sonal values. It is plausible that prosocial in- career development. dividuals perceive their action more valuable if Those new insights into the differential role others benefit from their engagement. On the of PE for proactive behaviors are the present other hand, self-centered people are expected study’s major contribution. Obviously, em- to gain more satisfaction from proactive be- ployee motivation as expressed by being psy- haviors that shape their personal work envi- chologically empowered does not predict all ronment. Following the present empirical find- four proactive behavior categories to the same ings, the perceived attractiveness only seems extent. Whereas PE positively influences the to be high enough for other-centered proactive likelihood to engage in other-centered proac- behaviors, whereas the affective orientation of tive behaviors, it has no impact on self-centered self-centered proactive behaviors does not ex- proactive behaviors. ceed the threshold to actually engage in the This suggests that fostering self-centered be- proactive behavior. This might change when haviors requires additional motivators, which considering personal values as a moderator of future research might address. Expectancy the- the PE-behavior relationship. We encourage fu- ory (Vroom, 1964) might be helpful in this re- ture research to test for potential moderating gard. In that perspective, an individual is likely effects. to engage in a certain behavior if two conditions are fulfilled. First, the individual must Limitations believe to be capable of a certain behavior (ex- All variables that were considered in the pectancy), and second, the anticipated conse- present study are based on employees’ self- quences must be attractive to the individual ratings. Some proactive behaviors are visible (attractiveness). Applying this to the present to others and can therefore also be rated by model, high values on PE indicate that employ- supervisors or peers such as voice (LePine & ees perceive themselves as self-efficient and able van Dyne, 1998) or taking charge (Sonnentag & to shape their environment. Thus, highly em- Spychala, 2012), whereas other forms of proac- powered individuals are likely to expect them- tive behaviors are rather cognitive and less vis- selves to achieve a certain result from an action. ible such as idea generation (Janssen, 2001) or In order to approach differences in the out- feedback monitoring (Parker & Collins, 2010). comes of PE, the second condition of Vroom’s We decided not to change the rater across the theory is crucial. There might be differences in eight proactive behaviors and only applied self-

66 References ratings. tional Behavior, 14 (2), 103–118.

Another limitation is the number of measure- Belschak, F. D., & Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, ment points. We measured the predictor and prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proac- the mediating variable at Time 1 and the out- tive behaviour: Differential antecedents and con- come variables at time 2. A more sophisticated sequences. Journal of Occupational and Organi- way would have been to measure the compo- zational Psychology, 83 (2), 475–498. nents of the path model one at a time with Bindl, U., & Parker, S. (2010). Proactive work three occasions in total. However, in order to behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented reduce costs and avoid drop outs, we decided to action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA use two time points. Since proactive personality handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing mem- is widely accepted to be a relatively time sta- bers for the organization (pp. 567–598). Wash- ble individual disposition (Seibert et al., 2001), ington, DC: American Psychological Associa- we did not expect the link between proactive tion. personality and PE to change over time. Thus, Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & measuring proactive personality and PE at the Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and same time point should not cause any prob- the successful job search: A field investigation lems for regression. More likely to be affected with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psy- by situational forces and hence changing over chology, 91 (3), 717–726. time is the link between employees’ feeling of Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational being psychologically empowered and proactive judgment effectiveness and proactive personality behavior. Here, different occasions for the mea- on work perceptions and work outcomes. Jour- surement of PE and proactive behaviors allow nal of Applied Psychology, 91 (2), 475–481. to draw more precise conclusions. Chiaburu, D. S., Baker, V. L., & Pitariu, A. H. (2006). Beyond being proactive: what (else) References matters for career self-management behaviors? Career Development International, 11 (7), Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactiv- 619–632. ity during organizational entry: The role of de- Chiang, C. F., & Hsieh, T. S. (2012). The impacts sire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, of perceived organizational support and psycho- 81 (2), 199–214. logical empowerment on job performance: The Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in mediating effects of organizational citizenship human agency. American Psychologist, 37 (2), behavior. International Journal of Hospitality 122–147. Management, 31 (1), 180–190.

Barnett, B. R., & Bradley, L. (2007). The impact Choi, J. N. (2007). Change-oriented organizational of organizational support for career development citizenship behavior: Eﬀects of work environ- on career satisfaction. Career Development In- ment characteristics and intervening psycholog- ternational, 12 (7), 617–636. ical processes. Journal of Organizational Behav- Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proac- ior, 28 (4), 467–484. tive component of organizational behavior: A Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Paterson, N. L., Stadler, M. measure and correlates. Journal of Organiza- J., & Saks, A. M. (2014). The relative impor-

67 4 Study III – I’ve Got the Power

tance of proactive behaviors and outcomes for covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to un- predicting newcomer learning, well-being, and derparameterized model misspecification. Psy- work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behav- chological Methods, 3 (4), 424–453. ior, 84 (3), 318–331. Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a mod- Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organiza- erator in the curvilinear relationships between tions. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 435–462. job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, Crant, J. M., Kim, T. Y., & Wang, J. (2011). Dispo- 44 (5), 1039–1050. sitional antecedents of demonstration and usefulness of voice behavior. Journal of Business Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of and Psychology, 26 (3), 285–297. effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organiza- Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. (1999). Help- tional Psychology, 73 (3), 287–302. ing to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Or- Janssen, A. B., Schultze, M., & Grötsch, A. (2015). ganizational Behavior, 20 (7), 1139–1155. Following the ants: Development of short scales for proactive personality and supervisor support Fuller, J. B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by Ant Colony Optimization. European Journal by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proac- of Psychological Assessment, in press. tive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75 (3), 329–345. Janssen, A. B., & Stamov Roßnagel, C. (2015). For you or for me? Distinguishing self-centered from Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2006). other-centered proactive behaviors. Paper pre- Promoting felt responsibility for constructive sented at the 17th congress of the European As- change and proactive behavior: Exploring association of Work and Organizational Psychol- pects of an elaborated model of work de- ogy, Oslo, Norway. sign. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27 (8), 1089–1120. Joo, B. K., & Shim, J. H. (2010). Psychological empowerment and organizational commitment: Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynam- the moderating effect of organizational learning ics of proactivity at work. Research in Organi- culture. Human Resource Development Interna- zational Behavior, 28, 3–34. tional, 13(4), 425–441. Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Get- Kirby, E. G., Kirby, S. L., & Lewis, M. A. (2002). A ting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor re- Study of the effectiveness of training proactive actions depend on what you value and how you thinking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, feel. Personnel Psychology, 62 (1), 31–55. 32 (7), 1538–1549. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). Lee, Y. K., Nam, J. H., Park, D. H., & Ah Lee, A new model of work role performance: Positive K. (2006). What factors influence customer- behavior in uncertain and interdependent con- oriented prosocial behavior of customer-contact texts. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2), employees? Journal of Services Marketing, 327–347. 20 (4), 251–264. Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Socialization LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting preferences and intentions: Does one size fit all? voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Ap- Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79 (2), 419–427. plied Psychology, 83 (6), 853–868. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Rou-

68 References

tinization, work characteristics and their rela- Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. tionships with creative and proactive behav- (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: iors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27 (3), A multiple-level model of empowerment, perfor- 257–279. mance, and satisfaction. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 47 (3), 332–349. Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proac- Sonnentag, S., & Spychala, A. (2012). Job control tive motivation. Journal of Management 36 (4), and job stressors as predictors of proactive work 827–856. behavior: Is role breadth self-eﬃcacy the link? Human Performance, 25 (5), 412–431. Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and diﬀerentiating multiple proac- Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural character- tive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36 (3), istics of psychological empowerment. Academy 633–662. of Management Journal, 39 (2), 483–504.

Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empower- Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior ment in the workplace: Dimensions, measure- at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3), ment, and validation. Academy of Management 636–652. Journal, 38 (5), 1442–1465.

Peccei, R., & Rosenthal, P. (2001). Delivering Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. customer-oriented behaviour through empow- (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relation- erment: An empirical test of HRM assump- ship between psychological empowerment and tions. Journal of Management Studies, 38 (6), eﬀectiveness satisfaction, and strain. Journal of 831–857. Management, 23 (5), 679–704.

Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes Sturges, J., Guest, D., & Mackenzie Davey, K. of organizational citizenship behavior: a motiva- (2000). Who’s in charge? Graduates’ attitudes tional analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, to and experiences of career management and 86 (6), 1306–1314. their relationship with organizational commitment. European Journal of Work and Organiza- Schaubroeck, J., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). Beyond tional Psychology, 9 (3), 351–370. the call of duty: A ﬁeld study of extra-role behavior in voluntary organizations. Human Rela- Sun, S., & van Emmerik, H. I. (2015). Are proactive tions, 44 (6), 569–582. personalities always beneﬁcial? Political skill as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants 100 (3), 966–975. of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Management Journal, 37 (3), 580–607. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “in- terpretive” model of intrinsic task motiva- Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. tion. Academy of Management Review, 15 (4), (1999). Proactive personality and career success. 666–681. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (3), 416–427. Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: (2001). A longitudinal model linking proactive A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proac- personality and career success. Personnel Psy- tive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Or- chology, 54 (4), 845–874. ganizational Psychology, 83 (2), 275–300.

69 4 Study III – I’ve Got the Power

Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up England: Wiley. in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Müller, J. D. (2000). nomological net of work-related proactivity con- Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the so- cepts and their incremental validities. Applied cialization process. Journal of Applied Psychol- Psychology, 62 (1), 44–96. ogy, 85 (3), 373–385. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford,

70 5 General Discussion

Modern western careers are characterized by rapid changes in work tasks, processes, team structures, and include more job changes than in earlier generations (Eurofound, 2012). Proac- tive behavior has been shown to be an effective way to react to these demands and challenges, to reduce turnover intentions (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Müller, 2000) and enhance job satisfaction (Ng & Feldman, 2012). Previous research has focused on antecedents of various proactive behaviors. Whereas some individual factors such as a proactive personality were found to positively influence a wide range of proactive activities, other variables including personal values and motivational states turned out to affect only specific proactive behaviors. This might be due to structural similarities and differences that delineate several classes of proactive behaviors. Therefore, in the present thesis, I suggested an integrated model of behavior classification and provided more insights into such similarities and differences. Chapter2 addressed a fundamen- tal requirement of empirical research, namely reliable measurement instruments. Applying Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), we developed short forms of a supervisor support scale and a proactive personality scale. In Chapter3, we suggested and empirically tested an integrated model of proactive behavior categories and examined the role of personal values for these behavior categories. Finally, in Chapter4, we investigated the relationship between proactive personality and proactive behavior categories and its underlying motivational processes in a longitudinal design.

Review of the Findings

The scale short form development in Chapter2 aimed to demonstrate the beneﬁts and shortcomings of an innovative ACO (Leite et al., 2008) item selection approach that selects items iteratively based on an algorithm with previously deﬁned item selection criteria. For the purpose of comparison, we additionally developed short scales manually, following commonly used selection criteria (Rammstedt & Beierlein, 2014). Results indicated that ACO can be fruitfully used to develop short forms of complex and large original scales. Whereas the manual short version of the two-dimensional supervisor support scale lacked validity in the validation sample, the ACO short scale was valid and its psychometric properties were in line with those of the original scale. On the other hand, ACO did not outperform manual item selection when reducing a unidimensional and relatively short original scale such as the proactive personality scale with ten items. Here, both short forms showed a slight loss of validity when predicting the external criterion

71 5 General Discussion of innovative work behavior in the validation sample. However, in congruence with the parent proactive personality form, both short forms emerged to highly significantly predict innovative work behavior. Thus, Chapter2 provides usable ACO short scales for supervisor support and proactive personality. The second study, reported in Chapter3, showed that proactive behaviors cannot only be distinguished according to their form and type (Bindl & Parker, 2010) or to their intended target of impact (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010) but simultaneously according to both. An integrated model assumes that the categories of proactive strategic behaviors and proactive work behaviors primarily benefit the organization or the team and are therefore referred to as other-centered proactive behavior categories. On the other hand, proactive PE fit behaviors and proactive career behaviors primarily aim to improve the individual’s work situation and are therefore referred to as self-centered proactive behavior categories. An empirical test of this model supported the assumption of four distinct behavior categories and structural differences across these categories. Controlling for an individual’s general motivation to behave proactively assessed through the felt responsibility for change, personal values emerged to be differently associated with the four proactive behavior categories. Whereas other-centered personal values were positively linked to all behavior categories, self-centered values predicted proactive PE fit and career behaviors, but were unrelated to all proactive strategic and work behaviors except innovative work behavior. As discussed in Chapter3, other-centered values predicted self-centered behaviors only as long as self-centered behavior items included a social interaction component. To sum up, the study demonstrated that personal values co-determine which proactive behavior an employee is likely to engage in. This, in turn has significant practical implications as discussed in Chapter3. Based on these insights, the third study intended to further examine similarities and differences in antecedents of the four proactive behavior categories. Previous literature consistently reported a positive relationship between proactive personality and a wide range of proactive behaviors. This led us to assume a positive effect of proactive personality on all four proactive behavior categories. Underlying motivational processes, however, seemed different across proactive behaviors. We adopted a psychological empowerment perspective including diverse motivational facets similar to self-efficacy or locus of control. This allowed us to detect differences in the role of motivation for predicting proactive behaviors. In a longitudinal study, we investigated how psychological empowerment mediates the positive relationship between proactive personality and proactive behaviors. Three main findings emerged. First, data again confirmed the four-factor structure of proactive behaviors. Second, proactive personality was found to be a positive predictor for all proactive behaviors of the four behavior categories. And third, a mediation effect of psychological empowerment only occurred for specific proactive behaviors, namely other-centered behaviors. This study hence confirmed differences between other-centered and self-centered proactive behaviors. Psychological empowerment emerged to be positively related to proactive strategic behaviors and proactive work behaviors, however unrelated to proactive PE fit behaviors and proactive career behaviors. These results indicate that proactive individuals

72 New Insights into Antecedents of Proactive Behaviors who perceive themselves as psychologically empowered tend to rather engage in other-centered proactive behaviors than in proactive behaviors that primarily aim to beneﬁt the person herself/himself. The following section discusses how the ﬁndings from the thesis contribute to the literature.

New Insights into Antecedents of Proactive Behaviors

A major aim of this thesis was to identify similarities and differences in the antecedents to the four proactive behavior categories. A crucial prerequisite of such an investigation was the confirmation of the factor structure of proactive behaviors. Two studies with independent samples confirmed the hypothesized four factors and hence four distinct proactive behavior categories. This finding supports Bindl and Parker’s (2010) model of individual-level proactive behavior that had hitherto been largely unexplored empirically. Based on this distinction of behaviors, it was possible to bridge the gap in the literature regarding the link between personal values and proactive behaviors. As demonstrated in this thesis, personal values play a significant and differential role for explaining of differences in proactive behaviors. Previous studies emphasized the link between values and OCB (e.g., Lem- mon & Wayne, 2015). The present thesis is the first to apply such a value perspective on a wide range of proactive behaviors. And results indicated that the meaning of values goes beyond a general tendency to feel responsible for change in one’s environment. Thus, the study reported in Chapter3 extends Parker and Collins’ (2010) findings in terms of reason to motivation for predicting individual differences in proactive behaviors. Significant contributions to the literature also emerge from the third study. For the first time, a study examined the mediating effect of various motivational aspects, integrated in the construct of psychological empowerment, on the proactive personality-behavior relationship. Extending the knowledge of this relationship (e.g., Fuller & Marler, 2009), results indicate that proactive individuals are more likely to bring about change for their team and organization than for their own work environment and conditions. Furthermore, psychologically empowered employees use this motivation to engage in other-centered proactive behaviors, whereas self- centered behaviors seem to require different triggers. Thus, there is evidence that motivation affects other-centered and self-centered proactive behaviors differently, which has significant implications for theory and practice as discussed in Chapter4.

Future Research: Where Will the Journey Go?

As many other studies, the present thesis also comes along with some limitations. Even though every researcher aims to minimize the limitations of his/her studies, they always include the chance for future research and improvements. Beginning with the ﬁrst study which addressed a quite technical area of psychological research, three major limitations must be mentioned.

73 5 General Discussion

First, we applied the ACO item selection approach to two scales that did not demonstrate the benefits of ACO to their full extent. Even though ACO outperformed manual item selection in the case of the supervisor support scale, the advantages of ACO would have been even more obvious when reducing an original scale with more than two subscales. It is hence a major recommendation for future research to apply ACO on more complex and larger original scales. Second, we conducted a validation study using an employee sample from the same industry sector as the original sample. Aiming to develop short forms with a wide range of validity, a validation sample from another sector would have provided more details about the validity of the ACO short forms. Consequently, future studies should consider using employee samples from different sectors validating their short scales. Third, we chose innovative work behavior as the external criterion. This might be problematic due to its inconsistent relationship with supervisor support. Some studies reported a positive link between supervisor support and innovative work behavior (Axtell et al., 2000), others did not find a significant relationship (Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2006). Hence, potential differences in the prediction of innovative work behavior by a supervisor support original and short scale, respectively, in independent samples could have been explained by both a lack of validity or sample-specific relationship between the two variables. However, given the application-oriented industry project with certain defaults in terms of assessed variables, we did not have the chance to choose another external criterion with a more consistent link to supervisor support. Finally, I would like to encourage researchers to modify and test the ACO algorithm such that anchor items are defined that necessarily have to be included in the new short form, or correlations with external criteria are included in the algorithm. More real-life data experience with the ACO approach is required to evaluate its benefits compared to classical item selection procedures. As discussed in Chapter3, the second study also has some limitations such as the cross- sectional design and the application of self-ratings only. However, as argued, there is good reason to assume that the employed predictor variables (personal values and felt responsibility for change) are relatively time-stable (Bierhoff et al., 2005) and will thus stably predict proactive behaviors. Still, in order to confirm the present results, I encourage future research to conduct a longitudinal study to investigate the value-behavior relationship. Following previous studies (e.g., Grant & Rothbard, 2013), we employed other-centered values and its complementary domain self-centered values as antecedents of proactive behaviors. Furthermore, since we aimed to distinguish between other-centered and self-centered proactive behaviors, it was plausible to measure other-centered and self-centered personal values as predictors. From a general value perspective, this might be criticized. Bardi and Schwartz (2003) found that these two value domains are only moderately correlated with domain-specific behaviors. The authors correlated each value domain with behaviors that are supposed to represent the value domain respectively. Self-ratings indicated a value-behavior correlation of r = .50 for self- direction and r = .52 for benevolence (similar to other-centered values). When the participants’

74 Future Research: Where Will the Journey Go? partners were asked to rate the behaviors, the link was weaker with r = .44 for self-direction and r = .26 for benevolence. Correlations were even weaker when using peer-ratings (r = .18 for self- direction; r = .13 for benevolence). In contrast, the value-behavior correlation for the tradition domain was r = .76 for self-ratings, r = .64 for partner-ratings, and still r = .28 for peer-ratings. Thus, the question arises whether other value domains are able to predict proactive behaviors more validly. Further research is needed to identify value domains that predict other-centered and self-centered proactive behavior categories differently. The achievement domain could plau- sibly have a stronger effect on self-centered than on other-centered proactive behaviors (Moon et al., 2008). Due to its social character, the universalism domain could be expected to positively affect other-centered proactive behaviors. Further research could bring more insights into the value-behavior relationship, which would in turn have important practical implications in terms of personnel selection and allocation of work tasks. Moreover, other-centered personal values as measured in our study did not manage to clearly differentiate between other- and self-centered behaviors. As discussed in Chapter3, this might have been due to the character of behavior items. Self-centered behavior items often described situations of social interaction with colleagues or leadership. Hence, prosocial skills such as empathy and perspective taking as assessed with other-centered values were likely to positively affect self-centered behaviors. Future research could follow two directions: First, it could develop self-centered proactive behavior scales that do not explicitly require social competence. Second, in a more naturalistic and practice-oriented direction, it could investigate potential in- fluencing variables of the value-behavior relationship. Controlling for perspective-taking could result in a more selective prediction of other- and self-centered behaviors by personal values. Further research should also consider moderators of the value-behavior relationship. Con- sistent with Bardi and Schwartz’s (2003) note that values are not the only explanation of behavior differences, considering contextual factors warrants a more extensive treatment. Contextual factors such as leadership (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009) or work characteristics (Ohly et al., 2006) are known as predictors of proactive behavior. Grant and Rothbard (2013), for instance, recently reported that personal values were not associated with proactivity when ambiguity with respect to work methods, performance criteria, and scheduling was low. When ambiguity was high, prosocial values predicted higher proactive behavior. Hence, more research is needed on moderating effects of environmental factors. In other words, values might be in synergistic interaction with external work conditions. Hence, the role of values can only be fully understood by further research that includes both values and contextual variables as predictors of proactive behaviors. Finally, in addition to the value approach that I applied for explaining behavior differences, the P-O value congruence approach seems promising. As elaborated in Chapter1, P-O fit positively affects work-related outcomes such as performance (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006) or satisfaction (Bretz & Judge, 1994). Another outcome that benefits from P-O value congruence is organizational commitment (Amos & Weathington, 2008; Verquer et al., 2003). Even though

