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. v 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 Vitae III Statutory DeclarationV 1 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 de- mands. 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 mo- tives, 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

Load more