Antecedents and Mediating Mechanisms of Proactive Behavior: Application of the Theory of Planned...

Antecedents and Mediating Mechanisms of ProactiveBehavior: Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior

Yuhyung Shin & Min-Jeong Kim

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract While there is burgeoning interest in proactive behavior in today’s work-places, very little is known about cognitive mechanisms by which employees engage inproactive behavior. Drawing on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), we exploredcritical antecedents and cognitive mechanisms of proactive behavior in Asian workcontexts. The results of structural equation modeling analyses conducted for 138supervisor-subordinate dyads in Korean firms supported most of the propositions ofthe TPB. Learning goal orientation was found to be associated with proactive behaviorthrough attitudes toward proactive behavior. Perceived organizational support wasrelated to proactive behavior through the intervening mechanisms of subjective normsand intention. Job autonomy predicted proactive behavior through the mediatingprocesses of perceived behavioral control and intention. These findings have meaning-ful implications for the literature on proactive behavior.

Keywords Proactive behavior . Theory of planned behavior . Learning goal orientation .

Perceived organizational support . Job autonomy

Increasing changes and uncertainty in the business environment require employees tobehave proactively on the job. Due to the proliferation of self-managed teams andautonomous work structure, employee proactive behavior is considered a crucialdeterminant of organizational success (Crant, 2000; Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007).Proactive behavior is defined as self-directed, future-oriented behavior to improve thecurrent situation for oneself or the organization (Crant, 2000). While a growing body ofresearch has examined the antecedents and consequences of proactive behavior atwork, prior research into workplace proactive behavior is limited in several aspects.

Asia Pac J ManagDOI 10.1007/s10490-014-9393-9

This was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government(NRF-2014S1A5A2A01010763).

Y. Shin (*) :M.<J. KimSchool of Business, Hanyang University, 222 Wangshimri-Ro Sungdong-Gu, Seoul 133-791, Koreae-mail: [email protected]

M.<J. Kime-mail: [email protected]

First, although researchers have identified a number of individual differences (e.g., proac-tive personality, self-efficacy) and contextual factors (e.g., autonomy, trust, managerialsupport) as key antecedents of proactive behavior (e.g., Crant, 2000; Parker, Williams, &Turner, 2006), very little is known about how such antecedents affect proactive behaviorand theories explaining those relationships. Thus, a solid theoretical framework is needed toaddress the mechanism by which proactive behavior is triggered by its antecedents.

Second, prior research on proactive behavior has largely focused on individualmotivation as an antecedent of proactive behavior (e.g., Grant & Ashford, 2008;Hirschi, Lee, Porfeli, & Vondracek, 2013; Parker et al., 2006). These studies demon-strate that uncertainty reduction motivation or “can do” motivation (i.e., self-efficacy)drives employees to behave proactively. While these studies provide meaningful insightinto what makes individuals engage in proactive behavior in their workplaces, empir-ical work into cognitive processes underlying proactive behavior is still lacking. This isa critical omission in that proactive behavior involves a rational decision-makingprocess (Parker et al., 2006). If proactive behavior is assumed to be a rational decision,cognitive mechanisms of such a decision need to be elucidated. Parker et al. (2006)maintained that individuals behave proactively only when the benefits of doing sooutweigh its risks, and called for research into cognitive processes affecting decisions toengage in proactive behavior. In response to this research call, our study unravels thecognitive mediating processes that intervene the relationships between antecedents andproactive behavior on the basis of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991).

Although very few, research conducted in Asian cultures has shown that proactivepersonality or behavior is a critical determinant of the creativity of Asian employees(e.g., Kim, Hon, & Crant, 2009; Kim, Hon, & Lee, 2010a), which provides evidencethat proactive behavior is universally important across different cultures. However,given the dearth of research into factors affecting the proactive behavior of Asianemployees, it is necessary to examine the antecedents and mediators leading toproactive behavior in Asian work contexts. More specifically, we are interested inreplicating the effects of primary antecedents of proactive behavior found in Westerncultures. Drawing on prior research conducted in Western work settings, we attend tothe roles of learning goal orientation (LGO), perceived organizational support (POS),and job autonomy in predicting the proactive behavior of Asian employees. We furtherattempt to uncover the cognitive mechanisms linking these three antecedents andproactive behavior by using a relevant theoretical framework. Thus, the objective ofthe present study is to propose and test mediating relationships between LGO, POS,and job autonomy and proactive behavior in Asian work contexts.

Theoretical underpinnings

Proactive behavior refers to an individual’s anticipatory actions to initiate change in thework system or work roles (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker et al., 2006).Specific examples of proactive behavior are self-started problem-solving, taking initia-tives to make changes, suggesting ideas for improving the current situation of theorganization, voice behavior, feedback-seeking, and issue-selling (Grant & Ashford,2008; Parker et al., 2006). Research on proactive behavior has generally suggested thatboth individual and contextual factors contribute to proactive behavior (Crant, 2000;

Y. Shin, M. Kim

Parker et al., 2006). More specifically, proactive personality, personal initiative, self-efficacy, goal orientation, and need for achievement have been identified as personal traitsthat lead to proactive behavior (e.g., Crant, 2000; Parker et al., 2006). On the other hand,job autonomy, job control, co-worker trust, managerial support, and organizational cultureand norms are known as contextual factors that can facilitate proactive behavior (e.g.,Crant, 2000; Ohly & Fritz, 2010; Parker et al., 2006; Sonnentag & Spychala, 2012;Wu&Parker, 2012). Drawing on the argument that individual, organizational, and job factorsjointly influence employee work behavior (Porter & Steers, 1973), we isolate LGO, POS,and job autonomy as individual, organizational, and job characteristics that can enhanceproactive behavior, respectively. Crant (2000) proposed goal orientation as an individualfactor and management support as an organizational factor that affect proactive behavior.Similarly, Parker et al. (2006) reported that supportive supervision and job autonomysignificantly predicted proactive behavior. Integrating Crant’s proposition and Parkeret al.’s findings, we focus on goal orientation, organizational support, and job autonomyas primary antecedents of proactive behavior.

LGO is defined as the tendency to develop competence by acquiring new skills andmastering new situations (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett 1988). POS pertains to anindividual’s overall beliefs that his or her organization values individual efforts and thatthe organization is concerned about the welfare of individual employees (Eisenberger,Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Job autonomy refers to the extent to which anindividual possesses freedom, independence, and authority in terms of work schedul-ing, planning, decision-making, and choice of work methods (Hackman & Oldham,1976). We argue that these three factors contribute to proactive behavior by elicitingcritical psychological states necessary for motivating employees to feel engaged in theirwork and to behave proactively. When individuals adopt LGO, they perceive work aslearning opportunities to develop their potentials, thereby experiencing a strong senseof having psychological and emotional resources (i.e., psychological availability).Likewise, when employees perceive their organization to provide a supportive workclimate (i.e., a high level of POS), they tend to experience psychological safety.Meanwhile, employees with autonomous jobs are likely to feel worthwhile and valued(i.e., psychological meaningfulness) (Kahn, 1990). Such psychological availability,safety, and meaningfulness motivate employees to behave proactively. Drawing on thisline of reasoning, we propose LGO, POS, and job autonomy as key individual,organizational, and job-related antecedents of proactive behavior, respectively.

While there is empirical evidence for the relationships between the three antecedents andproactive behavior (e.g., Axtell et al., 2000; Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996; Ohly &Fritz, 2010; Parker et al., 2006; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), intermediary processes linkingthese antecedents and proactive behavior remain unclear. Parker et al. (2006) is one of thevery few attempts to explore the mediating processes underlying proactive behavior. Theirfindings indicated that job autonomy was associated with proactive behavior through can-do motivation such as self-efficacy and flexible role orientation. Although Parker et al.(2006) provided fruitful insight into the antecedents and mediating mechanisms of proac-tive behavior, a more comprehensive theoretical framework is called for to address thequestion of how proactive behavior is triggered by its antecedents. In response to this need,we draw on the TPB as an overarching theory for our research model.

We contend that the TPB is a relevant framework for explaining proactive behaviorbecause proactive behavior is assumed to be a highly volitional, rational behavior.

Antecedents and Mediating Mechanisms of Proactive Behavior

Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) postulates that an individual’s behavior is determinedby his or her cognitive appraisal of the likely consequences of the behavior. Becauseproactive behavior often involves changing the current situation or challenging the statusquo, employees may consider it risky. When the risks of taking charge outweigh thebenefits, individuals are hesitant to behave proactively (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Assuch, employees’ decisions to engage in proactive behavior are likely to be stronglyinfluenced by their intentions and volition. For this reason, we adopt the TPB as atheoretical framework for the present study. The basic premises of the TPB are that anindividual’s intention to perform a specific behavior determines the behavior, and that theindividual’s intention, in turn, is affected by attitudes toward the behavior, subjectivenorms (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC) (Ajzen, 1991). In the current study,attitudes refer to the extent to which an individual has a favorable or unfavorableevaluation of proactive behavior (Ajzen, 1991). SN is defined as an individual’s percep-tion of social pressure to perform or not to perform proactive behavior (Ajzen, 1991). PBCis perceived ease or difficulty of engaging in proactive behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, theeasier an individual perceives it to be to perform proactive behavior, the higher the PBC.Grounded in the propositions of the TPB, we posit that attitudes toward proactivebehavior, SN, and PBC affect proactive behavior through the focal person’s intention toperform proactive behavior. We further postulate that LGO, POS, and job autonomypredict attitudes toward proactive behavior, SN, and PBC, respectively. These relation-ships are depicted in Fig. 1, and each hypothesis is explained in detail in the next sections.

Antecedents of proactive behavior

Relationship between LGO and attitudes toward proactive behavior

Dweck (1986) classified goal orientations into LGO and performance goal orientation(PGO). The former represents a goal orientation that pursues acquiring new skills andabilities and mastering new situations, whereas the latter pertains to a goal orientation

Job characteristic

Organizational characteristic

Individual characteristic

LGO

POS

Job autonomy

Attitudes

SN

PBC

Intention Proactive behavior

Antecedents Relationships proposed by the TPB

Fig. 1 Proposed research model (Model 0)

Y. Shin, M. Kim

that demonstrates one’s competence by seeking positive evaluations and avoidingnegative evaluations. We contend that individuals’ LGO is a primary antecedent oftheir attitudes toward proactive behavior. Unlike individuals with PGO, those withLGO are concerned with developing their potential. Given that individuals with LGOperceive challenges in the workplace as learning opportunities, they tend to havepositive attitudes toward taking charge to change the work environment (Chiaburu,Marinova, & Lim, 2007). Thus, these individuals are likely to consider proactivebehavior as a chance to develop competence, thereby possessing favorable attitudestoward proactive behavior. Furthermore, because individuals adopting LGO believetheir abilities to be malleable and changeable (Elliot & Dweck, 1998), they have astrong sense of possessing psychological resources to behave proactively (i.e., psycho-logical availability), which causes them to form positive attitudes toward proactivebehavior (Kahn, 1990). We therefore develop the following:

Hypothesis 1 LGO is positively related to attitudes toward proactive behavior.

Relationship between POS and SN

Literature on proactive behavior has suggested that not only individual differences butalso contextual factors affect proactive behavior (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008;Parker et al., 2006). Previous research has shown that contextual factors such as support-ive supervision are a key antecedent of proactive behavior (e.g., Parker et al., 2006).Similarly, Crant (2000) proposed that management support and supportive organizationalculture and norms are contextual factors contributing to proactive behavior. Thesepropositions and prior findings altogether indicate that supportive work contexts are acritical precondition for promoting proactive behavior at work. Thus, we propose thatPOS is an important organizational factor that can enhance proactive behavior. This isbecause perceptions of the situation are more crucial to individual attitudes and behaviorsthan the actual situation (Endler &Magnusson, 1976). Grounded in this line of reasoning,perceptions of organizational support are posited to be more strongly associated withemployee behavior than the actual support provided by the organization (Eisenbergeret al., 1986). Therefore, we focus on POS as a predictor of proactive behavior.

POS is an individual-level construct in that it represents individuals’ perceptions oforganizational support. Even though employees belong to the same organization, theirperceptions of organizational support may vary depending on their individual attributesor experiences in the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). We predict POS to beassociated with SN for proactive behavior. When individuals perceive their organizationto value their work efforts highly and to be concerned about employee welfare, they tendto experience trust, confidence, and predictability (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010),which lead to strong beliefs that others in the organization would support their proactivebehavior. Because organizations with a high level of POS are tolerant of employeefailures or trial-and-errors (Edmondson, 1999), employees of such organizations cometo perceive that their proactive or risk-taking behavior is endorsed by their organizations.

POS can also be linked to SN for proactive behavior through psychological safety,which refers to feeling able to express one’s self without fear of damaging self-image,status, or career (Kahn, 1990). Organizations with a high level of POS provide contexts


in which individuals feel safe in taking personal initiative or engaging in change-oriented behavior (Kahn, 1990), which prompts their employees to experience strongSN for behaving proactively. Hence, it is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2 POS is positively related to SN for proactive behavior.

Relationship between job autonomy and PBC

While job autonomy or control has often been identified as a primary antecedent ofproactive behavior (e.g., Ohly & Fritz, 2010; Parker et al., 2006; Sonnentag & Spychala,2012), very few studies have explored intermediary processes between job autonomyand proactive behavior. Unlike Parker et al.’s (2006) and Sonnentag and Spychala’s(2012) studies that examined the mediating effect of role breadth self-efficacy, we reasonthat PBC targeted toward proactive behavior serves as a mediator between job autonomyand proactive intention and behavior. PBC toward proactive behavior refers to perceivedease of performing proactive behavior (Ajzen, 1991), whereas role breadth self-efficacyis the general belief that one can performwell across different situations (Bandura, 1977,1982). While PBC has to do with cognitions related to proactive behavior, role breadthself-efficacy reflects an individual’s overall motivation. Drawing on the TPB, wehypothesize that perceived control targeted toward a specific behavior is more relevantto intention to perform that behavior than are generalized efficacy beliefs.

Individuals performing autonomous jobs have greater responsibilities and decisionlatitude, thereby believing that they have control over the consequences of their workbehavior and discretion in deciding whether or not to behave proactively (Parker &Sprigg, 1999; Sonnentag & Spychala, 2012). By providing job holders with opportu-nities to acquire new skills and responsibilities, autonomous jobs enable job holders tohave mastery experience (Parker, 1998), which is a pivotal aspect of PBC (Ajzen,1991). Furthermore, when individuals are offered job autonomy, they feel worthwhile,useful, and valuable (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Kahn, 1990). Such psychologicalmeaningfulness experienced by job holders gives them a strong sense of control overtheir work behavior. Thus, we predict the following:

Hypothesis 3 Job autonomy is positively related to PBC for proactive behavior.

Mediating processes between LGO, POS, job autonomy, and proactive behavior

Drawing on the propositions of the TPB, we propose that the links between the aboveantecedents and proactive behavior will be mediated by attitudes, SN, PBC, andintention. The TPB assumes that attitudes, SN, and PBC make unique contributionsto intention, and that intention serves as a mediator translating the effects of attitudes,SN, and PBC on the target behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Based on this logic, we hypothesizethat the more favorable an individual’s attitudes toward proactive behavior, the strongerhis or her intention to engage in proactive behavior. In a similar vein, the stronger peerpressure to perform proactive behavior a person experiences, the more intense theperson’s intention to behave proactively. Likewise, a stronger degree of perceived

Y. Shin, M. Kim

control over proactive behavior should be associated with increased intention toperform proactive behavior. As a result, the individual’s intention to behave proactivelyshould be connected to his or her actual proactive behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Hence, wepropose the following relationships:

Hypothesis 4 Attitudes toward proactive behavior are positively related to intention tobehave proactively.

Hypothesis 5 SN for proactive behavior is positively related to intention to behaveproactively.

Hypothesis 6 PBC for proactive behavior is positively related to intention to behaveproactively.

Hypothesis 7 Intention to behave proactively is positively related to proactive behavior.

Integrating the aforementioned relationships and building on the premise of theTPB, we hypothesize that LGO, POS, and job autonomy will induce proactive behaviorthrough dual-mediation processes. More specifically, individuals’ LGO will have apositive relationship with their intentions to perform proactive behavior by shapingpositive attitudes toward proactive behavior. On the other hand, POS is associated withintention for proactive behavior by forming perceptions of norms and peer pressure tosupport proactive behavior. Job autonomy will predict intention to behave proactivelyby engendering perceptions of control over proactive behavior. Individuals’ intention toengage in proactive behavior, in turn, will lead to their proactive behavior. As such, weput forth the following dual-mediation hypotheses:

Hypothesis 8 (a) Attitudes, (b) SN, and (C) PBC mediate the relationships between (a)LGO, (b) POS, (c) job autonomy, and intention to behave proactively, respectively.

Hypothesis 9 Intention to behave proactively mediates the relationship between (a)attitudes, (b) SN, and (c) PBC and proactive behavior, respectively.

Methods

Participants and procedures

Ten companies that represent a variety of industries and firm sizes were contactedthrough senior managers who were part-time MBA students at a large Korean univer-sity. Approximately 160 employees randomly selected from the participating compa-nies and their direct supervisors were invited to participate in the study. Participantswere assured that their responses would be kept confidential and used only for researchpurposes. A contact person in each company distributed an employee survey to thetarget employee and a supervisor survey to his or her supervisor. The participantsreturned the completed questionnaires in sealed envelopes back to the contact person.


Of the 160 pairs of employees and supervisors contacted, 145 employees and 138supervisors filled out the surveys, resulting in a sample of 138 supervisor-subordinatedyads (86 % response rate). Sixty-three percent of the subordinates were femaleemployees. Their average age and average organizational tenure were 30.9 (SD=6.2)years and 4.6 (SD=5.8) years, respectively. The job positions of the subordinates weremanagers (14 %), assistant managers (18 %), and rank-and-file employees (68 %).They performed various organizational functions: administration (42 %), sales (27 %),R&D (18 %), and others (13 %).

The demographic profile of the supervisors was as follows: 76 % were female, withan average age of 32.3 (SD=6.9) years and an average organizational tenure of 5.4 (SD=5.6) years. Their job positions included senior managers (14 %), general managers(13 %), managers (8 %), and assistant managers (65 %), and their functional areas wereadministration (56 %), R&D (15 %), sales (18 %), and other (11 %).

Measures

Following Brislin’s (1986) back-translation procedure, the original survey was firsttranslated into Korean by a bilingual graduate student, who was blind to the researchobjectives and hypotheses. Another bilingual graduate student independently translatedthe Korean survey into English. Then, a bilingual management professor compared theoriginal English survey and the back-translated one, and found that they were nearlyidentical except for a few minor discrepancies in the wording of the survey items,which validates the equivalence of the Korean and English versions. This procedure is acommon practice in cross-cultural research (e.g., Gibson, 1999; Joo, Song, Lim, &Yoon, 2012; Liao, Liu, & Loi, 2010).

The subordinates provided ratings of their LGO, POS, job autonomy, attitudestoward proactive behavior, SN, PBC, and intention to behave proactively. The super-visors evaluated the proactive behavior of each target subordinate. All responses weremade on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). Items mea-suring the study variables are presented in Table 1.

LGO was assessed with four items derived from goal orientation scale that wasdeveloped by Button, Mathieu, and Zajac (1996).

POS To measure POS, five items were adopted from Eisenberger et al.’s (1986)scale.

Job autonomy To construct a scale of job autonomy, nine items were drawn from theautonomy scale of the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ; Morgeson & Humphrey,2006). The autonomy scale consisted of three sub-dimensions: work scheduling,decision-making, and work methods. Nine items tapping these three aspects were usedin this study.

Attitudes toward proactive behavior Attitudes toward proactive behavior weremeasured by using three items of Ajzen’s (1991, 2002) attitudes scale. Ajzen’s itemswere modified to capture individuals’ attitudes toward proactive behavior.

SN for proactive behavior Three items of Ajzen’s (1991, 2002) SN scale wereadapted to create a scale of SN for proactive behavior.

PBC for proactive behavior Similar to attitude and SN, PBC was assessed with threeitems of the PBC scale (Ajzen, 1991, 2002), which were modified to represent thedomain of proactive behavior.

Y. Shin, M. Kim

Table 1 Results of exploratory factor analysis

Variable Items Factors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

LGO I prefer to work on tasks that force meto learn new things.

.09 .26 .17 .80 .06 .04 −.05

The opportunity to extend the rangeof my abilities is important to me.

.18 .20 −.03 .76 .04 .17 .13

The opportunity to learn new things isimportant to me.

.17 .15 −.00 .85 .03 −.02 .09

When I fail to complete a difficulttask, I plan to try harder the nexttime I work on it.

.02 .02 −.06 .79 .02 .08 .22

POS The organization values mycontribution to its well-being.

.15 .06 .70 .02 .13 .02 −.04

The organization strongly considersmy goals and values.

.18 .11 .86 .02 .04 .07 .15

The organization is willing to help mewhen I need a special favor.

.19 .06 .85 .05 .09 .12 .14

The organization cares about myopinion.

.26 −.04 .82 −.03 .09 .02 .04

The organization really cares aboutmy well-being.

.21 .21 .81 −.00 −.08 .09 −.03

Job autonomy The job allows me to make a lot ofdecisions on my own.

.80 .16 .11 −.08 −.04 .15 .11

The job allows me to decide on myown how to go about doing mywork.

.79 .08 .14 .04 −.09 .06 .11

The job allows me to make my owndecisions about how to schedulemy work.

.80 .07 .18 −.01 −.05 .17 −.06

The job allows me to plan how I domy work.

.67 .11 .29 .03 .06 .30 −.04

The job allows me to decide on theorder in which things are done onthe job.

.85 .14 .10 .19 .12 −.04 .05

The job provides me with significantautonomy in making decisions.

.78 .13 .12 .10 .26 −.04 .13

The job allows me to make decisionsabout what methods I use tocomplete my work.

.78 −.02 .11 .25 .08 −.09 .14

The job gives me considerableopportunity for independence andfreedom in how I do the work.

.74 .15 .24 .11 .20 −.06 .20

The job gives me a chance to use mypersonal initiative or judgment incarrying out the work.

.84 .10 .14 .10 −.00 −.02 .10

Attitudes For me, behaving proactively at workis valuable.

.11 .25 .13 .05 .20 .82 −.00

For me, behaving proactively at workis beneficial.

−.03 .04 .05 .12 −.04 .88 .07


Intention to behave proactively To construct a scale of proactive intention, five itemswere drawn from Ajzen’s (1991, 2002) scale of intention and adapted so that they couldreflect intention to perform proactive behavior.

Proactive behavior To measure proactive behavior, the target employee’s proactivebehavior was rated by his or her supervisor on a scale of six items derived fromBateman and Crant’s (1993) proactive behavior scale. Sample items included “Theemployee enjoys facing and overcoming obstacles to his or her ideas,” “Whenever theemployee has a problem, he or she tackles it head-on,” “The employee has been apowerful source for constructive change,” and “The employee loves being a championfor his or her ideas, even against others’ opposition.”

Control variables Drawing on prior research on proactive behavior, we controlledfor several demographic characteristics that could exert potential confounding effectson the study variables (e.g., De Stobbeleir, Ashford, & De Luque, 2010; Dikkers,Jansen, de Lange, Vinkenburg, & Kooji, 2010). The target employee’s age,

Table 1 (continued)

Variable Items Factors

For me, behaving proactively at workis good.

.14 .03 .10 .07 .25 .82 .08

SN The people in my life whose opinionsI value would approve of myproactive behavior at work.

.16 .23 .05 .05 .82 .19 .12

It is expected of me that I behaveproactively at work.

.04 .25 .08 .05 .88 .17 .13

Most people who are important to methink that I should behaveproactively at work.

.03 .38 .15 .03 .76 .04 .14

PBC It is mostly up to me whether or not Ibehave proactive at work.

.18 .22 .05 .07 .07 .05 .79

I expect that I have an opportunity tobehave proactively at work.

.18 .19 .11 .07 .27 .05 .80

It is possible for me to behaveproactively at work.

.14 .35 .08 .00 .09 .08 .74

Intention I want to behave proactively at work. .05 .83 .12 .12 .11 .06 .17

I am ready to invest time to behaveproactively at work.

.15 .83 .13 .12 .13 .16 .17

I will try to behave proactively atwork.

.17 .81 .15 .20 .20 .09 .14

I plan to behave proactively at work. .14 .85 −.02 .19 .22 .06 .16

I intend to behave proactively atwork.

.22 .83 .04 .12 .25 .01 .15

Percent ofvarianceexplained

31.75 13.05 8.86 7.17 6.28 4.48 4.33

N=138. Bold numbers indicate factor loadings greater than .05

LGO Learning goal orientation; POS Perceived organizational support; SN Subjective norms; PBC Perceivedbehavioral control

Y. Shin, M. Kim

organizational tenure, gender (0=female, 1=male), and job level (0=manager, 1=non-manager) were included as control variables in subsequent data analyses.

Results

Discriminant validity of study measures

To assess the discriminant validity of our measurement scales, an exploratoryfactor analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation was conducted for the items of LGO,POS, job autonomy, attitudes, SN, PBC, and intention.1 As shown in Table 1, theseven-factor solution accounted for the 69 % of the variance in the items. All ofthe items loaded on their intended factors, each with loadings either higher than.60 on that factor or lower than .40 on any other factor. These findings indicatethat the scales used to measure the above variables possessed sufficient discrim-inant validity.

Except for proactive behavior, measures of all the other variables wereobtained from employee self-reports, and therefore common method variance(CMV) might have influenced the results of our analyses. To explore thispossibility, we employed Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,& Podsakoff, 2003). According to this test, CMV is assumed to exist if a singlefactor emerges from unrotated factor solutions or if a first factor accounts for themajority of variance in the measurement items. Following this procedure, anunrotated principal components factor analysis was conducted on the items forLGO, POS, job autonomy, attitudes, SN, PBC, and intention. The results of theEFA yielded a seven-factor structure, which explained 69 % of the total variance.In addition, the largest factor did not account for the majority of the variance(32 %), suggesting that CMV was not a likely contaminant of the presentfindings.

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of study variables

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables are reportedin Table 2. Overall, the zero-order correlations among the variables support theproposed relationships. We detected significant, positive associations betweenthe three antecedent variables and their corresponding mediator (r=.20, p<.05between LGO and attitude; r=.23, p<.01 between POS and SN; r=.35, p<.001between job autonomy and PBC). In addition, significant relationships werefound between attitudes (r=.27, p<.01), SN (r=.54, p<.001), and PBC (r=.54,p<.001) and intention. As predicted, individuals’ intentions to behave proac-tively were positively associated with their proactive behavior (r=.19, p<.05).

1 As data for proactive behavior were obtained from a different source (i.e., supervisor ratings), items ofproactive behavior were excluded from the EFA. We were unable to perform a confirmatory factor analysisdue to small sample size.


Tab

le2

Descriptiv

estatisticsandintercorrelations

ofstudyvariables

Mean

SD1

23

45

67

89

1011

12

Age

30.92

6.23

–

2.Tenure

4.55

5.82

.87*

**–

3.Gender

.36

.48

.22*

.15†

–

4.Joblevel

.68

.47

−.55

***

−.50

***

−.13

–

5.LGO

4.26

.63

.16

.18*

.15†

−.11

(.85)

6.PO

S2.71

.77

.33*

**.32*

**.26*

*−.26

**.10

(.89)

7.Jobautonomy

3.03

.82

.38*

**.41*

**.09

−.20

*.26*

*.44*

**

(.94)

8.Attitudes

3.88

.71

.20*

.27*

*.19*

−.19

*.20*

.22*

.19*

(.86)

9.SN

3.68

.85

.20*

.21*

.28*

*−.19

*.19*

.23*

*.23*

*.32*

**

(.88)

10.P

BC

2.76

.81

.30*

*.28*

*.18*

−.14

.19*

.23*

*.35*

**

.20*

.42*

**

(.83)

11.Intentio

n3.13

.91

.36*

**.34*

**.34*

**

−.23

**.37*

**

.25*

*.34*

**

.27*

*.54*

**

.54*

**

(.94)

12.P

roactiv

ebehavior

2.92

.72

.16†

.15†

.13

−.05

.08

.03

.13

.23*

*−.07

.19*

.19*

(.87)

N=138.

Num

bersin

parenthesesrepresentreliability

Gender:0=Female,1=Male;Joblevel:0=Manager,1

=Non-m

anager

LGO

Learninggoalorientation;

POSPerceivedorganizatio

nalsupport;SN

Subjectiv

enorm

s;PBCPerceivedbehavioralcontrol

†p<.10,

*p<.05;

**p<.01,

***p<.001

Y. Shin, M. Kim

Results of structural equation modeling (SEM)

We tested the proposed dual-mediation model by using SEM based on single indica-tors,2 because the use of multiple indicators caused the subject-parameter ratio to be1.6:1, which was below the cutoff of 2:1 (Nevitt & Hancock, 2004). The use of singleindicators increased the subject-parameter ratio to 6.9:1. Prior research suggested thatSEM based on single indicators yielded results comparable to those based on multipleindicators (Liang, Lawrence, Bennett, & Whitelaw, 1990; Shin & Choi, 2010). Indeed,in the current study, the findings based on single indicators were nearly identical tothose based on multiple indicators. Furthermore, to maintain the sample size perestimated parameter to reasonable levels, we fixed the measurement error in eachantecedent variable to its variance multiplied by one minus its reliability (Bollen, 1989).

In testing the hypothesized relationships among the variables using SEM, the focalemployees’ age, tenure, gender, and job level were controlled for by adding direct pathsfrom their indicators to proactive behavior. The overall pattern and statistical signifi-cance of the results remained exactly the same with or without these control variables.Moreover, none of the paths between the four control variables and proactive behaviorwere significant. Based on the argument that the inclusion of insignificant controlvariables is unnecessary and undesirable due to the reduction of statistical power andthe distortion of the relationships among the variables (Becker, 2005; Spector &Brannick, 2011), we excluded the four control variables from all subsequent dataanalyses.

We first tested the hypothesized structural model (Model 0) via SEM. As shown inTable 3, Model 0 did not fit the data in an absolute sense (χ2(16)=43.20, CFI=.86, TLI=.76, RMSEA=.11, AIC=83.20). Following Kelloway’s (1996) recommendations forgood practice, we compared the hypothesized model with several alternative structuralmodels, as depicted in Table 3 and Fig. 2. First, we developed a full model (Model 1),which included all possible relationships derived from the TPB. The TPB proposesdirect links between attitudes, SN, and PBC and behavior as well as interrelationshipsamong attitudes, SN, and PBC. Based on these propositions, we drew direct paths fromattitudes, SN, and PBC to proactive behavior. As SEM does not allow recursive paths,we included paths from attitudes to SN and from SN to PBC. In addition, givensignificant correlations between the three antecedents and attitudes, SN, and PBC, weadded all possible cross-effects between the three antecedents and attitudes, SN, andPBC. Model 1 fit the data well (χ2(7)=15.12, CFI=.96, TLI=.83, RMSEA=.09, AIC=73.12).

To construct a more parsimonious structural model, we removed all non-significantpaths from Model 1. As a result, Model 2 included paths from attitudes to SN and fromSN to PBC as well as direct paths from attitudes, SN, and PBC to proactive behavior.Model 2 exhibited a good fit to the data (χ2(12)=19.78, CFI=.96, TLI=.91, RMSEA=.07, AIC=67.78). We further performed chi-square difference tests to compare thefitness between the structural models. Model 2 represented a significantly better fit thanModel 0 (Δχ2 (df=4)=23.42, p<.001). However, we detected no significant difference

2 Because data were nested within firms, we checked intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)(1) values for thestudy variables, as recommended by Bliese (2000). The ICC(1) values for the variables were sufficiently low,suggesting that non-independence was not a serious issue in our data.


in model fit between Models 1 and 2 (Δχ2(df=5)=4.66, p=n.s.). When two competingmodels yield similar results, it is desirable to accept the more parsimonious model(Kelloway, 1998). Therefore, we adopted Model 2 as the best-fitting model. The pathcoefficients of Model 2 are reported in Fig. 3.

Tests of hypotheses

Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 posited positive relationships between LGO and attitudes,between POS and SN, and between job autonomy and PBC, respectively. As indicatedin Fig. 3, we found significant associations between LGO and attitudes (β=.20, p<.05)and between POS and SN (β=.18, p<.05), and between job autonomy and PBC (β=.27, p<.001). These findings lend support to Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3.

Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6 postulated significant links between attitudes, SN, and PBCand intention, respectively. Hypothesis 7 proposed a positive relationship betweenintention and proactive behavior. While SN (β=.39, p<.001) and PBC (β=.42,p<.001) were associated with intention, no relationship was found between attitudesand intention (β=.05, p=n.s.). As expected, intention was positively related to proac-tive behavior (β=.16, p<.05). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was rejected, whereas Hypoth-eses 5, 6, and 7 were supported.

LGO

POS

Attitudes

Jobautonomy

SN Intention Proactivebehavior

PBC

< Model 0 >

LGO

POS

Attitudes

Jobautonomy


PBC

< Model 1 >

LGO

POS

Attitudes

Jobautonomy


PBC

< Model 2 >

Fig. 2 Comparison of alternative structural models

Table 3 Comparison of alternative structural models

χ2(df) CFI NFI IFI TLI RMSEA AIC △χ2 p-valueof △χ2

Model 0 (Hypothesized model) 43.20(16) .86 .81 .87 .76 .11 83.20 23.42 p<.001

Model 1 (Full model) 15.12(7) .96 .93 .96 .83 .09 73.12 4.66 n.s

Model 2 (Best-fitting model) 19.78(12) .96 .91 .96 .91 .07 67.78 – –

Y. Shin, M. Kim

Hypotheses 8a, 8b, and 8c predicted the mediating roles of attitudes, SN, and PBC inthe relationships between LGO, POS, and job autonomy and intention, respectively.Because the relationship between attitudes and intention was not significant, tests ofmediation were performed only for SN and PBC. Following recent recommendations(Mackinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007; Shrout & Bolger, 2002), we tested the mediatingeffects of SN and PBC via the product-of-coefficient approach. That is, we assessed thestatistical significance of the indirect effects of POS and job autonomy on intentionthrough SN and PBC by bootstrapping, which can avoid the problems arising fromasymmetric and non-normal sampling distributions that often characterize mediatedeffects (Mackinnon et al., 2007). As reported in Table 4, POS exerted a significantindirect effect on intention through SN (point estimate=.12, p<.05, confidence inter-vals of .04 and .23). Likewise, job autonomy had a significant indirect relationship withintention through the mediating mechanism of PBC (point estimate=.19, p<.01,confidence intervals of .09 and .31). These findings provide support for Hypotheses8b and 8c.

Hypotheses 9a, 9b, and 9c, which proposed the mediating effect of intention on therelationships between attitudes, SN, and PBC and proactive behavior, respectively,were tested by using the same procedure. While Hypothesis 9a was rejected due to thenon-significant relationship between attitudes and intention, Hypotheses 9b and 9c

Table 4 Results of bootstrapping analysis

Product of coefficients Bootstrapping bias-corrected 95 % CI

Point estimate SE p Lower Upper

POS→SN→Intention .12 .05 .01 .04 .23

Job autonomy→PBC→Intention .19 .05 .00 .09 .31

SN→Intention→Proactive behavior .10 .04 .01 .02 .19

PBC→Intention→Proactive behavior .10 .05 .01 .02 .20

LGO→Attitudes→Proactive behavior .05 .03 .02 .01 .12

POS→Attitudes→Proactive behavior .05 .02 .01 .02 .11

POS Perceived organizational support; SN Subjective norms; PBC Perceived behavioral control; LGOLearning goal orientation

.16*

−.28***

.15

.25***

.42***

.05

.39***

.35***

.34***

.27***

.19*

.18*

.20*

.14**

.26***

.05

POS

Jobautonomy

Attitudes

SN

PBC

IntentionProactive behavior

LGO

Fig. 3 Path coefficients of the best-fitting model (Model 2). *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001


were validated through bootstrapping analyses. As presented in Table 4, the indirecteffect of SN on proactive behavior through intention (point estimate=.10, p<.05,confidence intervals of .02 and .19) and the indirect effect of PBC on proactivebehavior through intention (point estimate=.10, p<.05, confidence intervals of .02and .20) were significant, which supports Hypotheses 9b and 9c.

