Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 801–816 | Cite as

Enhancing a Sense of Competence at Work by Engaging in Proactive Behavior: The Role of Proactive Personality

Research Paper
  • 243 Downloads

Abstract

To understand how individuals’ senses of competence are cultivated, scholars have primarily focused on situational factors such as job autonomy and supervisor support. Against this backdrop, we propose that individuals can work as active agents and enhance their sense of competence by initiating actions that aim to master the environment. We adopt the behavioral concordance model and propose that people higher in proactive personality are more likely to engage in proactive behavior that elevates their senses of competence over time. We further propose that such behavioral concordance contributes to boosting a sense of competence is more prominent among those with higher proactive personality. Our predictions are supported by data from 172 employees and their direct supervisors in China, after controlling for the effect of job autonomy and supervisor support for autonomy. Specifically, only those higher in proactive personality engaged in more proactive behavior and increased their sense of competence over time. This study highlights both a self-initiated and a behavioral perspective on understanding the development of a sense of competence.

Keywords

Proactive behavior Proactive personality Latent change score Sense of competence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) for sponsoring this research (Project 71202148).

References

  1. Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and weil-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudra (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, W.-Y., Gan, Y.-Q., Guo, Z.-L., Nie, H.-Y., Feng, Y., & Liu, Z.-X. (2014). The relationship between meaning thinking and job burnout from a self-determination perspective. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 642–662.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, M.-J., & Miller, D. (2011). The relational perspective as a business mindset: Lessons from East and West. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar
  13. Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in Lisrel: Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 324–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Côté, S., & Moskowitz, D. S. (1998). On the dynamic covariation between interpersonal behavior and affect: Prediction from neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1032–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crant, J. M., Kim, T.-Y., & Wang, J. (2011). Dispositional antecedents of demonstration and usefulness of voice behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 285–297. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9197-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frese, M. (1982). Occupational socialization and psychological development: An underemphasized research perspective in industrial psychology. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative (PI): An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 133–187). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  20. Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fuller, J. B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D. M., et al. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2010). Why does proactive personality predict employee life satisfaction and behaviors? A field investigation of the mediating role of the self-concordance model. Personnel Psychology, 63, 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion-Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686–1693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, L. V. (1952). Tests of hypotheses: Onesided vs. two-sided alternatives. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 219–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kickul, J., & Gundry, L. K. (2002). Prospecting for strategic advantage: The proactive entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 40, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 5, 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kleine, R. E., Kleine, S. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1993). Mundane consumption and the self: A social-identity perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Korpela, K. M. (1989). Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lin, S.-H., Lu, W. C., Chen, M.-Y., & Chen, L. H. (2014). Association between proactive personality and academic self-efficacy. Current Psychology, 33, 600–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., & Slegers, D. W. (2006). Methods for the analysis of change. In D. K. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development. Lawrence: Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  38. Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K.-T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  44. Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2089–2113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ryan, R. M., Bernstein, J. H., & Brown, K. W. (2010). Weekends, work, and well-being: Psychological need satisfactions and day of the week effects on mood, vitality, and physical symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sprangers, M. A. G., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1507–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wall, T. D., Cordery, J. L., & Clegg, C. W. (2002). Empowerment, performance and operational uncertainty: A theoretical integration. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 146–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wu, C.-H., Griffin, M. A., & Parker, S. K. (2015). Developing agency through good work: Longitudinal effects of job autonomy and skill utilization on locus of control. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 102–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wu, J.-Y., & Kwok, O.-M. (2012). Using SEM to analyze complex survey data: A comparison between design-based single-level and model-based multilevel approaches. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19, 16–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wu, C.-H., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 362–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wu, C.-H., & Parker, S. K. (2014). The role of leader support in facilitating proactive work behaviour: An perspective from attachment theory. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206314544745.Google Scholar
  63. Wu, C.-H., Parker, S. K., & de Jong, J. P. J. (2014). Need for cognition as an antecedent of individual innovation behavior. Journal of Management, 40, 1511–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK
  2. 2.Alliance Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  3. 3.School of Labor and Human ResourcesRenmin University of ChinaBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations