PRAISE FOR PROACTIVITY: THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP AND SUPERVISOR PERSONALITY IN REWARDING EMPLOYEE PROACTIVITY
Katherine N. Alexander
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
December 2009 Committee: Charlotte Fritz, Advisor Michael Zickar Robert Carels ii
ABSTRACT
Charlotte Fritz, Advisor
Previous research has suggested that proactivity in the workplace can be beneficial at both the individual and the organizational level, but little is known about when proactivity is appreciated by supervisors. This study examined when supervisors reward proactivity by providing more positive performance evaluations to their subordinates. I proposed that the supervisor’s leadership style, their quality of relationship with their subordinate, and their personality would moderate the relationship between proactivity and performance evaluations. I investigated three types of proactivity: taking charge, voice, and issue selling. I also examined three different leadership styles, namely transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership, as well, as leader-member exchange, and the supervisor’s neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness to experience. The sample consisted of 140 employees and their direct supervisors who were employed at various non-profit organizations across the United States. All measures were available online and participants received a $10 gift card for their participation. Results indicated strong relationships between proactive behaviors and performance evaluations, suggesting that supervisors do reward employee proactivity. However, the moderator hypotheses were not supported. The implications of these results for research and practice are discussed. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am extremely grateful to my advisor, Charlotte Fritz, for her support, guidance, and direction throughout this process. She has made this a rewarding experience and has encouraged my enjoyment for research. I would also like to thank my committee members, Mike Zickar and
Rob Carels, for their feedback and advice. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their continued encouragement. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION...... 1
Proactivity in the Workplace ...... 2
Leadership Style...... 4
Leader-Member Exchange...... 8
Personality ...... 9
METHOD...... 13
Participants...... 13
Procedure...... 13
Measures...... 13
RESULTS...... 18
Additional Analyses...... 20
DISCUSSION ...... 21
Strengths and Limitations ...... 23
Implications and Future Research...... 24
Conclusions...... 26
REFERENCES...... 27
APPENDIX A ...... 33
APPENDIX B ...... 36 v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistencies ...... 38
2 Intercorrelations among Variables...... 39
3 Regressions for the Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership...... 41
4 Regressions for the Moderating Role of Transactional Leadership...... 42
5 Regressions for the Moderating Role of Laissez-Faire Leadership...... 43
6 Regressions for the Moderating Role of LMX...... 44
7 Regressions for the Moderating Role of Neuroticism...... 45
8 Regressions for the Moderating Role of Openness to Experience...... 46
9 Regressions for the Moderating Role of Agreeableness...... 47 vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Histogram of the Distribution of Performance Evaluation Ratings...... 48 1
INTRODUCTION
Given the increasing complexity and uncertainty of today’s workplace, proactivity among employees has become a critical determinant of organizational success and survival (Aragon-
Correa, 1998). Proactive behavior at work refers to anticipatory action that employees take to improve current circumstances in the workplace (Crant, 2000). For example, proactive employees may foresee problems and take measures to resolve them before the situation becomes worse. It is important to note that workplace proactivity is not always welcomed or appreciated. For example, supervisors may view proactivity as a threat or a distraction (Chan,
2006; Frese & Fay, 2001; Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009) and consequently may not reward these potentially beneficial behaviors. But why do some supervisors recognize and reward proactivity whereas other supervisors do not?
The purpose of this study is to investigate whether employee’s proactive behaviors are recognized by supervisors and the conditions under which proactivity is rewarded. I intend to examine how aspects of leadership, specifically leadership style and leader-member exchange, as well as supervisor personality can affect how an employee is rewarded for behaving proactively.
In the current study, a reward for proactivity is conceptualized as a positive performance evaluation for the employees, as supervisors do not always have the authority or control to provide other types of rewards (e.g., monetary rewards) for their employees’ proactive behaviors.
Overall, this research poses considerable value for understanding proactivity in the workplace. The current study is among the first to investigate the outcomes of proactivity and also the first to examine the role that the supervisor plays in how proactivity is promoted within a work unit or organization. In order to encourage and promote continuous proactivity amongst employees, supervisors must be able to reward these behaviors. Otherwise, proactivity is likely 2 to diminish or disappear if employees are not being recognized, or are even being reprimanded, for their potentially beneficial behaviors. Therefore, it is critical to investigate the role of the supervisor in this process as he or she is ultimately able to ensure that proactivity is maintained within an organization. Findings from this research may also be useful in recruitment and selection procedures because they may provide evidence in support of hiring or promoting certain supervisors who are likely to support the expression of proactivity among their employees.
Proactivity in the Workplace
Proactive employees are those who take self-directed action in order to support organizational effectiveness (Crant, 2000) and do not just apathetically accept the present conditions. For example, an employee may develop means to perform a task more efficiently or may bring attention to potential problems. Several different concepts of proactivity have been proposed in the literature. This study focuses on three specific types, namely taking charge, voice, and issue selling. Taking charge refers to change-oriented behavior that is aimed at improving how work is executed (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). An example of this type of behavior is when an employee attempts to institute new methods for work that are more effective for the organization. Voice involves making suggestions for change that may improve workplace performance even when others disagree (Hirschman, 1970). For instance, an employee may communicate their thoughts about changing work procedures even if their opinion differs from others in the group. Finally, issue selling involves actively persuading upper-level management to pay attention to issues (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, & Lawrence, 2001). An example of issue selling is when an employee presents information and logic to management regarding a matter they believe concerns the organization. 3
All of these behaviors are similar in that they attempt to challenge or change existing conditions in the workplace. Therefore, these types of proactivity are particularly relevant for the current study because attempts to challenge the status quo may be perceived differently depending on the supervisor. For example, some supervisors may appreciate these change- oriented behaviors while other supervisors may be made to feel uncomfortable by the proactivity.
Alternatively, other types of proactivity, such as feedback seeking (VandeWalle, 2000) and social network-building (Ashford & Black, 1999) are not necessarily change-oriented and should not be perceived as arbitrarily by the supervisor.
Proactive behaviors are thought to be associated with organizational effectiveness and success. For instance, employees who take charge can correct faulty tasks (Morrison & Phelps,
1999); voice increases the chances that problems are identified and potentially prevented (Van
Dyne & LePine, 1998); and issue selling can provide greater awareness for management which can allow them to more readily address organizational problems (Dutton, et al., 2001). Little empirical work has been done, however, to investigate the outcomes of proactivity and there is also currently no comprehensive theoretical model outlining possible outcomes of proactivity.
However, due to the potential benefits for both the organization and the employee, it is expected that supervisors will generally provide favorable performance appraisals for employees behaving proactively.
