Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  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.

  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.

  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].

References

  • Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39, 596–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1999). Proactive behavior: Meaning, impact, recommendations. Business Horizons, 42, 63–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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:https://doi.org/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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 52–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452–1465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J. (2005). Reflections on service orientations, community, and professions. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 185–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketchen, D. J. (2008). Volunteer and shirking behaviors among the Daca. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 217–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). Challenging the status quo: What motivates proactive behaviour? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 623–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. M. (1996). Research, teaching and service: Why shouldn’t women’s work count? Journal of Higher Education, 67, 46–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, D. F., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1983). Organizational determinants of job stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 160–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39, 313–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 351–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416–427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship and role definition effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 789–796.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011–1017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24, 301–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63, 847–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 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

    Diane M. Bergeron

  2. Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Peter B. Lewis Building, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106-7235, USA

    Tiffany D. Schroeder & Hector A. Martinez

Authors
  1. Diane M. Bergeron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiffany D. Schroeder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hector A. Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diane M. Bergeron.

Appendix: Job Behavior Measure Development

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 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).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bergeron, D.M., Schroeder, T.D. & Martinez, H.A. Proactive Personality at Work: Seeing More to Do and Doing More?. J Bus Psychol 29, 71–86 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9298-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9298-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation