Proactive Personality at Work: Seeing More to Do and Doing More ...

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86 DOI 10.1007/s10869-013-9298-5

Proactive Personality at Work: Seeing More to Do and Doing More? Diane M. Bergeron • Tiffany D. Schroeder Hector A. Martinez

•

Published online: 30 March 2013  Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop and test a model relating proactive personality to job behaviors (task and citizenship behaviors) through the intervening mediator of perceived role breadth. Design/methodology/approach Survey data were obtained from 530 faculty members in 69 U. S. research universities. Findings Proactive personality was positively related to task behavior and OCB. Perceived role breadth mediated the relationship between proactive personality and OCB, but did not mediate the relationship between proactive personality and task behavior. Despite not viewing their role more broadly, individuals higher in proactive personality engaged more frequently in both task behavior and OCB; and also worked more hours per week. Implications Having a better understanding of proactive individuals is important in terms of managing them. Because these individuals tend to do more in their jobs and subsequently work more hours, they may be more susceptible to burnout and may require additional help in determining priorities and balancing their work and lives. D. M. Bergeron (&) Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Peter B. Lewis Building, #434, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-7235, USA e-mail: [email protected] T. D. Schroeder
H. A. Martinez Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Peter B. Lewis Building, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-7235, USA e-mail: [email protected] H. A. Martinez e-mail: [email protected]

Originality/value This is the first study to show that proactive personality is positively related to the frequency with which these individuals engage in task and citizenship behavior. Although role breadth is generally an antecedent of such job behaviors, individuals higher in proactive personality engage more frequently in task behaviors regardless of whether or not they perceive them as part of their role. This is one of the first studies to show that working more hours each week is a potential cost of having a proactive personality. Keywords Proactive personality
Perceived role breadth
Organizational citizenship behavior
Task behavior
Job performance
Hours worked The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. - George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950) Proactive personality is a stable personality trait related to taking personal initiative and behaving proactively (Bateman and Crant 1993; Crant 2000). Research suggests that individuals higher on this trait engage in additional job activities beyond those which are required in their formal roles (Bateman and Crant 1993; Parker 1998). A main belief underlying the proactivity literature is that proactive behaviors are meaningfully related to key organizational success indicators (Thomas et al. 2010), such as group and organizational performance (e.g., Podsakoff and Mackenzie 1994; Whitman et al. 2010), customer satisfaction, and overall operating efficiency (Karambayya 1990; Walz and Niehoff 2000). Fuller and Marler (2009) note that proactive personality traits are ‘‘…thought to drive … the competitive advantage of their organizations’’ (p. 329). Much of

123

72

the recent interest in proactive personality is due to the fact that proactivity is becoming a necessity rather than a choice in many organizations (Seibert et al. 2001; Thomas et al. 2010). As such, recent research has focused on attempting to understand when individuals will behave proactively and take on these broader roles at work (e.g., Kamdar et al. 2006). Over a decade ago, Seibert et al. (2001) asked ‘‘what do proactive people do?’’ (p. 845). Researchers responded by identifying the types of behaviors proactive individuals engage in (e.g., Bateman and Crant 1993). This work has examined the relationship between proactive personality and proactive behaviors but most, if not all, of this work has focused on the domain of extra-role behavior (i.e., contextual or citizenship behavior). Recently, however, researchers have acknowledged that, in addition to occurring within the domain of extra-role behavior, proactive behavior can manifest in the domain of in-role behavior (also known as task behavior) (e.g., Crant 2000; Parker et al. 2010). To date, there is little empirical work to support the proposed relationship between proactive personality and task behavior. Furthermore, there seems to be no research that examines the quantity of work, i.e., how much these individuals do. Although we know that these individuals engage in a greater variety of job behaviors (Crant 2000), it may be that individuals higher on this trait also do more in their jobs in terms of how frequently they engage in various behaviors. This is important to know because frequency is another form of ‘‘doing more.’’ Therefore, in this paper, we examine the frequency with which individuals higher on proactive personality engage in both task behavior and OCB. While what proactive individuals do is one question, why they do what they do is another. Most research has focused on what individuals higher on this trait do (e.g., network building, taking initiative, Thompson 2005) rather than on why they do it. One potential mediating mechanism is perceived role breadth. Perceived role breadth is the extent to which individuals consider certain job activities to be within their role (Morrison 1994). A large number of studies show that perceived role breadth is positively associated with engaging in actual job behaviors (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro et al. 2004). Therefore, we examine whether perceived role breadth mediates the relationship between proactive personality and job behaviors (task, citizenship). Currently, most of the work on proactive personality has focused on the positive, career-enhancing benefits of having this personality trait (Seibert et al. 1999). Indeed, metaanalyses indicate that individuals higher on this trait are more successful both in terms of subjective and objective career outcomes (Fuller and Marler 2009; Thomas et al. 2010). Although the vast majority of research on proactive

123

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

personality has focused on its benefits (e.g., Crant 1995; Seibert et al. 2001; Thompson 2005), researchers are beginning to question whether there may be some downsides to having a proactive personality (Erdogan and Bauer 2005; Grant and Ashford 2008). There seems to be little empirical work, however, examining detrimental effects due to having this trait. Two recent empirical studies show that proactive personality can lead to poorer work performance under conditions of low situational judgment effectiveness (Chan 2006) and that there may be potential image costs to behaving proactively due to supervisory attributions for the proactive behavior (De Stobbeleir et al. 2010). However, because of how much these individuals do, one possible outcome is that being higher in proactive personality requires spending more hours working each week. If proactive individuals work more hours than other employees, they may be more susceptible to feelings of time pressure (Parker and DeCotiis 1983) which can arise from having high aspirations of what is possible (Robinson and Godbey 1997) and feeling that there is no sufficient time to accomplish all one wants to accomplish (Restegary and Landy 1993), which may have implications for burnout or work-life balance. The purpose of this paper is to develop and test an integrated model relating proactive personality to job behaviors (task, citizenship) through the intervening construct of perceived role breadth. We then attempt to show that a negative outcome of proactive personality may be the number of hours worked each week. This paper extends past research by making three main contributions. First, after briefly reviewing the literature on job performance and proactive personality, we explain why proactive personality is likely related to both domains of job performance (citizenship behavior, task behavior). Although there is a good amount of work showing a positive relationship between proactive personality and OCB (Fuller and Marler 2009), little empirical work has investigated the relationship to task behavior. In doing so, we investigate whether these individuals engage more frequently in task behavior and OCB. Extant research has used measures of job effectiveness as rated by supervisors, but no research has utilized measures of behavioral frequency. Frequency is important because it is another manifestation, in addition to engaging in a wider variety of activities, of how these individuals enact their tendency to do more. Furthermore, in jobs with low autonomy, how frequently one engages in a behavior may be the only form of proactivity allowable. Second, using role theory, we explain how individuals higher in this trait may perceive their roles more broadly and hypothesize that role breadth may mediate the relationship between proactive personality and job behaviors. This adds to the literature on proactive personality by identifying a potential mechanism that explains why

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

proactive individuals do more. Finally, we suggest that individuals scoring higher on this trait may need to work more hours than less proactive individuals. In doing so, we highlight a potential cost of proactive personality and add to the scant empirical literature suggesting there may be some downsides to having this personality trait.

Proactive Personality and Proactive Processes Proactive personality (Bateman and Crant 1993) is an individual’s dispositional tendency to alter their environment through proactive behavior (Fuller and Marler 2009). An individual low in proactive personality will adapt to the circumstances of the situation, without imposing his or her perspective. In other words, the person will ‘‘endure their circumstances’’ (Bateman and Crant 1993, p. 105). In contrast, someone high in proactive personality will work through their behaviors to intentionally and directly effect change on their current situation—essentially, adapting the environment to themselves. Proactive behavior is ‘‘motivated, conscious, and goal directed’’ (Parker et al. 2010, p. 830). Because these individuals have a long-term focus, they do not wait to respond to elements in their environment. Rather, they proactively search for information, scan the environment, anticipate future opportunities and come up with a plan to create new circumstances (Frese and Fay 2001; Thomas et al. 2010). In this way, it seems that individuals higher on this trait have a vision of what is possible, are strongly guided by it and engage in behaviors that work to make it a reality. Job Performance: Task and Citizenship Behavior Crant (2000) and others (e.g., Parker et al. 2010) point out that, within the job performance domain (Viswesvaran and Ones 2000), individuals can engage in proactive behaviors with regard to in-role behavior as well as extra-role behavior. In-role or task behavior refers to the core job behavior requirements (Borman and Motowidlo 1993) and includes behaviors generally found in traditional job descriptions (Williams and Anderson 1991). Extra-role or organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) includes behaviors that ‘‘support the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place’’ (Organ 1997, p. 95). These behaviors are viewed as more discretionary (Van Scotter et al. 2000) and tend to be similar across jobs. Examples include helping others and volunteering for extra work. Past research has focused on what proactive individuals do (Becherer and Maurer 1999; Parker 1998), with much of this work identifying the wide variety of behaviors engaged in by individuals higher on this trait. For example,

73

proactive personality is positively related to extracurricular activities (Bateman and Crant 1993), organizational membership in voluntary continuous improvement groups (Parker 1998), taking charge (Thomas et al. 2010), suggestions (Griffin et al. 2007), starting rather than buying a business, and the total number of businesses started (Becherer and Maurer 1999). This body of research seems to suggest that a large part of the proactive personality is centered on ‘‘doing more’’ and engaging in more activities. However, another form of ‘‘doing more’’ is the frequency with which certain job behaviors are engaged in. That is, these individuals engage in a certain set of activities and simply perform them more often than do less proactive individuals. Little or no research has focused on the idea that more proactive individuals simply do more in their jobs in terms of the frequency of job behaviors. Frequency is important because it is a form of proactivity which measures how often one engages in specific job behaviors. To date, past studies on both task behavior and OCB have focused on supervisory ratings of effectiveness or impact, rather than on frequency. For example, Thompson (2005) found a positive relationship between proactive personality and subjective task performance as assessed by a supervisor. Chan (2006) found a similar relationship but only when situational judgment effectiveness was high (not when it was low). Meta-analytic results show that proactive personality is positively related to objective measures of task performance (e.g., productivity) and to supervisors’ subjective evaluations (Thomas et al. 2010). With regard to OCB, a meta-analysis (Fuller and Marler 2009) shows a positive relationship between proactive personality and two specific forms of OCB, voice and taking charge. Greguras and Diefendorff (2010) also found a positive relationship between proactive personality and OCB. However, two other studies (Li et al. 2010, 2011) found no relationship, although the authors suggest this may have been due to the Chinese context, in which more OCB is expected. As with the research on task behavior, none of these studies looked at how frequently individuals engage in job behaviors. It may be that individuals higher in proactive personality invest more in their jobs by engaging in job behaviors more frequently—in terms of both task behavior and OCB—than do other people because of their quest to make their personal vision a reality. This type of proactivity can manifest in virtually any type of job. Imagine, for example, two fast food service workers. One worker may sweep the facilities twice a day, as required by a job description. The other worker, who has a proactive personality, may sweep the facilities as often as debris accumulates—simply because he or she has a vision of the level of cleanliness possible. Although task behavior is more constrained because it is part of one’s role, engaging in expected tasks more

123

74

frequently is a way to behave proactively in this area. The relationship between proactive personality and job performance is likely to be particularly strong with regard to OCB. It seems that more proactive individuals go beyond their jobs and engage in a wider range of activities (e.g., Bateman and Crant 1993; Parker 1998), thus tending to engage in behaviors that go beyond formal roles. They seem to be in ‘‘continuous improvement mode’’ and see opportunities that others do not (Crant 2000). They are also willing to push projects forward—even when there are obstacles or opposition (Bateman and Crant 1993). Because those who are higher on this trait are so focused on achieving what they see as possible (Bateman and Crant 1993), it is likely that they are willing to engage in behaviors as often as needed to turn their ideas into reality. Thus, it seems that individuals higher on proactive personality will engage in both types of job behaviors (task, citizenship) more often than those lower on this trait. Hypothesis 1a Proactive personality is positively related to the frequency of engaging in task behavior. Hypothesis 1b Proactive personality is positively related to the frequency of engaging in OCB. Role Theory and Role Breadth Role theory (Katz and Kahn 1978) proposes that people enact their roles in different ways and that these roles can be expanded upon. Even within the same job, individuals will engage in a slightly different set of tasks and activities, thus shaping slightly different roles for themselves (Graen 1976; Ilgen and Hollenbeck 1991; Katz and Kahn 1978). Empirical work supports the idea that there is considerable variation in how broadly individuals define their roles (Kamdar et al. 2006; Morrison 1994; McAllister et al. 2007). This is referred to as perceived role breadth and is the set of behaviors or activities that an individual defines as being in-role (Morrison 1994). The more activities an employee defines as in-role, the greater his or her perceived role breadth will be. Morrison (1994) argued that, for some employees, the distinction is where they ‘‘draw the line between in-role and extra-role behavior’’ (p. 1544). The accepted explanation for broader perceived role breadth is that there is a give-and-take exchange process through ongoing interactions with others (e.g., coworkers, supervisors) which influences how individuals perceive and define their roles (e.g., Graen 1976; Grant and Ashford 2008; Katz and Kahn 1978). In their extensive treatment of roles, however, Katz and Kahn also state that ‘‘each person is a ‘self-sender,’ that is, a role-sender to him or herself’’ (p. 194) and thus influences his or her own role. In this way, certain dispositional traits are likely to influence how individuals perceive their role. Thus far, no theoretical or

123

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

empirical work has investigated dispositional predictors of perceived role breadth. It seems likely that proactive personality is positively related to perceived role breadth because jobs are cognitive constructions (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978). If personality influences how one thinks about one’s job, it is likely that personal perceptions of one’s work duties and obligations would cause individuals with a proactive personality to think of their jobs more broadly. Given that individuals higher in proactive personality engage in work behaviors that go beyond job requirements (Seibert et al. 2001) and given their creativity and personal initiative (Fuller and Marler 2009), it is likely that proactive personality is predictive of greater perceived role breadth in both domains of job performance. From a role theory perspective (Katz and Kahn 1978), task behavior is somewhat constrained simply because it is a more formalized role. However, because much of what more proactive individuals do seems to be self-created, they may be more likely to adapt additional activities into their perception of task behavior (i.e., in-role behavior) and incorporate them into part of their role. In this way, their task behavior role expands and they perceive it more broadly. Individuals lower in proactive personality tend to be passive and react to their environment rather than actively shape it (Thomas et al. 2010), and would therefore be less likely to proactively modify their task roles. Therefore, we expect proactive personality to be positively related to task behavior role breadth. OCB is the area surrounding the defined core parts of the job (i.e., task behavior) (Borman and Motowidlo 1993) and can be considered the ‘‘white space’’ of job performance. The term white space was originally used to describe the area between the boxes in an organizational chart where no one is in charge (Rummler and Brache 1991) and where rules and authority are vague (Maletz and Nohria 2001). In this domain, there are few limits with regard to how much can get done and the types of activities in which one can engage. Compared to task behavior, OCB is the more autonomous part of the job performance domain (Dierdorff et al. 2012; Motowidlo and Van Scotter 1994). Therefore, it seems that this area is particularly well-suited to more proactive individuals’ proclivity to attempt to modify things. In the literature, a construct related to role breadth is role breadth self-efficacy (Parker 1998). It has been defined as feeling efficacious in carrying out a ‘‘broader and more proactive role, beyond traditional technical requirements’’ (p. 835). Parker points out that role breadth self-efficacy is related to OCB in that it is concerned with going beyond technical tasks (i.e., task behavior), but that it is more about what individuals feel they can do rather than what they actually do (i.e., their behavior). A number of studies have found a positive relationship between proactive personality and role breadth self-efficacy (Fuller and

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

Marler 2009; Ohly and Fritz 2007; Parker 1998; Parker and Sprigg 1999; Parker et al. 2006) in that individuals higher on this trait feel capable of carrying out a larger role. As such, it seems likely there will be a positive relationship between proactive personality and OCB role breadth. In sum, we expect proactive personality to be positively related to both task behavior role breadth and OCB role breadth because individuals higher on proactive personality are likely to cognitively construct their job more broadly than those lower on this trait. Hypothesis 2a Proactive personality is positively related to task behavior role breadth. Hypothesis 2b Proactive personality is positively related to OCB role breadth. A fairly extensive body of research shows that perceived role breadth is predictive of actual job behaviors. In this area, there is much more work on OCB than on task behavior, with only one study investigating the relationship between role breadth and task behavior. Morgeson et al. (2005) found that task behavior role breadth significantly predicted actual job performance behaviors as rated by supervisors. With regard to OCB, a number of studies show that greater OCB role breadth results in more OCB (CoyleShapiro et al. 2004; Hofmann et al. 2003; Kamdar et al. 2006; McAllister et al. 2007; Morrison 1994; Tepper et al. 2001). Because individuals higher in proactive personality initiate activities based on their vision of what is possible rather than staying within the confines of their prescribed roles, it seems likely that they have cognitive constructions of their job that are broader than individuals lower in proactive personality. Therefore, it seems they would perceive their roles more broadly. Because greater perceived role breadth is predictive of actual job behaviors, we hypothesize that perceived role breadth could help explain why individuals higher in proactive personality engage in job behaviors more frequently. In sum, it seems that perceived role breadth would mediate the relationship between proactive personality and job performance. Specifically, we predict that Hypothesis 3a Perceived task behavior role breadth mediates the relationship between proactive personality and task behavior. Hypothesis 3b Perceived OCB role breadth mediates the relationship between proactive personality and OCB. Job Behaviors and Average Weekly Hours Worked Individuals higher in proactive personality seem to pursue a wide variety of activities (e.g., Bateman and Crant 1993; Becherer and Maurer 1999; Parker 1998). With regard to

75

job performance, Morrison (1994) used the analogy of a series of concentric circles. She suggested that within the innermost core are required task behaviors. Beyond that, in the outer circles, are behaviors classified as OCB. Individuals higher in proactive personality, however, work beyond even these outer circles. They are less likely to pursue formal organizational avenues as a way to make change, and instead create ad hoc activities which help them achieve their goals. In this way, they are creating new circumstances (Frese and Fay 2001; Thomas et al. 2010) in which their ideas can be realized. These activities are not OCB because they may or may not help the organization and may not be the activities the organization would deem as most beneficial or important. Rather, they are ones the more proactive individual feels are necessary to achieve what they see as possible (Bateman and Crant 1993). In essence, more proactive individuals seem to have their own agenda and are concerned with adapting the environment to themselves. Meta-analytic results show that these individuals take more career initiative, have more political and organizational knowledge, build their networks more, have more entrepreneurial thoughts, are more creative and also have better leader-member exchange relationships (Fuller and Marler 2009). Thus, it seems that much of what these more proactive individuals do is in addition to the normal activities associated with their job (i.e., beyond task and citizenship behavior) (Bateman and Crant 1993; Thomas et al. 2010; Griffin et al. 2007). These activities are voluntary but may still require a significant investment of time. Given how much proactive people do (e.g., Becherer and Maurer 1999; Thomas et al. 2010), we hypothesize that individuals higher on this trait work a greater number of hours per week than those lower on this trait. Hypothesis 4 Proactive personality is positively related to weekly hours worked. Context of the Study In this study, we chose to focus on academic faculty members in the U. S. research universities. In this type of sample, job behaviors (task behavior, OCB) tend to be similar across institutions and it is possible to include participants across many organizations. In a research university, performance criteria include behaviors related to research, teaching, and service (Park 1996) and both task behavior and OCB are included in these job behaviors. Task behavior includes activities such as conducting research, teaching students, and engaging in service activities (U.S. Department of Labor 1991). OCB includes activities such as providing suggestions to improve the department, and acting like a peacemaker. Academe is one of many jobs (e.g., medicine, law, accounting) that has a

123

76

strong relationship to a professional association. Thus, in addition to task behavior and OCB directly internally toward the organization, members also engage in a type of job-specific OCB directed externally to the organization. Namely, professional service. Because this type of OCB is a critical component of academic jobs but is considered a form of volunteer effort (Ketchen 2008) (e.g., Hillman 2005; Ketchen 2008), it is important to capture this additional set of citizenship behaviors.

Method Although existing measures of citizenship are available in the literature, there are no current measures of task behavior or professional service OCB in academe. Therefore, it was necessary to conduct a pilot study to develop these measures (see the Appendix for a detailed description of the pilot study and measure development process). To finalize the scales from the pilot study, we explored and confirmed the factor structure and reliability of the measures of OCB, task behavior and professional service OCB on data collected from two different samples. With the first sample, surveys containing the 21 items from the pilot study were sent to 1,773 faculty members in 38 psychology departments in 2002. The response rate was 19 % (N = 329), with 236 useable surveys. For each of the items, participants were asked to rate each behavior based on the frequency they performed it using a 5-point scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always). Exploratory factor analyses using principal axis factoring and oblique rotation were conducted. In keeping with the conceptual distinction between task behavior and OCB, we factor analyzed each set of items separately. For task behavior items, we specified a priori three factors based on the three accepted aspects of a faculty member’s job (i.e., research, teaching, service; Dilts et al. 1994). There were 3 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 and the EFA accounted for 63 % of the total item variance. Three items were dropped due to cross-loadings or a lack of clear conceptual fit on one of the three factors. Most of the coefficients loaded .6 or above on their respective factors with very low crossloadings which is considered good to excellent (Comrey and Lee 1992). The final three task behavior factors were Research task behavior (alpha = .74, n = 3), Teaching task behavior (alpha = .86, n = 3), and Service task behavior (alpha = .82, n = 3). For the set of OCB items, we specified a priori two factors based on using previously validated OCB items and the newly developed professional service OCB items. The two-factor solution accounted for 45 % of the total item variance. Most of the coefficients loaded .6 or above, with very low cross-loadings. For the two OCB scales, the reliabilities were .76 (n = 4) for