Even less research has investigated the conditions under which supervisors evaluate proactive behaviors as contributing to overall performance. One exception is a study conducted by Grant et al. (2009) who found that employee proactive behaviors contributed to higher supervisor performance evaluations, especially when employees expressed strong prosocial values and low negative affect. Another study by Thompson (2005) found that employees who 4 show personal initiative were evaluated more positively by supervisors. Employee proactivity, however, is not always appreciated and is sometimes even reprimanded (Grant et al, 2009).
Generally, people do not like change, and it is possible that supervisors may feel threatened or vulnerable when their employees challenge the status quo (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Also, it is possible that the employee may suggest one type of change while the supervisor prefers another.
Considerable work has been done to investigate how characteristics of the rater can influence their appraisal of the ratee. This work has focused primarily on demographic characteristics like age, gender, and race (e.g., Landy & Farr, 1983), as well as the similarity between rater-ratee dyads on these characteristics (e.g., Tsui, O’Reilly, 1989). Other work has also examined the influence of rater’s cognitive complexity, intelligence, and job knowledge (for a review see Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell, & McKellin, 1993) on the performance appraisals of subordinates. As mentioned earlier, however, no research to date has investigated how the supervisor can affect the proactivity-performance evaluation relationship. Given that proactivity strays from typical job performance (i.e., task performance), it is unclear how characteristics of the supervisor can affect how employees are rewarded with positive performance evaluations. In particular, the leadership style of the supervisor, leader-member exchange (LMX), and the supervisors’ personality may act as moderators in the proactivity-performance evaluation relationship.
Leadership Style
A major trend in research on leadership has been to examine the behaviors of leaders rather than consider leadership as a trait (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Thus, the effectiveness of a leader is exerted through their leadership style. Accordingly, Avolio and Bass (1995) have 5 theorized a hierarchal model of leadership known as the “full range” theory of leadership. The highest level of this model is known as transformational leadership, followed by transactional leadership, and finally laissez-faire leadership.
Transformational leadership refers to leaders who motivate and inspire followers to exceed expectations and to go beyond the self-interest of rewards for compliance (Bass, 1985,
1988). Transformational leaders inspire followers to transcend their own immediate self- interests for the good of the group. Intellectual stimulation is also characteristic of transformational leaders, and is the extent to which the leader takes risks, solicits employees’ ideas, and challenges assumptions. These leaders offer individualized concern for their employees by attending to their needs and listening to concerns. Overall, these leaders offer a purpose to their employees which go beyond short term goals (Bass, 1985; 1988).
Given the behaviors of transformational leaders, it would seem probable that these leaders would greatly appreciate proactivity among their employees. For instance, these leaders encourage new ideas from their employees and therefore when their employees behave proactively and provide ideas to change the workplace, transformational leaders should be likely to respond favorably. Also, these leaders challenge assumptions in the workplace themselves, which lends reason to why they would reward employees who also challenge the status quo. By actively soliciting behavior from employees which goes beyond formal requirements, transformational leaders should be most likely to reward proactivity among their employees.
Supervisors low in transformational leadership, however, should not be expected to penalize their employees for behaving proactively due to the potential benefits of these behaviors. Instead, supervisors high in transformational leadership should simply be more likely to reward proactivity than supervisors low in this leadership style. 6
Hypothesis 1a: Transformational leadership moderates the relationship between
proactive behaviors and supervisor performance evaluations. The relationship between
proactive behaviors and supervisor performance evaluations is stronger for supervisors
high in transformational leadership.
Transactional leadership entails a cost-benefit exchange process between leaders and followers (Burns, 1978). In other words, a transactional leader gives their followers something they want in exchange for what the leader wants. Transactional leaders make performance criteria explicit and clarify expectations, meaning that subordinates know what is expected of them, what to expect in return, and also how they will be rewarded for meeting those expectations (Bass, 1985; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Supervisors with this leadership style tend to either anticipate problems and take action before the behavior becomes worse, or simply wait until problems occur before taking action.
Because transactional leaders set specific criteria for their employees, it is unlikely that they would reward proactivity to the same degree as transformational leaders. Instead, transactional leaders tend to reward behavior that was clearly specified. It is doubtful that transactional leaders would reject or penalize proactivity given that these behaviors are intended to benefit the organization, but employee proactivity may not be rewarded by transactional leaders because it is outside of the explicit expectations for the employee. Further, these leaders are highly focused on fixing problems rather than promoting positive behaviors among their employees (i.e., proactivity). Therefore, I hypothesize that supervisors low in transactional leadership will be more likely to reward proactivity compared to supervisors high in transactional leadership. 7
Hypothesis 1b: Transactional leadership moderates the relationship between proactive
behaviors and supervisor performance evaluations. The relationship between proactive
behaviors and supervisor performance evaluations is stronger for supervisors low in
transactional leadership.
A final form of leadership style is known as laissez-faire leadership, and is the avoidance or absence of leadership (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998). These leaders avoid making decisions, are often absent, and avoid getting involved. Because laissez-faire leadership represents an absence of any leadership, it has been suggested to treat it separately from transactional and transformational leadership.
Due to the lack of awareness of laissez-faire leaders, it is likely that they will not even recognize proactivity among their employees. Without witnessing and observing proactive behaviors among their employees, laissez-faire leaders would not be expected to provide rewards for these potentially beneficial behaviors. Laissez-faire leaders should essentially provide the same performance evaluation to employees high and low in proactivity, assuming that they are adequately completing their assigned duties. Therefore, I hypothesize that supervisors low in laissez-faire leadership will be more likely to reward proactivity compared to supervisors high in this leadership style.
Hypothesis 1c: Laissez-faire leadership moderates the relationship between proactive
behaviors and supervisor performance evaluations. The relationship between proactive
behaviors and supervisor performance evaluations is stronger for supervisors low in
laissez-faire leadership.
8
Leader-Member Exchange
An alternative to focusing on leadership behavior has been to examine the dyadic relationship between a leader and a subordinate (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Drawing from social exchange theory, Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory focuses on the relationships that leaders develop with each follower. Social exchange theory suggests that work roles are negotiated over time through a series of reciprocal exchanges. Therefore, LMX posits that the quality of the supervisor-subordinate dyad is different for each employee and evolves over time.
LMX has been associated with a number of organizational and individual outcomes. For example, Gerstner and Day (1997) demonstrated that high-quality relationships were positively associated with subordinate job satisfaction and job performance, and negatively associated with intentions to quit. Also, high-quality leader-member exchange relationships have been linked to discretionary behaviors such as higher subordinate innovative behavior and higher citizenship behavior (e.g., Ilies, Nahgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Scott, 1993; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden,
1996).
The occurrence of these discretionary outcomes has been explained by the reciprocal nature of high-quality LMX relationships (Gerstner & Day, 1997). In essence, behavior by one person in the dyad should be reciprocated by the other. For example, an employee in a high- quality LMX relationship may “pay back” their leader by engaging in citizenship (i.e., discretionary) behaviors which would ultimately benefit the leader and others in the workplace
(Ilies, et al., 2007; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Settoon et al., 1996). Consequently, the leader in this relationship should reciprocate the positive behaviors. Proactivity is another example of discretionary behavior that may function similarly to citizenship behaviors in high- 9 quality LMX relationships. For instance, an employee in a high-quality LMX relationship may behave proactively, by fixing a work-related problem before it becomes exacerbated, in order to give back to their leader. In turn, the leader in this relationship should be expected to reciprocate this behavior. One way to reciprocate would be for the supervisor to provide a favorable performance evaluation for that employee. Therefore, I hypothesize that the higher the quality of the LMX relationship, the more likely it will be that the supervisor will reward proactivity.
Hypothesis 2: LMX moderates the relationship between proactive behaviors and
supervisor performance evaluations. The relationship between proactive behaviors and
supervisor performance evaluations is stronger for supervisors with a high quality LMX
relationship.
Personality
Another possible moderator of the proactivity-performance evaluation relationship is the supervisors’ personality. There has generally been consensus and empirical evidence in support of a Five Factor model as the universal dimensions of personality (Costa, 1997; Costa &
McCrae, 1992). The Five Factor model, or the Big Five, refers to five higher order personality traits which include Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience. I assume that the latter three traits are most likely to contribute to proactivity- performance evaluation relationship and are therefore most relevant for the current study.
Neuroticism is a person’s level of emotional stability versus instability (Costa & McCrae,
1992). A person high in neuroticism is characterized by the tendency to experience negative emotions, like anxiety, depression, and anger (Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 2000). A person low in neuroticism, on the other hand, has low anxiety and emotionality, and is secure and calm. 10
If a person high in neuroticism is more likely to experience negative emotions, the attributions they make about employee behavior will also be more negative. Accordingly, Bolger and Schilling (1991) demonstrated that people high in neuroticism had greater reactivity to negative events and experienced more negative emotions, and consequently expressed everyday events to be more stressful. Fried, Levi, Ben-David, and Tiegs (1999) also note that supervisors high in negative affectivity (a construct highly similar to neuroticism) tend to recall more negative than positive performance information, leading them to have poor evaluations of their subordinate’s performance. A supervisor high in neuroticism may generally have high anxiety and anger and may consequently have a negative perception of proactive behaviors among their employees given that these behaviors tend to be risky and are change-oriented (Morrison &
Miliken, 2006). It is possible that this supervisor may view proactivity as an ingratiation attempt
(Bolino, 1999), as a threat (Frese & Fay, 2001), or as merely a distraction (Chan, 2006). Also, proactive behaviors tend to create uncertainty and ambiguity which may not be welcomed by someone high in neuroticism; due to their emotional instability, a supervisor high in neuroticism is not likely to appreciate employee proactivity that is change-oriented given this potential uncertainty. Thus, I expect that supervisors high in neuroticism provide poorer performance evaluations for employees who behave proactively.
Hypothesis 3a: Supervisor neuroticism moderates the relationship between proactive
behaviors and supervisor performance evaluations. Supervisors high in neuroticism
provide poorer performance evaluations for employees behaving proactively compared
to supervisors low in neuroticism.
Agreeableness is characterized by the eagerness to be cooperative and easy to get along with (McCrae & Costa, 1990). An agreeable person can be described as being compassionate and 11 good natured, who is generally motivated to avoid conflict. Agreeableness refers to such traits as helpfulness, tolerance, and flexibility. A person low on agreeableness, however, would tend to be more argumentative, distant, and obstinate.
Given that agreeable people tend to deal with conflict cooperatively (Digman, 1990), it is likely that agreeable supervisors will be prone to appreciating proactivity among their employees, especially when the proactivity is somewhat contentious. As mentioned before, proactivity can be an attempt to challenge the status quo and may create dissonance among employees and supervisors. A supervisor high in agreeableness, however, would be likely to avoid this discord by accepting the proactive ideas more readily than a supervisor low in agreeableness. An agreeable supervisor is anticipated to work together, cooperatively, with their employees with organizational goals in mind. These supervisors should strive for a common understanding with their subordinates, and should be flexible with new ideas (Digman, 1990).
Therefore, agreeable supervisors should react positively to proactivity, especially in terms of proactivity that is change-oriented. Thus, I hypothesize that the higher the supervisors level of agreeableness, the more likely they reward proactivity.
Hypothesis 3b: Supervisor agreeableness moderates the relationship between proactive
behaviors and supervisor performance evaluations. The relationship between proactive
behaviors and performance evaluations is stronger for supervisors high in
agreeableness.
Openness to experience is defined as the disposition to be curious, unconventional, and imaginative (Costa & McCrae, 1992). A person high in openness to experience tends to involve themselves in intellectual activities and likes to experience new sensations and ideas (Busato,
Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 2000). These people generally tend to be imaginative, inventive, and 12 less conservative in their thoughts and opinions (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This trait distinguishes between people who like to explore the unfamiliar and who are amenable to variety from those who prefer the conventional, routine, and familiar (McCrae, 1996; McCrae & Costa, 1997).
Further, people high in openness to experience have access to more thoughts and perspectives, and are more adaptable to changing circumstances (Costa & McCrae, 1992; George & Zhou,
2001).
Supervisors high in openness to experience may be especially likely to reward proactivity amongst their employees. Employees behaving proactively are potentially offering new ideas or are attempting to change the current work environment, and supervisors high in openness to experience should by definition be receptive to these novel ideas and behaviors. By being adaptable and receptive to changing conditions, a supervisor high in openness to experience should encourage employee proactive behavior. Imagine, for instance, an employee who attempts to change an organizational policy that is either nonproductive or counterproductive. A supervisor high in openness to experience would most likely react positively to the actions of this employee, as this supervisor should be amenable to new thoughts and ideas. With this reasoning, my final hypothesis is that the higher the supervisors level of openness to experience, the more likely they reward proactivity.
Hypothesis 3c: Supervisor openness to experience moderates the relationship between
proactive behaviors and supervisor performance evaluations. The relationship between
proactive behaviors and performance evaluations is stronger for supervisors high in
openness to experience.