75 5 General Discussion organizational commitment and proactive strategic and proactive work behaviors are distinct (Parker et al., 2006), they have something in common which can be named social engagement. As defined by Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982), organizational commitment is “a strong belief in the organization’s goals and values, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to remain a member of the organization”. Here, the focus is on the emphasis to create and maintain a match between personal and organizational goals and values. Employees engaging in proactive strategic behaviors and proactive work behaviors aim to bring about change in the internal organizational environment or its fit with the external environment. Prosocial individuals further benefit from a cooperative organizational climate which enhances their organizational commitment (Bogaert, Boone, & van Witteloostuijn, 2012). Value congruence produces such a cooperative climate and makes employees more capable to interact with people standing for the same or similar values, which in turn leads to positive work attitudes including job satisfaction and commitment. On the other hand, value incongruence produces negative work attitudes such as alienation and uncertainty (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011) and a decrease of organization-based self-esteem (Naus, van Iterson, & Roe, 2007). These negative attitudes are known to reduce the likelihood to show organizational citizenship behaviors (Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008). In sum, differential effects of P-O value in/congruence on other-centered and self-centered proactive behaviors are worth being investigated in further studies. The third study used a longitudinal design to allow for an investigation of the motivation- proactive behavior relationship over time and for more precise conclusions. However, there is still a limitation that was discussed in Chapter4. We had proactive personality and psychological empowerment assessed at Time 1, and eight proactive behaviors at Time 2. The model assumed psychological empowerment to mediate the relationship between personality and behavior. It would hence have been more sophisticated to have empowerment measured at a separate time point. However, we were interested in the relationship between motivation and behavior over time and less in the personality-motivation link. We did not expect proactive personality to change over time, so assessing personality and empowerment at different time points was not necessary. Our findings of a positive relationship between proactive personality and all proactive behaviors were in line with the literature. Results on the mediation of psychological empowerment, however, make significant contributions to the literature and entail future research questions. In their model of individual-level proactive behavior, Bindl and Parker (2010) emphasize the mediating role of motivational processes for the personality-behavior relationship. This thesis specified which behavior categories are impacted by empowerment. Data indicated that psychological empowerment mediates the link between personality and other-centered proactive behaviors. This supports previous findings on self-efficacy mediating the link between proactive personality and innovative work behavior (Parker et al., 2006). Motivation that arises from self-efficacy, locus of control, self-determination, and the match between personal and organizational ideals increases the likelihood to engage in activities that primarily benefit others in the organization

76 Concluding Remarks than the person herself/himself. Encouraging future research, this thesis does not answer the question which motivational processes work as predictors for self-centered behaviors such as managing one’s career or negotiating one’s job. This might be a question of reward expectancies. Showing other-centered behaviors to improve the situation of the organization or of the team is likely to be (promptly) rewarded by supervisors or colleagues, whereas positive outcomes of self-centered proactive behaviors might be less obvious (e.g., having a broad network of potential supporter of one’s career) or less immediate (e.g., having a job crafting agreement over the course of two years). Thus, the assessment of employee reward expectancies could provide more insights in terms of motivational differences in predicting other- and self-centered proactive behaviors. Rather than can do or reason to motivational states, self-centered proactive behaviors might be predicted by energized to motivation. Positive and negative affect have been found to be related to both other-centered and self-centered proactive behaviors though. However, affect might be the stronger trigger for activities that aim to improve one’s personal work environment compared to self-efficacy or self-determination. If the employee perceives a misfit between his/her abilities, preferences, and value and the job tasks, s/he is likely to experience negative emotions (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998). Such negative emotions in turn can act as a motivator to change the unpleasant situation (Frese & Fay, 2001). This negative-emotions-as-a-motivator approach might hold even more for behaviors that aim to overcome the discrepancies between one’s beliefs and one’s behaviors in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. Whereas this thesis focused on individual differences as antecedents of proactive behaviors, research also demonstrated that contextual factors play a significant role in explaining behavior differences. Therefore, the question how individual differences and context interact to differentially impact proactive behavior categories opens a broad field for research. It seems worthwhile to take a closer look at organizational climate, leadership style, or employee participation op- tions.

Concluding Remarks

This thesis focused on synthesizing extant proactive behavior models and on testing some of the implications of that synthesis. Implications refer to the impact of individual differences on proactive behaviors. Empirical analyses provided evidence that personal values differently affect proactive behaviors depending on whether the behavior aims to further a larger organizational environment or the personal work environment. It was further demonstrated that motivational processes are related differently to proactive behavior categories. The present thesis provides insights into the predictive and mediating role of personal values, personality and empowerment on distinct proactive behavior categories, and encourages future research and practice to extend these findings in order to make even more precise predictions on why an employee engages in a certain proactive behavior.

6 Bibliography

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436. DOI: 10.1037/h0040968

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20 (1), 1–63.

Alexander, K. N. (2009). Praise for proactivity: The role of leadership and supervisor personality in rewarding employee proactivity. Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University.

Amos, E. A., & Weathington, B. L. (2008). An analysis of the relation between employee-organization value congruence and employee attitudes. The Journal of Psychology, 142 (6), 615-632. DOI: 10.3200/ JRLP.142.6.615–632

Arthur Jr., W., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of person-organization ﬁt in employment decision making: an assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (4), 786–801. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.786

Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (2), 199–214. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.199

Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reﬂections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29 (6), 773–799. DOI: 10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00079-5

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (1), 23–57. DOI: 10.2307/2393590

Atkinson, J. W., Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action. Oxford, England: John Wiley.

Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopﬂoor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73 (3), 265–285. DOI: 10.1348/096317900167029

Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65 (10), 1359–1378. DOI: 10.1177/0018726712453471

Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (10), 1207–1220. DOI: 10.1177/0146167203254602

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14 (2), 103–118. DOI: 10.1002/job.4030140202

Belschak, F. D., & Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro–self, prosocial, and pro–organizational foci of proactive

79 6 Bibliography

behaviour: Diﬀerential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83 (2), 475–498. DOI: 10.1348/096317909X439208

Bierhoﬀ, H. W., Wegge, J., Bipp, T., Kleinbeck, U., Attig-Grabosch, C., & Schulz, S. (2005). Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Messung von Eigenverantwortung oder: “Es gibt nichts Gutes, außer man tut es”. [Development of a measurement instrument for individual responsibility or “There’s nothing good unless you do it.”]. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 4 (1), 4–18. DOI: 10.1026/1617-6391.4.1.4

Bindl, U., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationship between job search and voluntary individual turnover. Personnel Psychology, 46 (2), 313–330. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00876.x

Bogaert, S., Boone, C., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2012). Social value orientation and climate strength as moderators of the impact of work group cooperative climate on aﬀective commitment. Journal of Management Studies, 49 (5), 918–944. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01029.x

Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource systems in job applicant decision processes. Journal of Management, 20 (3), 531–551. DOI: 10.1177/014920639402000301

Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the successful job search: A ﬁeld investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3), 717–726. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.717

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization ﬁt, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (3), 294–311. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1996. 0081

Carless, S. A., & Bernath, L. (2007). Antecedents of intent to change careers among psychologists. Journal of Career Development, 33 (3), 183–200. DOI: 10.1177/0894845306296646

Chiaburu, D. S., Baker, V. L., & Pitariu, A. H. (2006). 403 Beyond being proactive: what (else) matters for career self-management behaviors? Career Development International, 11 (7), 619–632. DOI: 10.1108/13620430610713481

Choi, J. N. (2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Eﬀects of work environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28 (4), 467–484. DOI: 10.1002/job.433

Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Paterson, N. L., Stadler, M. J., & Saks, A. M. (2014). The relative importance of proactive behaviors and outcomes for predicting newcomer learning, well-being, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84 (3), 318–331. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.02.007

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways ﬁve factors are basic. Personality and Individual Diﬀerences, 13 (6), 653–665. DOI: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I

Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (4), 532–537. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.532

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 435–462. DOI:

80 10.1177/014920630002600304

Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (1), 63–75.

Crant, J. M., Kim, T. Y., & Wang, J. (2011). Dispositional antecedents of demonstration and usefulness of voice behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26 (3), 285–297. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-010-9197-y

Crossley, C. D., & Stanton, J. M. (2005). Negative aﬀect and job search: Further examination of the reverse causation hypothesis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66 (3), 549–560. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.002

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4), 869-884. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. (1997). Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (5), 407–425. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199705)18:5<407::AID-SMJ881>3.0.CO;2-J

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4), 716–736. DOI: 10.2307/3069412

EASHW (2002). European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, Research on changing world of work. (Online) Retrieved from http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/205 (15.09.2015)

Eby, L. T., Butts, M., & Lockwood, A. (2003). Predictors of success in the era of the boundaryless career. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 (6), 689–708. DOI: 10.1002/job.214

Eurofound (2012). Fifth European working conditions survey. Publications Oﬃce of the European Union, Luxembourg. (Online) Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1182en.pdf (15.09.2015)

Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Relationship clean-up time: Using meta-analysis and path analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 34 (2), 161–188. DOI: 10.1177/0149206307309260

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: an active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw, & R. L. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 133–187). Stanford, CT: JAI Press.

Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (7), 1139–1155. DOI: 10.1002/ (SICI)1099-1379(199912)20:73.0.CO;2-I

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressors and positive aﬀect during the workday. Journal of Management, 35 (1), 94–111. DOI: 10.1177/ 0149206307308911

Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75 (3), 329–345. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.008

Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27 (8), 1089–1120. DOI: 10.1002/job.408

81 6 Bibliography

Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-eﬃcacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (4), 765–778. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890

Grant, A. M., & Rothbard, N. P. (2013). When in doubt, seize the day? Security values, prosocial values, and proactivity under ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 (5), 810–819. DOI: 10.1037/ a0032873

Grant, A. M., & Shin, J. (2012). Work Motivation: Directing, Energizing, and Maintaining Eﬀort (and Research). In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of motivation (pp. 505–519). Oxford University Press.

Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Socialization preferences and intentions: Does one size ﬁt all? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79 (2), 419–427. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.006

Gruman, J. A., Saks, A. M., & Zweig, D. I. (2006). Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer proactive behaviors: An integrative study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69 (1), 90–104. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.03.001

Harris, D. (1934). Group diﬀerences in values within a university. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 29 (1), 95–102. DOI: 10.1037/h0072980

Herzberg, F. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.

Hirschi, A., Lee, B., Porfeli, E. J., & Vondracek, F. W. (2013). Proactive motivation and engagement in career behaviors: Investigating direct, mediated, and moderated eﬀects. Journal of Vocational Behav- ior, 83 (1), 31–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.003

Hoﬀman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person- organization ﬁt and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 (3), 389–399. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.08.003

Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (4), 638–646. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638

Hrebiniak, L. G., & Joyce, W. F. (1985). Organizational adaptation: Strategic choice and environmental determinism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (3), 336–349. DOI: 10.2307/2392666

Hsiung, H. H. (2012). Authentic leadership and employee voice behavior: A multi-level psychological process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107 (3), 349–361. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-1043-2

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of eﬀort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73 (3), 287–302. DOI: 10.1348/096317900 167038

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and employment: A personality–motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (5), 837–855. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.837

82 King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65 (1), 112–133. DOI: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00052-6

Kossek, E. E., Roberts, K., Fisher, S., & Demarr, B. (1998). Career self-management: A quasi-experimental assessment of the eﬀects of a training intervention. Personnel Psychology, 51 (4), 935–960. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00746.x

Kotey, B., & Meredith, G. G. (1997). Relationships among owner/manager personal values, business strategies, and enterprise performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 35 (2), 37–64.

Koyuncu, M., Burke, R., Fixenbaum, L., & Tekin, Y. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of employee voice behaviour among front-line employees in Turkish hotels. Anatolia, 24 (3), 427–437. DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2013.804425

Kristof-Brown, A., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person–environment ﬁt. In Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 3–50). Washington, DC, US: American Psy- chological Association.

Kruglanski, A. W., Jasko, K., Chernikova, M., Milyavsky, M., Babush, M., Baldner, C., & Pierro, A. (2015). The rocky road from attitudes to behaviors: Charting the goal systemic course of actions. Psychological Review. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0039541

Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: Mediating and moderating roles of work motivation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17 (3), 504–522. DOI: 10.1080/09585190500521581

Lambert, T. A., Eby, L. T., & Reeves, M. P. (2006). Predictors of networking intensity and network quality among white-collar job seekers. Journal of Career Development, 32 (4), 351–365. DOI: 10.1177/ 0894845305282767

Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of person–job and person–organization ﬁt. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59 (3), 454–470. DOI: 10.1006/jvbe.2001. 1807

Leite, W. L., Huang, I. C., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). Item selection for the development of short forms of scales using an ant colony optimization algorithm. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43 (3), 411–431. DOI: 10.1080/00273170802285743

Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. J. (2015). Underlying motives of organizational citizenship behavior comparing egoistic and altruistic motivations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 22 (2), 129–148. DOI: 10.1177/1548051814535638

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: evidence of diﬀerential relationships with big ﬁve personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (2), 326–336. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.326

Lipponen, J., Bardi, A., & Haapamäki, J. (2008). The interaction between values and organizational identiﬁcation in predicting suggestion-making at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81 (2), 241–248. DOI: 10.1348/096317907X216658

Liu, B., Liu, J., & Hu, J. (2010). Person-organization ﬁt, job satisfaction, and turnover intention: An empirical study in the Chinese public sector. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,

83 6 Bibliography

38 (5), 615–625. DOI: 10.2224/sbp.2010.38.5.615

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (5), 265–268. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x

Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9 1(4), 927–935. DOI: 0.1037/0021-9010.91.4.927

Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24 (3), 351–389. DOI: 10.1177/014920639802400304

Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Moon, H., Kamdar, D., Mayer, D. M., & Takeuchi, R. (2008). Me or we? The role of personality and justice as other-centered antecedents to innovative citizenship behaviors within organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (1), 84–94. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.84

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extra-role eﬀorts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (4), 403–419. DOI: 10.2307/257011

Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward inﬂuence in organizations. Administrative Science Quar- terly, 23, 137–156. DOI: 10.2307/2392437

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 67 (1), 40–53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00695.x

Naus, F., van Iterson, A., & Roe, R. A. (2007). Value incongruence, job autonomy, and organization- based self-esteem: A self-based perspective on organizational cynicism. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16 (2), 195–219. DOI: 10.1080/13594320601143271

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33 (2), 216–234. DOI: 10.1002/job.754

Nikolaou, I., Vakola, M., & Bourantas, D. (2008). Who speaks up at work? Dispositional inﬂuences on employees’ voice behavior. Personnel Review, 37 (6), 666–679. DOI: 10.1108/00483480810906892

Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27 (3), 257–279. DOI: 10.1002/job.376

Oreg, S., Bayazit, M., Vakola, M., Arciniega, L., Armenakis, A., Barkauskiene, R., et al. (2008). Dis- positional resistance to change: Measurement equivalence and the link to personal values across 17 nations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (4), 935–944. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.935

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management 36 (4), 827–856. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310363732

Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and diﬀerentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36 (3), 633–662. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308321554

84 Parker, S. K., Collins, C. G., & Grant, A. M. (2008). The role of positive aﬀect in making things happen. In Annual SIOP Conference, San Francisco, USA.

Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3), 636–652. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636

Pinder, C. C. (1998). Motivation in work organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Post, J. E., & Mahon, J. F. (1980). Articulated turbulence: The eﬀect of regulatory agencies on corporate responses to social change. Academy of Management Review, 5 (3), 399–407. DOI: 10.5465/ AMR.1980.4288861

Rammstedt, B., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can’t we make it any shorter? The limits of personality assessment and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Diﬀerences, 35 (4), 212–220. DOI: 10.1027/1614- 0001/a000141

Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Man- agement Review, 12 (2), 278–287. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1987.4307838

Richter, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (10), 2089–2113. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02065.x

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The big ﬁve personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (6), 789–801. DOI: 10.1177/0146167202289008

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. DOI: 10.1037/0003- 066X.55.1.68

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1999). Eﬀects of individual diﬀerences and job search behaviors on the employment status of recent university graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54 (2), 335–349. DOI: 10.1006/jvbe.1998.1665

Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures taking a similarities perspective. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 32 (3), 268–290. DOI: 10.1177/0022022101032003002

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3), 580–607. DOI: 10.2307/256701

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54 (4), 845–874. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x

Shao, P., Resick, C. J., & Hargis, M. B. (2011). Helping and harming others in the workplace: The roles of personal values and abusive supervision. Human Relations, 64 (8), 1051–1078. DOI: 10.1177/ 0018726711399940

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (3), 482–497. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482

Sosik, J. J. (2005). The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers: A model and preliminary ﬁeld study. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2), 221–244. DOI: 10.1016/

85 6 Bibliography

j.leaqua.2005.01.002

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (5), 1442–1465. DOI: 10.2307/256865

Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83 (2), 275–300. DOI: 10.1348/096317910X502359

Tims, M., B. Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-eﬃcacy–performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29 (5), 490–507. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148

Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology, 62 (1), 44–96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.x

Turnipseed, D. L. (2002). Are good soldiers good? Exploring the link between organization citizenship behavior and personal ethics. Journal of Business Research, 55 (1), 1?15. DOI: 10.1016/S0148- 2963(01)00217-X

VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Edu- cational and Psychological Measurement, 57 (6), 995–1015. DOI: 10.1177/0013164497057006009

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1), 108–119. DOI: 10.2307/256902

Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology, 49 (3), 357–371. DOI: 10.1111/1464-0597.00020

Vernon, P. E., & Allport, G. W. (1931). A test for personal values. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26 (3), 231–248. DOI: 10.1037/h0073233

Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person–organization ﬁt and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63 (3), 473–489. DOI: 10.1016/ S0001-8791(02)00036-2

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford, England: Wiley.

Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3), 373–385. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.373

Wang, H., Begley, T., Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2012). Are the eﬀects of conscientiousness on contextual and innovative performance context speciﬁc? Organizational culture as a moderator. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23 (1), 174–189. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2011.561246

Williams R. M. Jr. (1968). The concept of values. In Sills, D. S. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (pp. 283–287). New York: Macmillan Free Press.

Williams, R. M. Jr. (1979). Change and stability in values and value systems: A sociological perspective. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values: Individual and societal (pp. 15–46). New York: Free Press.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 179–201. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011

86 Acknowledgments

Throughout the past years, I was accompanied by many great people that made the present thesis possible. I would now like to take the time to thank these people. First of all, I would like to thank my advisor Christian Stamov Roßnagel for giving me the chance to write a dissertation under his supervision. I appreciated his guidance and support, the numerous fruitful discussions, and his talent to always keep me focused on the great goal. Ad- ditional thanks go to Sabine Sonnentag, Song Yan, and Sven Voelpel for joining my dissertation committee and reviewing this thesis. I am also grateful for the data collection support I received from the HR departments and the employees of the Robert Bosch GmbH in Schwieberdingen and the GdW Bundesverband deutscher Wohnungs- und Immobilienunternehmen e.V. Further, I would like to acknowledge my co-authors Martin Schulze and Adrian Grötsch for a successful and always entertaining collaboration. It was a pleasure to make ants run with you! Thank you Christian Geiser for multiple statistical advice throughout the whole dissertation phase and the skill to take things with a pinch of salt. Moreover, my thanks go to great colleagues at Jacobs University that I had the pleasure to get to know. To name but a few, I thank Jan Oltmanns for being my next-door “agony aunt” in tough times and for vivid tea discussions; Vera Storm for reading and revising this thesis, and for shared theoretical and actual gardening moments to clear one’s mind; Heiko Walkenhorst for regenerative lunch breaks; and Julian Wienert, Tim Kuhlmann, Claudia Niemann, Jana Loos, Juliane Strack and many more for fruitful discussions and colloquia and for being great colleagues and friends who made my time at Jacobs University a memorable one. Special thanks go to my family and friends. Everything that I reached was only possible because of their constant support, their trust in all my decisions, and all the love they gave me. Finally and most important, I want to endlessly thank my love and best friend Micha for his unconditional love, trust and support, for being patient with me during the ups and downs of the Ph.D. time, for always encouraging me to strive for higher goals, and for being the world’s best dad to our world’s best son Mats who enriched my life so much!

CURRICULUM VITAE

ANNE JANSSEN

Date of Birth: 03 June 1986

Place of Birth: Stendal, Germany

Nationality: German

EDUCATION

Since 02/2012 Jacobs University Bremen Ph.D in Organizational Behavior Topic: Antecedents and consequences of employee proactivity

10/2006 – 10/2011 Freie Universität Berlin Studies of Psychology Diploma Thesis: „Cross-cultural differences in spatial abilities and solution strategies – An investigation in Cambodia and Germany”

08/1996 – 07/2005 Johann-Joachim-Winckelmann-Gymnasium Stendal Higher Education Entrance Qualification (A-levels)

JOURNAL ARTICLES & CONFERENCE CONTRIBUTIONS

JOURNAL ARTICLES

A. B. Janssen & C. Stamov Roßnagel. I’ve got the Power: Psychological Empowerment Selectively Mediates the Relationship between Proactive Personality and Proactive Behaviors. Manuscript submitted to Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2015.

III

A. B. Janssen & C. Stamov Roßnagel. For You or for Me? Identification of Self-Centered and Other- Centered Proactive Behaviors. Manuscript submitted to Management Decision, 2015.

A. B. Janssen, M. Schultze, & A. Grötsch (2015). Following the ants: Development of short scales for proactive personality and supervisor support by Ant Colony Optimization. European Journal of Psychological Assessment , in press.

A. B. Janssen & C. Geiser (2012). Cross-cultural differences in spatial abilities and solution strategies – An investigation in Cambodia and Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43 (4), 533-557.

A. B. Janssen & C. Geiser (2010). On the relationship between solution strategies in two mental rotation tasks. Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (5), 473-478.

CONFERENCE CONTRIBUTIONS

A. B. Janssen , M. Schultze, & A. Grötsch (2015, July). Following the Ants: Pros and Cons of Ant Colony Optimization for Short Scale Development . Presentation at the 13 th European Conference on Psychological Assessment, Zurich, Swiss.

A. B. Janssen & C. Stamov Roßnagel (2015, May). For you or for me? Distinguishing Self-Centered from Other-Centered Proactive Behaviors . Presentation at the 17th Congress of European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Oslo, Norway.

A. B. Janssen , M. Schultze, & A. Grötsch (2013, July). Developing Short Scales: Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm vs. Manual Item Selection. Presentation at the 13 th European Congress of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden.

M. Noack & A. B. Janssen (2013, May). Age Stereotypes in Organizations – One Dimension or More? Poster presentation at the 16 th Congress of European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Münster, Germany.

A. B. Janssen & C. Geiser (2010, September). Same Same But Different – Mentale Rotation in Kambodscha und Deutschland. Presentation at the 47 th Meeting of the German Academic Association for Psychology Research (DGPs), Bremen, Germany.

IV Statutory Declaration

Statutory Declaration (on Authorship of a Dissertation)

I, Anne Janssen hereby declare that I have written this PhD thesis independently, unless where clearly stated otherwise. I have used only the sources, the data and the support that I have clearly mentioned. This PhD thesis has not been submitted for conferral of degree elsewhere.

I conﬁrm that no rights of third parties will be infringed by the publication of this thesis.

Bremen, October 14, 2015

Signature