123

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

OCB-General and .80 (n = 5) for OCB-Professional Service. The factor structure was confirmed on the current study sample (N = 530, see ‘‘sample’’ below). Confirmatory factor analyses were performed with full information maximum likelihood estimation using SPSS AMOS 20. For the task behavior scales, we tested three competing models: the 3-factor model (research, teaching, service) from the EFA; a 2-factor model with teaching as one factor, and with research and service as a second factor; and a 1-factor model with all items loading on a single factor. As expected, the 3-factor model fit the data better than both the 2-factor model, Dv2(1) = 97.81, p \ .01, and the 1-factor model, Dv2(3) = 114.42, p \ .01. Results for the 3-factor model were (v2(24) = 63.1, p \ .01, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06, 95 % CI [.04, .07]) and indicated good model fit. For the OCB scales, we analyzed two competing models: the 2-factor model obtained from the EFA and a 1-factor model with all items loading on a single factor. The 2-factor model had acceptable fit (v2 (26) = 126.41, p \ .01, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .09, 95 % CI [.07, .10]) and fit the data better than the 1-factor model, Dv2 (1) = 32.91, p \ .01. Sample In 2007, surveys were sent to 3,912 faculty members in biology, psychology, cognitive science, and management. The response rate was 16 %, with 631 usable surveys. After excluding all adjuncts, emeritus faculty and nontenure-track faculty, our sample size was 530. The sample was composed of 21 % assistant professors, 21 % associate professors, and 58 % full professors from 69 U.S. public (57 %) and private (43 %) research universities. This sample is fairly representative of faculty in research universities (U.S. Department of Education 1999). By field, 27 % were in biology, 34 % in psychology, 11 % in cognitive neuroscience, and 17 % in management. The sample was 64 % male. There was an average of 23.2 years of experience (SD = 12.3), with an average of 2.76 classes taught per year (SD = 1.49). Respondents worked an average of 55.2 h per week (SD = 14.6). Measures Job Behaviors Task Behavior Participants were asked to report on a 5-point scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always) how frequently they performed each of the nine task behavior items, on average, over the previous 3 years. Scales were created using the mean across the items in each subscale. Research task behavior had a reliability of .73 and was composed of the following items: Attend professional

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

meetings; Present research at conferences; Review papers for a professional association. Teaching task behavior had a reliability of .90 and was composed of the following items: Be a mentor to graduate students; Direct research of grad students; Serve as a sponsor for dissertation. Service task behavior had a reliability of .73 and was composed of the following items: Be willing to serve on time-consuming committees; Serve on department committees; Attend and participate in department meetings. Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Participants reported on a 5-point scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always) how frequently they performed each of the nine OCB items, on average, over the previous 3 years. Scales were created using the mean across the items in each subscale. For OCB-General, four items were adapted from Podsakoff et al. (1997) and were as follows: Provide constructive suggestions to improve the department; ‘‘Touch base’’ with other faculty members before taking actions that might affect them; Act like a peacemaker when other department members have disagreements; Be willing to risk disapproval to express your beliefs. Scale reliability was .80. OCB-Professional Service included the following five items: Organize a meeting, conference or seminar; Be a public spokesperson; Serve as an officer for a professional association; Serve on a journal editorial board; Serve as a discussant, critic or chair. Scale reliability was .79. In order to examine the distinctiveness of the five job behavior variables, we performed a series of confirmatory factor analyses in which the hypothesized five-factor model (model 1 in Table 1) was compared with alternative, nested models. Table 1 shows the results of model fit comparisons. The hypothesized five-factor model demonstrated satisfactory fit (v2 (125) = 445.09, p \ .01, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .07, 95 % CI [.06–.08]) and had significantly better fit than all four of the alternative models (see models 2 through 5 in Table 1).

77

each item on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Sample items were ‘‘I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life’’ and ‘‘If I see something I don’t like, I fix it.’’ Reliability was .88. Role Breadth Participants were asked to rate each of the job behavior items on the extent to which they perceived it to be a part of their job, on average, over the previous 3 years (1 = I see this as an expected part of my job, 2 = I see this as somewhat above and beyond what is expected for my job, 3 = I am undecided as to whether this is a part of my job or not). The items were then re-coded such that higher numbers represented greater role breadth (1 = I see this as somewhat above and beyond what is expected for my job I, 2 = I am undecided as to whether this is a part of my job or not, 3 = see this as an expected part of my job). Separate role breadth scales were created for each of the three task behavior scales and each of the two OCB scales described above. Scales were created by averaging the rating responses for each of the items within a scale. Hours Worked Participants were asked to report how many hours they spent working, on average over the past 3 years, in the areas of graduate teaching (including teaching, office hours, preparing courses, advising students, etc.), undergraduate teaching (teaching, office hours, etc.), research/scholarship (including conducting research, writing, reviewing literature, seeking outside funding, etc.), service (including departmental and university committee work), administration, and professional service (including service to professional societies or associations) and on any ‘‘other’’ activities. To calculate total weekly hours spent working, we added the time spent on each of these activities.

Proactive Personality Control Variables Proactive personality was measured using the 10-item shortened version (Seibert et al. 1999) of Bateman and Crant’s (1993) original 17-item measure. Respondents rated

Previous research on academic faculty members has demonstrated that career, demographic, and background

Table 1 Model fit results for confirmatory factor analyses Model

v2

df

RMSEA

90 % CI

CFI

1. Hypothesized five-factor model

445.09

125

.07

.06–.08

.92

2. Four-factor model (Research TB and OCB-professional Service combined)

473.81

126

.07

.07–.08

.92

3. Four-factor model (Service TB and OCB-general combined)

483.55

126

.07

.07–.08

.92

4. Two-factor model (TB scales combined; OCB scales combined)

578.59

129

.08

.07–.09

.89

5. Single-factor model

701.90

135

.09

.08–.10

.86

N = 530 TB task behavior, OCB organizational citizenship behavior

123

78

characteristics such as years of experience, academic field, rank, marital status, course load, and sex are related to job performance (Allison and Stewart 1974; Kirshstein et al. 1997; Long et al. 1993; Wanner et al. 1981; Xie and Shauman 1998). Therefore, in addition to race, we controlled for all of these variables.1

Results Table 2 provides summary statistics and correlations for all variables. As expected, many of the control variables had significant relationships to the outcome variables. Sex was positively related to certain job behavior dimensions, with women performing both Service task behavior and OCBGeneral more frequently than men. Years of experience was positively related to the role breadth for Teaching task behavior and OCB-Professional Service. Proactive personality was positively related to expanded role breadth for OCB-General and OCB-Professional Service, and was positively correlated with all of the job behaviors, except Teaching task behavior. The hypotheses were tested using IBM SPSS version 20. A total of 1.6 % of the total data points were missing. Therefore, multiple imputation in PRELIS was used to remedy missing data for most quantitative variables. After using listwise deletion for the remaining variables with missing data, the effective sample size was 492 participants. Tolerance levels were above .40 across the analyses, suggesting that multicollinearity was not a problem (Allison 1999, p. 141). We predicted that proactive personality would be positively related to job behaviors, with proactive personality predicting higher levels of task behavior (Hypothesis 1a) and OCB (Hypothesis 1b). As shown in Table 3, proactive personality predicted all three task behavior dimensions and both of the OCB dimensions, thus fully supporting Hypotheses 1a and 1b. In the second set of hypotheses, we predicted that proactive personality would be related to greater role breadth, with proactive personality predicting greater task behavior role breadth (Hypothesis 2a) and OCB role breadth (Hypothesis 2b). As shown in Table 3 (final column), proactive personality did not predict any of the task behavior role breadth dimensions, thus Hypothesis 2a was not supported. For OCB, proactive personality explained unique variance in both OCB (General) role breadth (FD(1, 480) = 5.44, p = .02) and OCB (Professional Service) role breadth (FD(1, 480) = 11.82, p \ .01), providing full support for Hypothesis 2b. 1

We also included number of children as a control variable in our initial set of analyses, but removed it because it had no significant effect on our dependent or mediating variables.

123

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

In the third set of hypotheses, we predicted that role breadth would mediate the relationship between proactive personality and job behaviors. We followed mediation procedures according to Baron and Kenny (1986) and Preacher and Hayes (2008). Recent evidence has demonstrated the superiority of bootstrapping approaches over Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal steps approach in terms of both power in detecting indirect effects and capability in handling more complex models (MacKinnon et al. 2002, 2004, 2012; Preacher and Hayes 2008; Shrout and Bolger 2002). Mediation can only occur when three preconditions are met: the independent variable predicts the dependent variable, the independent variable predicts the mediator, and the mediator predicts the dependent variable when controlling for the independent variable (Baron and Kenny 1986). Because there were no significant relationships between proactive personality and task behavior role breadth (Hypothesis 2a), we were unable to test for role breadth as a mediator between proactive personality and task behavior. As such, Hypothesis 3a was not supported. With regard to Hypothesis 3b, that OCB role breadth would mediate the relationship between proactive personality and OCB, the results from Hypothesis 1b established the first precondition. The results from Hypothesis 2b established the second precondition, that proactive personality predicted OCB role breadth. To meet the third precondition, separate regressions were performed for OCB-General and OCB-Professional Service, with each regressed simultaneously on proactive personality and role breadth. Controlling for the effects of the control variables and proactive personality, OCB role breadth contributed significantly to the overall prediction of OCB-General (b = .21, p \ .01, 95 % CI [.26, .55]; model R2 = .32, F(12, 491) = 18.59, p \ .01), such that when role breadth increased, OCBGeneral also increased. Similarly, in predicting OCB-Professional Service, OCB (Professional Service) role breadth contributed positively and significantly to the overall model (b = .22, p \ .01, 95 % CI [.22, .45]; model R2 = .35, F(12, 491) = 21.00, p \ .01).2 Following the advice of Preacher and Hayes (2008) and MacKinnon et al. (2012), we used bias-corrected bootstrapping confidence intervals to test the indirect effect with the product-of-coefficients approach. Using Preacher and Hayes’ SPSS indirect macro to determine bias-corrected bootstrap 2

In post hoc analyses, we further tested for relationships between role breadth and job behaviors (i.e., task, OCB). The above results for Hypothesis 3b showed a positive relationship between OCB role breadth and its two corresponding OCB dimensions. In order to be comprehensive, we also tested the relationship between role breadth and the task behavior dimensions. For each of these job behavior outcomes, their respective role breadth dimension contributed significantly and independent of the effects of the control variables and proactive personality. Full results are available from the first author.

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

79

Table 2 Summary of intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations for study variables Variable

M

SD

1

2

1. Sex

0.35

2. Race

0.08

0.27

.06

3. Marital status

0.11

0.32

.09*

4. Years experience

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.48

23.4

12.0

-.06

-.27**

-.29**

.04

5. Assistant rank

0.13

0.34

.18**

.21**

-.03

-.49**

6. Associate rank

0.23

0.42

.12**

.08*

.02

-.32**

-.22**

7. Biology

0.27

0.45

.04

.02

.07

-.11*

8. Psychology

0.34

0.47

.13**

-.04

.02

.13**

.01

-.11*

-.44**

9. Neuroscience

0.14

0.35

.03

-.04

.00

.01

.01

-.10*

-.25**

-.29**

-.07

 

.14**

10. Management

0.24

0.43

-.09

.04

-.05

-.23**

.10*

.07

-.35**

-.41**

11. Average classes

2.76

1.43

.04

-.04

-.03

-.10*

.02

.16**

-.23**

.07

-.06

12. Research TB RB

2.77

0.42

.00

.06

-.05

-.05

.00

.01

.08 

.00

-.05

13. Teaching TB RB

2.87

0.37

.06

-.09

.04

.16**

-.11*

.16**

.09*

.04

14. Service TB RB

2.87

0.30

-.02

-.08

.01

.03

-.16**

.10*

.02

-.08 

15. OCB (general) RB 16. OCB (prof serv) RB

2.33 2.02

0.51 0.67

-.01 -.05

-.07 .04

.11* -.09 

-.09* .13**

.07 -.09*

-.10* -.01

.03 -.02

17. TB research

4.14

0.89

.03

.00

-.14**

-.05

18. TB teaching

4.12

1.15

.07

-.09 

.03

19. TB service

4.20

0.81

.11*

-.19**

20. OCB-general

3.57

0.81

.09*

-.20**

21. OCB-prof service

3.01

0.97

-.05

-.08 

0.90

-.01

.04

.00

-.05

.01

-.04

.03

-.05

.04

-.03

22. proactive personality 23. Hours worked

4.85 55.2

14.3 12

.00 -.06

14

15

.04

. 21** -.03 -.29** -.06

-.04 .01

.02 .04

-.03

-.13**

-.11**

.10*

.06

-.04

.12**

-.17**

-.08 

.11*

.16**

.04

-.32**

.03

-.22**

.04

.02

.07 

-.09* -.03

.11

-.26**

-.01

-.04*

.01

.19**

-.20**

-.20**

-.23**

.12**

-.01

-.02

-.09*

-.05

18

19

Variable

11

12. Research TB RB

-.11*

13. Teaching TB RB

-.21**

.29**

14. Service TB RB

-.09*

.32**

.24**

15. OCB (general) RB

-.06*

.27**

.19**

.26**

16. OCB (prof serv) RB

-.02

.46**

.10*

.15**

.36**

17. TB research

-.11*

.31**

.16**

.00

.00

.20**

18. TB teaching

-.27**

.08 

.54**

.07

.06

.04

.37**

19. TB service

-.06

.08 

.12**

.27**

.12**

.04

.37**

.32**

20. OCB-general

-.06

.06

.09*

.14

.26**

.11

.37**

.28**

.77**

 

13

-.04

.03 -.08 

-.04

-.23**

16

17

-.01

.06 .08 

.03 -.12**

.07  20

-.03

21

21. OCB-prof service

-.08

.12**

.06

-.04

.01

.32**

.65**

.30**

.34**

22. Proactive personality

-.02

.06

-.03

-.03

.10*

.15**

.18**

.06

.21**

.35**

.32**

23. Hours worked

-.07

.05

.01

.01

.03

.09*

.08 

.13**

.12**

.16**

.16**

.13** -.08 

.05 22

23

.45** .16**

Note N = 492 RB role breadth, TB task behavior, OCB organizational citizenship behavior, UGs undergraduates. For sex, 0 = male, 1 = female; for race, 0 = White, 1 = non-White; for marital status, 0 = married/living with partner, 1 = single; years of experience is the number of years since PhD graduation; for assistant rank, 1 = yes, 0 = no; for associate rank, 1 = yes, 0 = no; for biology, 1 = yes, 0 = no; for psychology, 1 = yes, 0 = no; for neuroscience, 1 = yes, 0 = no; for management, 1 = yes, 0 = no. Average classes is number of classes taught per year, averaged over the past 3 years * p B .05, ** p B .01,

 

p B .10

point estimates, we found significant indirect effects for both models, with significance indicated by 95 % confidence intervals that do not contain zero. The results indicated that proactive personality had a significant effect on OCB-General

through OCB (General) role breadth (point estimate = .02, bias = .00, SE = .01, bias-corrected CI [.0029, .0487]). Similarly, proactive personality had a significant indirect effect on OCB-Professional Service through OCB

123

80

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

Table 3 Hierarchical regressions of dependent variables on proactive personality Dependent variable

R

R2

Adj. R2

DR2

DF

Table 4 Hierarchical regression of hours worked on proactive personality Predictor

.36

.13**

.11

.03**

17.45**

Teaching

.44

.20**

.18

.01*

4.00*

Service

.41

.16**

.15

.04**

22.62**

.53

.28**

.26

.14**

91.28**

Citizenship behavior OCB-General OCB-Professional service

.55

.30**

.29

.11**

75.08**

Task behavior role breadth

Model 2

b

SE

b

-0.02

0.07

-.01

0.00

0.06

.00

Biology

0.24

1.63

.01

0.86

1.61

.03

Psychology

2.29

1.54

.09

2.84

1.52

.11 

Task behavior Research

Model 1

b

SE

b

Control variables Years of experience

Neuroscience

 

3.33

1.89

.10

4.59

1.88

Average classes

-0.44

0.41

-.05

-0.36

0.40

-.04

.13*

Assistant rank

-1.71

2.09

-.05

-1.46

2.06

-.04

Research

.17

.03

.01

.00

1.23

Associate rank

-2.19

1.59

-.08

-1.94

1.56

-.07

Teaching

.36

.13**

.11

.00

0.01

Marital status

-1.80

1.76

-.05

-1.84

1.73

-.05

Service

.23

.05**

.03

.00

0.73

Sex

-1.29

1.24

-.05

-1.31

1.22

-.05

2.61

2.13

.06

2.41

2.09

.05

2.60

0.62

.19**

OCB role breadth

Race

General OCB

.23

.05**

.03

.01*

5.44*

Professional service

.25

.06**

.04

.02**

11.82**

Note N = 492. Control variables accounted for the following amount of variance for each dependent variable: 10 % for Research task behavior, 19 % for Teaching task behavior, 12 % for Service task behavior; 14 % for OCB, 19 % for Professional Service OCB; 3 % for Research task behavior role breadth, 13 % for Teaching task behavior role breadth, 5 % for Service task behavior role breadth; 4 % for OCB role breadth, and 4 % for Professional Service OCB role breadth. R2D reflects variance in each dependent variable accounted for beyond the control variables

Proactive personality Total R2

.03

.06**

DR2

.03

.04**

Note N = 492 * p B .05, ** p B .01,

 

p B .10

quartile (M = 52.00 h), spending, on average, an additional 5.4 h working per week (t(267) = -3.68, p \ .01).

OCB organizational citizenship behavior * p B .05, ** p B .01,

 

p B .10

(Professional Service) role breadth (point estimate = .04, bias = .00, SE = .01, bias corrected CI [.0145, .0684]). Thus, mediation was supported for both types of OCB. Finally, in Hypothesis 4 we predicted that proactive personality would be positively related to weekly hours worked. As shown in Table 4, the data supported this hypothesis (FD(1, 480) = 17.84, p \ .01; b = .19, p \ .01, 95 % CI [1.39, 3.81]).3 For every one-unit increase in proactive personality, the number of hours worked per week increased by 2.6 h. In order to further unpack this difference, we isolated those individuals in the top quartile of proactive personality (M [ 5.50 on a 7-point scale) and the bottom quartile (M \ 4.28), and compared their hours worked using a simple independent groups t test. Those in the top quartile (M = 57.43 h) worked significantly more hours per week than those in the bottom 3

We also ran mediation analyses to see if proactive personality had an indirect effect on hours worked through job behaviors. We found that none of the job behaviors significantly predicted hours worked, and we found no support for an indirect effect using Preacher and Hayes (2008) bias-corrected bootstrapping method. For the set of 5 job behaviors, point estimate = .46, SE = .39, bias corrected 95 % CI [-.3098, 1.2442].

123

Discussion To date, a growing body of literature on proactive personality has focused on the variety of activities engaged in by such individuals (Fuller and Marler 2009; Seibert et al. 1999). How much these individuals do seems to be a hallmark of their personality. ‘‘Doing more’’ can manifest as engaging in a wider variety of job behaviors but it can also manifest as engaging in specific job behaviors more frequently. While much work has examined the variety of behaviors proactive individuals engage in (e.g., Bateman and Crant 1993; Becherer and Maurer 1999), little or no work has examined proactive behavior in terms of frequency. In our study, using a sample of 492 faculty members from 69 U. S. research universities, we found that individuals higher on proactive personality engaged in task behavior and OCB more frequently than those who were lower on this trait. We also investigated the question of why these individuals engage in job behaviors more frequently. In contrast to our expectations, proactive personality was not positively related to any of the task behavior role breadth dimensions. It was, however, positively related to both types of OCB. Our results also showed that role breadth is predictive of the frequency of job behaviors, with regard to both OCB and task behavior. In addition, we

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

found that more proactive individuals work more hours per week than less proactive individuals. A number of important insights emerged from the pattern of our results. First, although past research has explored the effect of proactive personality on engaging in a wider variety of behaviors (e.g., Crant 2000; Li et al. 2010), we proposed (and found) that more proactive individuals would engage in job behaviors more frequently. This was true for three types of task behavior (Research, Teaching and Service) as well as both types of OCB (General, Professional Service). Others have suggested, but not empirically shown, that individuals can engage in proactive task behavior as well as OCB (e.g., Crant 2000). Our results provide support for this assertion and also echo past research showing a positive relationship between proactive personality and OCB. This is not surprising as OCB is the area in which there is more autonomy in which to manifest proactive behavior (Dierdorff et al. 2012). Second, it seems there may be different underlying mechanisms for each set of behaviors. Thompson (2005) pointed out that the behavioral mechanisms through which proactive personality works are an interesting part of the relationship. Our theoretical rationale was that individuals higher on this trait would perceive their roles more broadly and therefore engage more frequently in the behaviors they considered part of their role. Indeed, our results for OCB supported this logic as more proactive individuals had greater role breadth for both types of OCB and engaged in those behaviors more frequently. This is substantiated by research showing that most employees engage in activities (i.e., OCB) because they consider them to be part of their role (Morrison 1994). For task behavior, however, there was no evidence that more proactive individuals did more because they perceived those behaviors to be part of their role. What emerged was that individuals higher on this trait engage in task behavior more frequently despite not viewing those behaviors as part of their role any more than their less proactive colleagues. Our lack of significant results for task behavior role breadth may reflect the fact that expectations and requirements of task behavior are generally clearer than for OCB. Because jobs are cognitive constructions (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978) in which others influence how roles are perceived and defined (e.g., Graen 1976; Katz and Kahn 1978), there is likely more agreement among individuals as to whether some of the more clearly defined parts of the job (i.e., task behavior) are within their role. Task behavior is a required part of the job and is therefore more constrained. In a situation in which a certain set of behaviors is expected, it may be harder to modify this role as it is essentially an assigned and formally defined one. Although individuals higher in proactive personality did not view their task behavior role more broadly, they continued to

81

engage in those behaviors more often, thus manifesting proactivity in terms of frequency of behaviors. It may be that more proactive individuals do whatever is required to make things happen—even if they do not consider those behaviors part of their role. It is also feasible that our lack of results is an artifact of our sample or the stringent criteria used to develop our task behavior measures. More research with other samples is needed in this area. Third, past research shows that perceived role breadth leads to more engagement of job behaviors (Kamdar et al. 2006; Morrison 1994). Our results confirm the fairly consistent findings of OCB role breadth as a predictor of OCB (e.g., Kamdar et al. 2006; McAllister et al. 2007). Although role breadth has been conceptualized in terms of expanding one’s role with regard to OCB (e.g., Morrison 1994), our additional analyses (see footnote 2) show that one’s task behavior role is also amenable to being modified as it is predictive of actual task behavior. Currently, only one other study has demonstrated this relationship (Morgeson et al. 2005). Finally, we found that having a more proactive personality entails working more hours per week. These results are similar to those found by Seibert et al. (1999), although they did not formally hypothesize such a relationship. Although there are many upsides to having a proactive personality, some researchers have asked whether there may also be some costs (Erdogan and Bauer 2005; Grant and Ashford 2008). Because individuals higher in proactive personality are future-focused and have an idea of the changes they want to implement (Crant 2000; Frese and Fay 2001; Parker et al. 2010), they may work toward their goals—regardless of the hours required. Thus, one cost of being higher on this personality trait may be less time available for life outside of work. Each one-point increase in proactive personality translated into an additional 2.62 h worked per week. Over the course of a year, this would add up to 136 additional work hours. For those scoring in the top quartile of proactive personality compared to the bottom quartile, this translates to a yearly difference of more than 280 h. Working additional hours may result in burnout or work-family conflict (Halbesleben et al. 2009) because of the extra time and energy required. This increase in work hours may be particularly significant for women due to greater domestic responsibilities. Although men and women’s domestic roles are shifting, women still spend roughly twice as much time as men caring for and aiding family members (U.S. Department of Labor 2011).

Limitations There are several limitations of this study. First, current assessments of proactive personality and job performance were based on self-reports and may be susceptible to social desirability biases as well as common method bias.

123

82

While there are valid criticisms of self-report data, they are a relatively easy first step in studying a phenomenon of interest (Spector 1994). Under some circumstances, self-report data may be more accurate than behavioral measures (Howard et al. 1980). This is a likely situation in academe given that many work tasks are not highly visible to others (e.g., touching base with other faculty members, reviewing papers). Nonetheless, additional research should include alternative assessments of job behaviors, perhaps from supervisors or peers. Second, although cross-sectional data makes it difficult to infer causality (Shadish et al. 2002), this is less of a concern because our independent variable is a personality construct. Therefore, we have some grounds to conclude that personality is the antecedent variable which drives behavior. Although less plausible, it is possible that role breadth is an outcome of actual job behaviors, rather than the reverse. However, the current body of conceptual and empirical work on role breadth portrays role breadth as an antecedent to job behaviors (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro et al. 2004; Kamdar et al. 2006; Morrison 1994) rather than an outcome. Future research with longitudinal designs is needed. Third, although we are fairly confident that our measure of work hours is quantitatively accurate (Jacobs 1998), we have no information as to the qualitative aspects of our measure. That is, there is a large conceptual difference between ‘‘hours working’’ and ‘‘hours at work.’’ The lack of knowledge about the actual content of the hours at work raises the question of time use at work. Since these individuals are proactive in other life areas (Bateman and Crant 1993), it is unclear what percentage of their work hours are devoted to the work of the organization versus non-work-related tasks. Time-diary studies or experience sampling methodology may shed more insight into this issue. Finally, the aforementioned relationships were studied in an academic context thus the results are most generalizable to faculty members from research universities. The response rates were somewhat low and the sample may be disproportionately weighted with good citizens. If such individuals are more likely to respond to surveys and tend to be more proactive, this may have biased the results for role breadth. Generalizability to other jobs and industries, outside of academe, is unknown. Future research with higher response rates is needed to examine whether proactive personality has similar relationships to frequency of job behaviors in other types of occupations.

Future Research Directions Beyond the suggestions above, we see three main directions for future research. First, it seems that future research

123

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

should go beyond Seibert et al. (2001) question of ‘‘what do proactive people do’’ and continue attempting to answer the question of ‘‘why do they do it?’’ The question of the possible mechanisms driving these proactive individuals is intriguing. From a theoretical perspective, it may be that a process model is needed that explicates how proactive individuals make decisions about the behaviors in which they will engage and what other factors (e.g., values) influence these decisions. It may be that individuals higher on this trait have a different set of values and priorities that drive their behaviors. A related question is to ask whether there are certain activities proactive individuals do not do. Future theoretical and empirical work on these questions may be fruitful. A second area is to explore other potential downsides to proactive personality, beyond working more hours. For example, more proactive individuals may be so consumed with bringing about change that they allocate too many resources to behaviors that may not necessarily pay off in terms of career outcomes (Bergeron et al. 2011). Even Bateman and Crant (1999) noted that proactivity ‘‘… can detract from work that must get done’’ (p. 67). In certain jobs or industries, such as academe, this may come at a cost to productivity. Erdogan and Bauer (2005) noted that Campbell (2000) provided anecdotal evidence that more proactive individuals may cost the organization time and money if they engage in behaviors that are not in line with the organization’s goals. Campbell referred to this as the ‘‘initiative paradox’’ which may result in a lack of rewards for being proactive or even actual punishment. In sum, much more work is needed on the wide array of potential outcomes of proactive personality. Finally, future research should explore nonlinear relationships between proactive personality and outcomes. Some scholars have noted that otherwise positive personality traits, when taken to the extreme, can have a negative effect on performance (Minbashian et al. 2009). This idea is further expanded by Pierce and Aguinis (2013) as well as Grant and Schwartz (2011) with regard to the idea of ‘‘too much of a good thing.’’ It may be that there is a point of diminishing returns to having a proactive personality.

Implications Because more proactive individuals engage in job behaviors more frequently and work more hours than less proactive individuals, one implication is that it may be important to coach these individuals on how their time is spent and to guard for signs of burnout (Maslach et al. 2001). Dealing with short-term needs, such as developing a new course or serving on a committee, can easily overwhelm longer-term priorities that do not have fixed

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86

deadlines (e.g., journal submissions). More proactive individuals may need to practice mindfulness around maintaining a sustainable balance in terms of working toward both their own priorities and the priorities of the organization—including a balance between what they consider to be part of their role and what they actually do. For individuals in any organization, but especially for those operating in academe and similar outcome-based reward systems (Oliver and Anderson 1994, 1995), understanding what is rewarded and analyzing time expenditures is critical (e.g., Bergeron et al. 2011). Although it is likely that certain types of proactive behavior are appreciated in these systems, functioning in this structure-less and seemingly endless white space requires a good deal of self-management. It is important to know in advance what behaviors are rewarded and to be strategic about the behaviors in which one chooses to engage. Certain aspects of any job are likely to be resource-consumptive but may not result in an equivalent payoff for the time investment. The desired payoffs for individuals high in proactive personality, however, may be quite different from traditional standards of success. Adapting the world to their vision and making progress toward it may be more than enough.

Appendix: Job Behavior Measure Development Measure development processes followed those developed by Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989) and Schwab (1980) and was based on data collected in 2002. An initial list of job behaviors was culled from the higher education literature (e.g., Park 1996; Dilts et al. 1994) and national faculty surveys (Kirshstein et al. 1997; Sax et al. 1996). Following Rotundo and Sackett (2002), 14 behaviors from the job description of a ‘‘college or university faculty member’’ in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) were included (U.S. Department of Labor 1991). Interviews were then conducted with 31 faculty members from various departments in nine U. S. research universities to assess faculty behaviors. As per Latham and Skarlicki (1995), two raters reviewed the combined list of all behaviors, grouped similar items and deleted redundant ones, resulting in an initial list of 76 items. A pilot study was conducted to refine and reduce the number of items. Also included were four items from a commonly used OCB measure (Podsakoff et al. 1997), which were not redundant with items generated during the interviews. In the pilot study, the items were randomly divided between two surveys and sent to a pilot sample of 304 faculty members in six departments at 15 doctorate-granting public and private universities in the U.S. Surveys were returned by 115 faculty members (response rate of 38 %). The sample was 74 % male, 84 % white, and 66 % tenured

83

professors. Participants were asked to rate each of the items on two scales. First, respondents indicated the extent to which they believed each of the items was within their role on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Second, respondents indicated the frequency with which they performed each behavior on a 5-point scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always). The results from the pilot study were used to select items for the final measures. Item selection for the measures consisted of two steps. First, the extent to which the behavior was rated as part of job requirements was examined for the task behavior items. Items for which 90 % or more faculty members agreed or strongly agreed that the behavior was part of their role were retained for the task behavior measure. Using such a stringent criterion ensured that this set of behaviors encompassed what the vast majority of faculty members are required to do as part of their role, thus meeting the definition of task behavior (e.g., Borman and Motowidlo 1993). Second, the frequency with which participants performed these behaviors was examined. For the task behavior measure, items that had a mean of 4.5 or greater were retained. For task behavior, this process resulted in 28 items (10 items derived from the DOT and 18 other items derived from the review and interview process). For professional service, the process resulted in five items. Reliabilities were calculated for each of the scales (task behavior, OCB, professional service) within each of the two surveys and the Spearman-Brown formula was used to estimate the expected reliability of the full scales. Additional items were dropped to improve reliability. Following this step, a total of 12 items remained for the task behavior measure and five professional service items (as well as four OCB items from the Podsakoff et al. 1997 measure).

References Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39, 596–606. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1999). Proactive behavior: Meaning, impact, recommendations. Business Horizons, 42, 63–70. Becherer, R. C., & Maurer, J. G. (1999). The proactive personality disposition and entrepreneurial behavior among small company presidents. Journal of Small Business Management, 38, 28–36.

123

84 Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior and career outcomes: The cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206311407508. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Campbell D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 52–66. Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 475–481. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring organizationally directed citizenship behavior: Reciprocity or ‘‘It’s my job’’? Journal of Management Studies, 41, 85–106. 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, 435–462. De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & de Luque, M. F. (2010). Proactivity with image in mind: How employee and manager characteristics affect evaluations of proactive behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 347–369. Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Bachrach, D. G. (2012). Role expectations as antecedents of citizenship and the moderating effects of work context. Journal of Management, 38, 573–598. Dilts, D. A., Haber, L. J., & Bialik, D. (1994). Assessing what professors do: An introduction to academic performance appraisal in higher education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58, 859–891. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 133–187). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A metaanalytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329–345. Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. In A. P. Brief & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 28, pp. 3–34). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted-U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 61–76. Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2010). Employee life satisfaction and work behaviors? A field investigation of the mediating role of the self-concordance model. Personnel Psychology, 63, 539–560. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship

123

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86 between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452–1465. Hillman, A. J. (2005). Reflections on service orientations, community, and professions. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 185–188. Hinkin, T., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). The development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 561–567. Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader–member exchange and content-specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170–178. Howard, G. S., Maxwell, S. E., Wiener, R. L., Boynton, K. S., & Rooney, W. M. (1980). Is a behavioral measure the best estimate of behavioral parameters? Perhaps not. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 293–311. Ilgen, D. & Hollenbeck, J. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 165–208). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Jacobs, J. A. (1998). Measuring time at work: Are self-reports accurate? Monthly Labor Review, December, 42–53. Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., & Turban, D. B. (2006). ‘‘All in a day’s work’’: How follower individual differences and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 841–855. Karambayya, R. (1990). Contexts for organizational citizenship behavior: Do high performing and satisfying units have better ‘citizens’. York University Working Paper, North York, Ontario, Canada. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Ketchen, D. J. (2008). Volunteer and shirking behaviors among the Daca. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 217–220. Kirshstein, R. J., Matheson, N., Jing, Z., & Zimbler, L. J. (1997). Instructional faculty and staff in higher education institutions: Fall 1987 and 1992–1993 national study of postsecondary faculty (NCES Publication No. 97470). Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo.asp?pubid=97470. Latham, G. P., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1995). Criterion-related validity of the situational and patterned behavior description interviews with organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 8, 67–80. Li, N., Harris, T. B., Boswell, W. R., & Xie, Z. (2011). The role of organizational insiders’ developmental feedback and proactive personality on newcomers’ performance: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1317–1327. Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 395–404. Long, J. S., Allison, P. D., & McGinnis, R. (1993). Rank advancement in academic careers: Sex differences and the effects of productivity. American Sociological Review, 58, 703–722. MacKinnon, D. P., Coxe, S., & Baraldi, A. N. (2012). Guidelines for the investigation of mediating variables in business research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 1–14. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test the significance of the mediated effect. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86 Maletz, M. C. & Nohria, N. (2001). Managing in the whitespace. Harvard Business Review, February, 102–111. Maslach, C., Shaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1200–1211. Minbashian, A., Bright, J. E., & Bird, K. D. (2009). Complexity in the relationships among the subdimensions of extraversion and job performance in managerial occupations. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 82, 537–549. Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K. A., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 399–406. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480. Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). Challenging the status quo: What motivates proactive behaviour? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 623–629. Oliver, R. L., & Anderson, E. (1994). An empirical test of the consequences of behavior- and outcome-based sales control systems. Journal of Marketing, 58, 53–67. Oliver, R. L., & Anderson, E. (1995). Behavior- and outcome-based sales control systems: Evidence and consequences of pure-form and hybrid governance. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 15, 1–15. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–98. Park, S. M. (1996). Research, teaching and service: Why shouldn’t women’s work count? Journal of Higher Education, 67, 46–84. Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role-breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852. Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856. Parker, D. F., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1983). Organizational determinants of job stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 160–177. Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 925–939. Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652. Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39, 313–338. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–270. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 351–363. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

85 Restegary, H. & Landy, F. (1993). The interaction among time urgency, uncertainty, and time pressure. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human. Judgment and decision making (pp. 217–235). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Robinson, J. P., & Godbey, G. (1997). Time for life: The surprising ways Americans use their time. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80. Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1991). Improving performance: How to manage the white space in the organization chart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253. Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Arredondo, M. & Korn, W. S. (1996). The American college teacher: National norms for the 1995-1996 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California. Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3–43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416–427. 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, 845–974. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385–392. Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship and role definition effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 789–796. 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, 275–300. Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011–1017. U.S. Department of Education & National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1999). National study of postsecondary faculty (NCES Publication No. 2002154). Retrieved from NCES website http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002154. U.S. Department of Labor, United States Employment Service, & The North Carolina Occupational Analysis Field Center. (1991). Dictionary of Occupational Titles, (Revised 4th ed., ICPSR Publication No. 6100). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. U.S. Department of Labor & U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2011). Women in the labor force: A databook (BLS Publication No. 1034). Retrieved from BLS website http://www.bls.gov/ cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf.

123

86 Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 526–535. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216–226. Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24, 301–319. Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S., & Gregorio, D. I. (1981). Research productivity in academia: A comparative study of the sciences, social sciences and humanities. Sociology of Education, 54, 238–253.

123

J Bus Psychol (2014) 29:71–86 Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel Psychology, 63, 41–81. 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. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63, 847–870.