13
METHOD
Participants
Participants were employees from 21 U.S. non-profit organizations. I administered surveys to both rank-and-file employees (i.e., subordinate survey) as well as to supervisors (i.e., supervisor survey). 282 employees completed the subordinate survey and 149 supervisors completed the supervisor survey. Eliminating surveys that could not be matched and those with missing data produced a sample of 140 dyads. Of the subordinate respondents, 83% were female and 17% were male, with the mean age of 36.7 years (SD = 11.43); the majority had received a college education (70%). Of the supervisor respondents, 74% were female and 26% were male, had a mean age of 42.29 years (SD = 10.87), and also were predominately college-educated
(83%).
Procedure
I contacted non-profit organizations by email in order to provide them with information about this research study and ask for their participation. Next, I sent interested organizations the link to the online survey that they could send to all of their employees. Employees could access this link and complete items about themselves and their supervisors. At the end of the survey, employees were asked to create a 5-digit code and then forward this code as well as a link to another survey to their direct supervisor. Supervisors could access this corresponding survey and enter the 5-digit code that was forwarded to them. All respondents received a $10 Starbucks gift card for their participation, and each organization received a report of the findings of the study.
Measures
Supervisors in this study completed items regarding their personality, their subordinate’s proactive behaviors and performance, and several control variable items. Please see Appendix A 14 for a list of all items completed by supervisors. Subordinates responded to items regarding the leadership style of their supervisor, LMX, and several control variables. Please see Appendix B for a list of all items to be completed by the subordinate.
Proactive Behavior 1: Taking Charge. Taking charge at work was assessed using the
Taking Charge Scale (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; α = .94). The 10 items in this scale ask supervisors to indicate the frequency with which their subordinates engage in change-oriented proactive behaviors. Sample items include “He/she often tries to eliminate redundant or unnecessary procedures” and “He/she often tries to institute new work methods that are more effective for the company.” Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale which ranges from 1
(Very infrequently) to 7 (Frequently).
Proactive Behavior 2: Voice. Voice was measured using the Voice Scale (Van Dyne &
LePine, 1998; α = .91). This is a six item measure asking supervisors to respond to items such as
“He/she speaks up and encourages others in this group to get involved in issues that affect the group” and “He/she develops and makes recommendations concerning the issues that affect the work group.” These items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Very infrequently) to 7 (Very frequently).
Proactive Behavior 3: Issue Selling. Issue selling was assessed with the Rational Issue-
Selling Scale (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990; α = .83). This scale has three items and the items are introduced by asking supervisors about their focal employees. For example, how much does the focal employee “go about changing your mind to get you to agree with them.” The response format is a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).
Leadership. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership was assessed using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire – Form 5 (MLQ; Avolio & Bass, 1995). 15
Employees are asked to rate their direct supervisors on numerous items. All items are rated on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Frequently, if not always).
The MLQ assesses five dimensions of transformational leadership (α = .93): idealized influence-attributed (e.g., “Displays a sense of power and confidence”), idealized influence- behavior (e.g., “Talks to us about his/her most important values and beliefs”), inspirational motivation (e.g., “Articulates a compelling vision of the future”), and intellectual stimulation
(e.g., “Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate”). Because the dimensions are very highly correlated in my study as well as in past research (Judge & Bono,
2000; Judge & Piccolo, 2004), I combined the dimensions of transformational leadership and treated them as indicators of a higher order transformational leadership factor.
The MLQ also assesses three dimensions of transactional leadership: contingent reward, management by exception – active, and management by exception – passive. However, research including meta-analyses suggests that contingent reward is the only valid and reliable dimension of transactional leadership and is most consistent with the original conceptualization of this construct (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Therefore, in the current study I used only the contingent reward subscale of the MLQ to measure transactional leadership (α = .74). This scale consists of four items and a sample item is “Makes clear what I can expect to receive, if my performance meets designated standards.”
Finally, the MLQ assesses laissez-faire leadership with four items (α = .73). A sample item includes “Is absent when needed.”
Leader-Member Exchange. Subordinates were asked to rate the LMX relationship with their current supervisor using the LMX7 measure (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Scandura & Graen,
1984; α = .90). All items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale; however each item uses 16 different anchors. A sample item is “How well does your leader recognize your potential?” and is rated from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Fully).
Personality. Supervisor personality was assessed using the International Personality Item
Pool – Five Factor Model measure (IPIP-FFM; Goldberg, 1999; neuroticism α = .81, openness to experience α = .82; agreeableness α = .64), which assesses each Big Five trait with ten items on
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Very inaccurate) to 5 (Very accurate). An example of an openness to experience item is “Have a vivid imagination.”, an agreeableness item is
“Sympathize with others’ feelings”, and an example of a neuroticism item is “Have frequent mood swings.”
Performance Evaluation. Supervisors rated employees’ performance by using a five-item scale (Ashford & Black, 1996; α = .94). The items are preceded by the following statement:
“Please recall his/her last actual performance evaluation and report how he/she was rated relative to others in the same/similar jobs on a percentage basis.” The items are rated on a 9-point scale, ranging from 1 (Bottom 10%) to 9 (Top 10%). The five items are related to the employees overall performance, their ability to get along with others, their ability to get the task done on time, quality of their performance, and their achievement of work goals.
Control variables. Several control variables were included in the current study. First, in- role performance was controlled for to examine if the evaluations of proactive behavior go above and beyond the employees expected job performance. In-role performance was measured using a seven-item scale (Williams & Anderson, 1991; α = .89) and was completed by the supervisor.
Job tenure was also controlled because more experienced workers may possess more knowledge for engaging in proactive behaviors (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Job tenure was measured by asking subordinates how many months they have been working in the same position. Finally, 17 frequency of contact between the supervisor and employee was controlled because supervisors who spend significant amounts of time with their employees may have more opportunities to witness proactive behaviors compared to supervisors who spend less time. Frequency of contact was measured by asking subordinates how many work hours per week they spend with their supervisor. 18
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and internal-consistency reliability estimates (coefficient alphas) were first calculated for all variables, and are displayed in Table 1. Table 2 displays the intercorrelations among the variables.
Grant and Ashford (2008) recommended using a proactivity composite (i.e. combining all proactivity subscales used in a study) rather than examining each proactivity scale individually.
Accordingly, Grant et al. (2009) used such a composite finding good validity in their data set.
Thus, I expected the three proactive behaviors in my study -taking charge, voice, and issue- selling - to reflect a latent higher-order proactive behavior construct (Parker et al., 2006; Grant et al., 2009). There were high correlations between taking charge and voice (r = .76), taking charge and issue –selling (r = .62) and voice and issue-selling (r = .63). Accordingly, I conducted an exploratory factor analysis to assess the unidimensionality of the data. I used principle axis factoring and extracted eigenvalues over 1 (Kaiser criterion). The first eigenvalue was 10.64, accounting for 55.98% of the variance. The next two eigenvalues were 1.5 and 1.3, indicating only a small deviation from unidimensionality. All of the items loaded on one factor, with factor loadings greater than .50. Therefore, I conducted the moderated regression analyses with a proactive behavior composite that aggregated all three proactive behaviors.
I followed the ordinary least-squares regression procedures recommended by Cohen,
Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) in order to test my moderating hypotheses. I began by standardizing my independent variable (supervisor ratings of proactivity) and moderating variables (employee ratings of leadership and LMX, and supervisor ratings of personality). Next,
I multiplied each pair of standardized variables to create interaction terms. I then conducted a hierarchal regression analysis predicting supervisor performance evaluations from the 19 independent variable (supervisor ratings of proactivity), moderating variables (leadership, LMX, and personality), and interaction terms. I entered the control variables, proactivity composite, and moderators in the first step and the interaction of proactivity and each moderator in the second step.
There was no support for hypotheses 1a, 1b, or 1c as there was not a significant interaction between supervisor ratings of proactivity and leadership in predicting supervisor performance evaluations of their subordinates. The in-role behavior and proactive behavior variables entered in the first step were both significantly and positively related to performance evaluations, but the interaction terms in step 2 were not significant. Specifically, transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership did not moderate the relationship between supervisor ratings of their subordinate’s proactivity and supervisor’s performance evaluations of their subordinates. The results of these analyses are displayed in Tables 3, 4, and 5.
There was also no support for hypothesis 2. Again, the in-role behavior and proactive behavior variables entered in step 1 were significantly and positively related to performance evaluations, but the interaction term entered in the second step was not significant. Therefore,
LMX did not moderate the relationship between proactivity and performance evaluations. The results of these analyses are displayed in Table 6.
Finally, there was again no support for hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c as supervisor personality did not moderate the relationship between ratings of proactivity and performance.
The in-role and proactive behavior variables entered in the first step were significantly and positively related to performance evaluations, but the interaction terms were not significant. In particular, supervisor’s ratings of their neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness to experience, 20 did not moderate the relationship between supervisor ratings of their subordinate’s proactivity and the supervisor’s evaluations of their subordinate’s performance. The results of these analyses are displayed in Tables 7, 8 and 9.
Additional Analyses
In-role performance had an extremely high correlation with the performance evaluation measure (r = .82) and consequently I tested the results of the regression analyses when dropping this control variable from the model. My hypotheses were still not supported, but the results were in the intended direction. Further, I tested each of my hypotheses again by using the separate proactive behaviors (i.e., taking charge, voice, and issue-selling) rather than the proactivity composite. My hypotheses were still not supported. 21
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the current study was to understand whether employees are recognized for their proactivity and under which circumstances supervisors reward proactive behaviors with higher performance evaluations. Most existing research assumes that employees who behave proactively will be rewarded, but little is known about when proactivity is actually appreciated
(Chan, 2006; Grant et al., 2009). In this study, I investigated characteristics of the supervisor that may alter the proactivity-performance evaluation relationship. Contrary to my hypotheses, I did not find support for the moderating role of supervisor leadership and personality. Specifically, leadership style (i.e., transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire), LMX, and the supervisor’s personality (i.e., neuroticism, openness to experience, and agreeableness) did not moderate the relationship between supervisor’s ratings of their subordinate’s proactivity and the supervisor’s performance evaluation of this subordinate.
There are a number of possible reasons to explain why characteristics of the supervisor did not moderate the proactivity-performance evaluation relationship. One potential reason is the lack of power in the current study. Unfortunately, I had reduced statistical power in the analyses given that data from supervisors was available only for a subsample (roughly half) of the total employees, and consequently I had a more difficult time detecting a relationship when a true relationship may have existed. McClelland and Judd (1993) also demonstrated that nonexperimental studies have much less power for detecting interaction effects than do experiments. Additionally, there was a high correlation between the proactivity composite, in- role performance, and performance evaluations meaning that by controlling for proactivity and in-role performance there was not much variance left to be explained through the moderators. 22
It is also possible that the psychological states experienced by the supervisor, rather than stable traits, influence the evaluations of their employees. For instance, many studies have examined the role of affect in performance appraisals and the potential biases that can occur when a supervisor likes or dislikes the employee (Cardy & Dobbins, 1986; 1994). According to these authors, liking is an integral part of the performance evaluation process meaning that when supervisors like their employees, they rate these employees more favorably, provide them with more rewards, and are less likely to provide discipline. Accordingly, Isen and colleagues (1987;
1998) found that positive affect of raters cued positive memories and influenced the complexity and flexibility of the material recalled. Therefore, raters who feel positive affect toward their ratee should recall more positive instances of behavior (e.g., remember more instances of their employee behaving proactively) and should judge these behaviors more favorably. Thus, affect may play such a large role and account for such a substantive amount of variance in the proactivity-performance evaluation relationship that detecting the influence of more stable characteristics (i.e., leadership, LMX, and personality) becomes impossible. In other words, psychological states rather than traits of the supervisor may be more important to understanding how proactive behaviors are encouraged and rewarded.
Assuming that supervisor characteristics do play some role in rewarding employee’s proactive behaviors, another possibility for the lack of support for the hypotheses is that the performance criterion used in the current study may have been inappropriate to test the stated hypotheses. The performance evaluation measure I used asked supervisors to recall the focal employee’s last actual performance evaluation and report how he/she was rated. The distribution of scores was highly positively skewed (see Figure 1) meaning that there was a ceiling effect indicating that supervisors tended to give ratings at the top of the scale. In fact, 23
59% of supervisors rated their employees as 8 or above on a 9-point scale. According to Fried et al. (1999), supervisors who give harsh ratings are likely to incur significant costs (e.g., confrontation from subordinates) and it becomes advantageous to inflate scores above what the supervisors privately and truthfully believe. Perhaps more variability and less inflation would have been evident in other types of ‘rewards’ provided by supervisors. For example, supervisors can provide positive performance evaluations for all of their employees if they choose, but they certainly cannot promote every employee. Therefore, which supervisors will promote their most proactive employees? Supervisor characteristics (i.e., leadership, LMX, and personality), in this case, may play a role. For instance, a transformational leader may be more likely to promote a proactive employee in order to bring more change into higher levels of the organization.
Strengths and Limitations
A strength of the current study is that, whereas most research has focused on examining a single proactive behavior, I tested a more general perspective that accounted for multiple proactive behaviors. Recent research has called for more integration of specific proactive behaviors given the redundancies in the separate studies of these behaviors when their nature and consequences are likely similar (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker & Collins, 2008). In the current study I integrated three forms of proactive behaviors, namely taking charge, voice, and issue- selling. Therefore, my research helps to synthesize knowledge and contribute to the understanding of the general dynamics of proactivity. My study is also among the first to investigate the potential outcomes of proactive behaviors, in this case, a positive performance evaluation. Further, my study adds to proactivity literature by taking into account the role of the supervisor. Grant and Ashford (2008) noted that we still lack a clear understanding of when supervisors evaluate proactivity as constructive versus destructive. My study was a response to 24 this call and was also an attempt to more fully understand supervisor perceptions given that supervisors have the ability to either encourage or stifle the expression of proactivity in the workplace. Another strength of this study is the use of multiple sources of data. By collecting data from both employees and their supervisors, I have accounted for a weakness, namely common method bias, associated with the exclusive use of self-report measures (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
This study, however, suffers from several limitations. First of all, the use of a cross- sectional design means that reverse causation cannot be ruled out. Although the results supported the assumption that high levels of proactivity would result in a positive performance evaluation, it is also possible that a positive performance evaluation could induce more proactivity. For example, by receiving a favorable performance evaluation, employee’s self-efficacy may be heightened (Bandura, 1977) and they subsequently may feel more capable of performing tasks outside their required duties, thus behaving proactively. In addition, measuring the predictor and outcome variable (i.e., proactivity and performance evaluation) at the same time may have resulted in an inflated correlation (Spector, 1994).
Implications and Future Research
An interesting avenue for future research would be to investigate the value attributed to proactivity depending on different complexity levels of an occupation. The sample I used consisted of white-collar employees who were primarily college educated and presumably had the latitude and skills necessary to behave proactively. Indeed our results showed that higher ratings of proactivity were associated with more favorable performance evaluations. However, employees working on an assembly line who voice their concerns and attempt to change how work is completed may not be met with the same appreciation. Line managers in this type of 25 occupation may possibly view proactivity as counterproductive or an inefficient use of their employee’s time, and consequently may be less likely to reward these behaviors.
Similarly, an employee who just started working in an organization may be less likely to be rewarded for his or her proactive behaviors. For instance, employees newly hired who are entering the ‘encounter stage’ in the socialization process (Feldman, 1981) are becoming acclimated with the organization and the demands of their role. Employee’s behaving proactively during this period, such as pointing out faulty procedures, may not be rewarded if their supervisors see it as being inappropriate for them to immediately try to see and fix problems.
Worse yet, supervisors may attribute newcomer proactivity to be ungracious or discourteous.
Examining how employees are rewarded, or possibly penalized, for proactive behaviors in this volatile period would certainly be a valuable endeavor for future research.
In addition to a positive performance evaluation, future research could also benefit from investigating different types of rewards provided to employees for behaving proactively. As mentioned previously, different performance criteria could be used such as bonuses, raises, or promotions. It would be interesting to see whether proactivity is also rewarded with these more tangible outcomes, and whether supervisor characteristics would play a role with these different rewards.
The lack of support for my hypotheses in this study actually has positive practical implications for organizations. Given the high relationship between proactivity and performance evaluations, it seems that supervisors generally appreciate proactivity among their subordinates even though proactive behaviors can be risky and possibly threatening (Morrison & Milliken,
2000). Further, the lack of support for the moderating effects of supervisor characteristics suggests that proactivity is appreciated even among different types of managers. Therefore, 26 creating cultures, climates, and reward systems that encourage proactivity should be more feasible for organizations given that supervisors with different qualities are equally valuing proactivity.
Conclusions
As work becomes more complex and decentralized, the proactive behaviors of employees described in this study continue to be critical for determining organizational effectiveness and success (Crant, 2000; Parker & Collins, 2008). Given the current economic instability and subsequent reduction in the workforce, organizations should also be ensuring that their remaining staff are performing optimally and are attempting to behave proactively rather than reactively. By investigating supervisor characteristics that could alter the relationship between proactive behaviors and performance evaluations, my study attempted to understand the conditions under which supervisors give credit for their employee’s proactive behaviors.
Although there are many potential reasons to explain why I did not find the moderating effect of supervisor characteristics, my results are promising for organizations that want to encourage proactivity in spite of individual differences among supervisors. 27
REFERENCES
Aragon-Correa, J. A. (1998). Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural environment.
Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 556-567.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: Antecedents,
tactics, and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199-214.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of
analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199-218.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of
neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59(3), 355-
386.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?
Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82-98.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning
style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in
higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(6), 1057-1068.
Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G.H. (1994). Performance appraisal South-Western Publ. Co.
Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1986). Affect and appraisal accuracy: Liking as an integral
dimension in evaluating performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 672-678. 28
Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive
personality on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2),
475-481.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,
Mahwah, NJ, US.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real
estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532-537.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-
462.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process.
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In N. Anderson, D.
S. Ones & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational
psychology (pp. 166-187). London: Sage Publications.
Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 417-440.
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. 29
Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of
Management Review, , 309-318.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the
21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., Ben-David, H. A., & Tiegs, R. B. (1999). Ination of subordinates'
performance ratings: Main and interactive effects of rater negative affectivity,
documentation of work behavior, and appraisal visibility. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 431-444.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are
related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(3), 513-524.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7–28.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development
of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-
level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor
reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 31-55.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations,
and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 30
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations,
and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. (1993). Performance appraisal process
research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 321-321.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship
behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-277.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1998). Positive affect facilitates creative
problem solving. Human Emotions: A Reader, , 288–297.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-767.
Kidder, D. L., & Parks, J. M. (2001). The good soldier: Who is s(he)? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22, 939-959.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1983). The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory, and
applications Academic Press.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past
and potential for the future. Research in personnel and human resources management, vol.
15. (pp. 47-119) Elsevier Science/JAI Press, US.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425. 31
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and
moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376-390.
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin,
120, 323-337.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.
American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate
workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange
status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3),
428-436.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical
and empirical analysis and refinement of the kipnis, schmidt, and wilkinson subscales.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 246-257.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived
organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219-227. 32
Siebert, 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, 845-874.
Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of
a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, , 385-392.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011-1017.
Tsui, A. S., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of
relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, ,
402-423.
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.
VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. N., & Brown, S. P. (2000). An integrated model of
feedback-seeking behavior: Disposition, context, and cognition. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(6), 996-1003.
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.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,
601-617. 33
Appendix A
Supervisor Report a. Taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999)
Please rate how often he/she completes each activity.
He/she often tries to adopt improved procedures for doing his/her job. He/she often tries to change how his/her job is executed in order to be more effective. He/she often tries to bring about improved procedures for the work unit or department. He/she often tries to institute new work methods that are more effective for the company. He/she often tries to change organizational rule or policies that are nonproductive or counterproductive. He/she often makes constructive suggestions for improving how things operate within the organization. He/she often tries to correct faulty procedures or practice. He/she often tries to eliminate redundant or unnecessary procedures. He/she often tries to implement solutions for pressing organizational problems. He/she often tries to introduce new structures, technologies, or approaches to improve efficiency.
(1 = Very infrequently, 5 = Very frequently) b. Voice (Van Dyne & LePine,1998)
To what extent does the employee engage in the following behaviors?
Develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect the work group. Speaks up and encourages others in the group to get involved in issues that affect the group. Communicates his/her opinions about work issues to others in this group even if his/her opinion is different and others in the group disagree with him/her. Keeps him/her self well informed about issues where his/her opinion might be useful to the work group. Gets involved in issues that affect the quality of work life in the group. Speaks up in the group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.
(1 = Very infrequently, 5 = Very frequently) c. Issue selling - rationality (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990)
How often does the employee display the following behaviors to draw attention to an important issue that concerns the organization?
He/she uses logic to convince me. He/she explains the reasons for his/her requests. 34
He/she presents me with information in support of his/her point of view.
(1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree) d. Personality (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006)
Neuroticism I have frequent mood swings. I am relaxed most of the time. I get upset easily. I seldom feel blue.
Openness I have a vivid imagination. I am not interested in abstract ideas. I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. I do not have a good imagination.
Agreeableness I sympathize with others’ feelings. I am not interested in other people’s problems. I feel others’ emotions. I am not really interested in others.
(1 = Very inaccurate, 5 = Very accurate) e. Performance evaluation (Ashford & Black, 1996)
Please recall his/her last actual performance evaluation and report how he/she was rated relative to others with regard to:
Overall performance His/her ability to get along with others His/her ability to get the task done on time The quality of his/her performance The achievement of work goals
(1 = Bottom 10%, 9 = Top 10%))
f. Control Variables
35
In-role performance (Williams & Anderson, 1991)
Please rate each statement on how accurately it describes your subordinates’ behavior at work during this work week.
He/she adequately completed assigned duties. He/she fulfilled responsibilities specified in job description. He/she performed tasks that were expected of him/her. He/she met formal performance requirements of the job. He/she engaged in activity that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation. He/she neglected aspects of the job that he/she was obligated to perform. He/she failed to perform essential duties.
(1= Not at all, 5 = All the time) 36
Appendix B
Subordinate Report a. Leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1995)
Judge how frequently each statement fits the person you are describing.
Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate. Fails to interfere until problems become serious. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards. Avoids getting involved when important issues arise. Talks about his/her most important values and beliefs. Is absent when needed. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems. Talks optimistically about the future. Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. Spends time teaching and coaching. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved. Shows that he/she is a firm believer in “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action. Acts in ways that builds my respect. Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions. Keeps track of all mistakes. Displays a sense of power and confidence. Articulates a compelling vision of the future. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards. Avoids making decisions. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles. Helps me to develop my strengths. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. Delays responding to urgent questions. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved. Is effective in meeting my job-related needs. Uses methods of leadership that are satisfying. Gets me to do more than I expected to do. 37
Is effective in representing me to higher authority. Works with me in a satisfactory way. Heightens my desire to succeed. Is effective in meeting organizational requirements. Increases my willingness to try harder. Leads a group that is effective.
(0 = Not at all; 4 = Frequently, if not always) b. Leader-Member Exchange (Liden, Wayne, & Stillwell, 1993)
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements:
I usually know where I stand with my supervisor. I usually know how satisfied my supervisor is with me. My supervisor understands my job problems and needs. My supervisor recognizes my potential. Regardless of how much formal authority he/she has built into his/her position, my supervisor would use his/her power to help me solve problems in my work. I can count on my supervisor to "bail me out" at his/her own expense. I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she was not present to do so. I would characterize my working relationship with my supervisor as extremely effective.
(1= Strongly disagree; 7= Strongly agree) c. Control Variables
What is your sex? How old are you? How long have you have you had this job for? (months) How many hours per week do you have direct contact with your supervisor at work?
38
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistencies
Variable Mean SD Observed Range Possible Range Alpha Contact Frequency 18.88 15.38 0 – 55 Tenure 34.39 41.36 1 – 258 In-role Behavior 6.03 .88 2.43 – 7 1 – 7 .89 Taking Charge 5.13 1.13 1.30 – 7 1 – 7 .94 Voice 5.24 1.11 1.17 – 7 1 – 7 .91 Issue-Selling 5.63 .98 3 – 7 1 – 7 .83 Proactivity Composite 5.33 .95 2.16 – 7 1 – 7 .95 Performance Evaluation 7.71 1.30 3.80 – 9 1 – 9 .94 Transformational Leadership 3.18 .52 1.60 – 4 0 – 4 .93 Transactional Leadership 3.15 .69 1 – 4 0 – 4 .74 Laissez-faire Leadership 1.47 .54 1 – 3.5 0 – 4 .73 LMX 5.70 1.01 2.88 – 7 1 – 7 .90 Neuroticism 1.89 .56 1 – 4.3 1 – 5 .81 Openness to Experience 4.08 .62 2.70 – 5 1 – 5 .82 Agreeableness 4.32 .36 2.7 – 7 1 – 5 .64
39
Table 2. Intercorrelations among Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Contact Frequency -- 2. Tenure -.04 -- 3. In-role Behavior .16 -.04 -- 4. Taking Charge .11 -.14 .63** -- 5. Voice .01 .02 .57** .76** -- 6. Issue-Selling .09 -.03 .50** .62** .63** -- 7. Proactivity Composite .07 -.06 .65** .91** .91** .84** -- 8. Performance Evaluation .17 -.08 .82** .67** .57* .55** .68** 9. Transformational Leadership .18*-.17* .11 .13 .05 -.01 .07 10. Transactional Leadership .09 -.18 .12 .05 -.03 .01 .01 11. Laissez-faire Leadership -.14 .04 -.09 -.08 .02 -.06 -.04 12. LMX .20* -.17* .11 .08 .04 .02 .06 13. Neuroticism -.13 -.03 -.12 -.04 -.14 -.19 -.11 14. Openness to Experience .04 .13 .07 -.02 -.03 -.10 -.05 15. Agreeableness .01 .003 .08 .02 .10 .11 .09 Note. N = 140. *p < .05, **p < .01. 40
Table 2 (cont.). Intercorrelations among Variables
Variable 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. Contact Frequency 2. Tenure 3. In-role Behavior 4. Taking Charge 5. Voice 6. Issue-Selling 7. Proactivity Composite 8. Performance Evaluation -- 9. Transformational Leadership .18*-- 10. Transactional Leadership .19* .81** -- 11. Laissez-faire Leadership -.13 -.52** -.49** -- 12. LMX .15 .74** .65** -.55** -- 13. Neuroticism -.08 .03 .12 .05 .01 -- 14. Openness to Experience .02 -.10 -.05 .01 -.05 -.33** -- 15. Agreeableness .06 -.06 -.08 .001 .01 -.39** .05 -- Note. N = 140. *p < .05, **p < .01. 41
Table 3. Regressions for the Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership
Step1 Step 2
Step 1 b SE β t b SE β t
Contact Frequency - .004 - -.98 - .004 - -.88 .004 .05 .003 .04
Tenure .00 .00 - -.57 .00 .00 - -.52 .03 .03
In-role Behavior .96 .09 .64 10.40** .95 .09 .64 10.32**
Proactivity .35 .09 .25 4.08** .34 .09 .25 3.99**
Transformational Leadership .23 .12 .09 1.9 .24 .12 .09 1.94
Step 2
Proactivity X Transformational -.02 .07 - -.34 Leadership .02
Adjusted R-squared .70** .70**
Δ Adjusted R-squared .00
Note. N = 140. The dependent variable is supervisor performance evaluations. **p < .01
42
Table 4. Regressions for the Moderating Role of Transactional Leadership
Step1 Step 2
Step 1 b SE β t b SE β t
Contact Frequency - .004 - -1.25 - .004 - -1.19 .01 .06 .01 .06
Tenure .00 .00 - -.46 .00 .00 - -.41 .02 .02
In-role Behavior .94 ..09 ..63 10.27** .93 .09 .63 10.10**
Proactivity .35 .08 .26 4.23** .35 .09 .26 4.17**
Transactional Leadership .21 .09 .12 2.4 .22 .09 .12 2.40
Step 2
Proactivity X Transactional -.06 - -.59 Leadership .04 .03
Adjusted R-squared .72** .72**
Δ Adjusted R-squared .001
Note. N = 140. The dependent variable is supervisor performance evaluations. **p < .01 43
Table 5. Regressions for the Moderating Role of Laissez-Faire Leadership
Step1 Step 2
Step 1 b SE β t b SE β t
Contact Frequency - .004 - -1.09 - .004 - -.99 .004 .05 .004 .04
Tenure .00 .00 - -.37 .00 .00 - -.36 .02 .02
In-role Behavior .96 .09 .65 10.44** .96 .09 .64 10.17**
Proactivity .34 .09 .25 4.03** .35 .09 .26 4.05**
Laissez-Faire Leadership -.17 .11 - -1.45 -.17 .11 - -1.41 .07 .07
Step 2
Proactivity X Laissez-Faire .04 .07 .03 .51 Leadership
Adjusted R-squared .71** .71**
Δ Adjusted R-squared .001
Note. N = 140. The dependent variable is supervisor performance evaluations. **p < .01 44
Table 5. Regressions for the Moderating Role of LMX
Step1 Step 2
Step 1 b SE β t b SE β t
Contact Frequency - .004 - -.1.02 - .004 - -.97 .004 .05 .004 .05
Tenure .00 .00 - -.42 .00 .00 - -.40 .02 .02
In-role Behavior .96 .09 .65 10.41** .96 .09 .65 10.24**
Proactivity .35 .09 .25 4.06** .35 .09 .25 4.03**
LMX .09 .06 .07 1.48 .09 .06 .07 1.46
Step 2
Proactivity X LMX -.02 .07 - -.23 .01
Adjusted R-squared .71** .71**
Δ Adjusted R-squared .00
Note. N = 140. The dependent variable is supervisor performance evaluations. **p < .01 45
Table 7. Regressions for the Moderating Role of Neuroticism
Step1 Step 2
Step 1 b SE β t b SE β t
Contact Frequency - .004 - -.71 - .004 - -.58 .003 .04 .002 .03
Tenure .00 .00 - -.35 .00 .00 - -.32 .02 .02
In-role Behavior .96 .09 .65 10.39** .98 .10 .66 10.37**
Proactivity .36 .09 .26 4.09** .35 .09 .26 4.01**
Neuroticism .02 .11 .01 .18 .01 .11 .01 .11
Step 2
Proactivity X Neuroticism .05 .06 .04 .88
Adjusted R-squared .71** .71**
Δ Adjusted R-squared .002
Note. N = 140. The dependent variable is supervisor performance evaluations. **p < .01 46
Table 8. Regressions for the Moderating Role of Openness to Experience
Step1 Step 2
Step 1 b SE β t b SE β t
Contact Frequency - .004 - -.79 - .004 -.04 -.78 .003 .04 .003
Tenure .00 .00 - -.36 .00 .00 -.02 -.34 .02
In-role Behavior .97 .09 .65 10.32** .96 .09 .65 10.29**
Proactivity .35 .09 .26 4.07** .35 .09 .25 3.87**
Openness to Experience - .10 .00 -.01 - .10 - -.01 .001 .001 .001
Step 2
Proactivity X Openness to .03 .07 .02 .43 Experience
Adjusted R-squared .71** .71**
Δ Adjusted R-squared .00
Note. N = 140. The dependent variable is supervisor performance evaluations. **p < .01 47
Table 9. Regressions for the Moderating Role of Agreeableness
Step1 Step 2
Step 1 b SE β t b SE β t
Contact Frequency - .004 - -.78 - .004 - -.72 .003 .04 .003 .04
Tenure .00 .00 - -.38 .00 .00 - -.26 .02 .01
In-role Behavior .97 .09 .65 10.41** .97 .09 .65 10.42**
Proactivity .35 .09 .26 4.03** .36 .09 .26 4.13**
Agreeableness .07 .19 .02 .35 .11 .19 .03 .56
Step 2
Proactivity X Agreeableness -.11 .08 - -1.38 .07
Adjusted R-squared .71** .71**
Δ Adjusted R-squared .004
Note. N = 140. The dependent variable is supervisor performance evaluations. **p < .01 48
Figure 1. Histogram of the Distribution of Performance Evaluation Ratings
40
30
t
n
u
o C 20
10
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Performance Evaluation Rating