Although we detected no significant relationship between attitudes and intention, theassociations between LGO and POS and attitudes and between attitudes and proactivebehavior suggest the potential mediating role of attitudes in the relationships betweenLGO and POS and proactive behavior. We performed bootstrapping analyses to explorethis possibility. Table 4 shows that LGO (point estimate=.05, p<.05, confidenceintervals of .01 and .12) and POS (point estimate=.05, p<.05, confidence interval of.02 and .11) had a significant indirect effect on proactive behavior through attitudes.

Discussion

The objectives of the present study were to identify key individual, organizational, andjob factors that predict proactive behavior and to explore cognitive mechanismsunderlying these relationships by using the TPB. Overall, our findings endorsed mostof the relationships proposed by the TPB. As predicted, LGO, POS, and job autonomywere found to be significant precursors of attitude, SN, and PBC, respectively. Whileattitudes were not related to intention, SN and PBC were positively associated withintention, which in turn predicted proactive behavior. POS was found to be linked toproactive behavior through the mediating processes of SN and intention. In a similarvein, job autonomy predicted proactive behavior though PBC and intention. Thesefindings provide several important theoretical implications for the proactive behaviorliterature.

Theoretical implications

First, consistent with prior findings, the current study highlights the roles of LGO, POS,and job autonomy as a key individual, organizational, and job characteristics, respec-tively, that can promote employee proactive behavior. Our findings further extend priorwork by uncovering critical intermediary mechanisms of the relationships between thethree antecedents and proactive behavior, which have rarely been elucidated in theproactivity literature. In particular, our study provides meaningful insight for proactivebehavior research by attending to the role of cognitive mechanisms underlying proac-tive behavior. Although very few, previous studies have predominantly identifiedmotivation (e.g., self-efficacy) as a key intermediary process leading to proactivebehavior (Crant, 2000; Hirschi et al., 2013; Parker et al., 2006). Complementing thesefindings, our research reveals that cognitive processes such as SN, PBC, and intentionsignificantly predict proactive behavior. That is, perceptions of norms and behavioralcontrol are likely to cause individuals to make a decision to behave proactively in theirworkplace. Moreover, unlike attitudes toward proactive behavior, SN, PBC, andintention turned out to constitute dual-mediation processes between POS and jobautonomy and proactive behavior. These findings imply that POS and job autonomyfirst shape individuals’ perceptions of norms related to proactive behavior and of

Y. Shin, M. Kim

behavioral control, respectively, which in turn affect their intention and actual proactivebehavior. Thus, by proposing and testing cognitive dual-mediation mechanisms be-tween the antecedents and proactive behavior for the first time, our study provideselaborate knowledge about factors and mechanisms affecting proactive behavior.

Second, the findings of the current study suggest that the TPB is a relevantframework for addressing the mechanisms of proactive behavior. Our findings demon-strate that while attitudes toward proactive behavior directly affected proactive behav-ior, SN and PBC had significant, positive relationships with proactive behavior onlywhen they were connected to intention to perform proactive behavior. These findingsimply that SN and PCBmay not trigger proactive behavior without forming intention tobehave proactively, which endorses the basic premise of the TPB. In addition, signif-icant intercorrelations among attitudes, SN, and PBC observed in this study areconsistent with the propositions of the TPB, which assume that although attitudes,SN, and PBC make unique contributions to intention, these three variables are relatedto one another (Ajzen, 1991).

The use of the TPB as an exploratory mechanism of proactive behavior also offersnovel insight for the proactivity literature, given that scholars have generally consideredindividuals’ personality and motivation as primary sources of proactive behavior(Crant, 2000; Parker et al., 2006). Unlike prior findings reporting that proactivebehavior is driven by one’s proactive personality (Kim et al., 2009; Kim et al.,2010a) and “can do” motivation (Parker et al., 2006), our finding clearly indicate thatproactive behavior is a reasoned action that involves individuals’ volition and rationaldecision-making. Because the present study is an initial attempt to assume proactivebehavior as a reasoned action, further theoretical developments and empirical investi-gations are called for to disentangle complicated decision-making processes that lead toproactive behavior. Moreover, the propositions derived from the TPB need to bevalidated in future longitudinal research to establish stronger causality among theantecedents, mediating processes, and proactive behavior.

It should be noted that the antecedents of proactive behavior turned out to beuniversal across Eastern and Western cultures. In line with the results obtained fromWestern cultures (e.g., Chiaburu et al., 2007; Parker et al., 2006; Sonnentag &Spychala, 2012), our findings showed that LGO, POS, and job autonomy wereassociated with proactive behavior by engendering relevant cognitive states. LGOwas found to predict proactive behavior by shaping attitudes toward proactive behavior.POS was related to perceived peer pressure to perform proactive behavior, which inturn led to proactive behavior through intention for proactive behavior. Job autonomyappeared to enhance proactive behavior by increasing perceived ease of proactivebehavior and intention for that behavior. As such, by shedding light on individualand contextual antecedents of proactive behavior that are important in bothAsian and Western work contexts, the present study expands the scope ofresearch on proactive behavior and provides a research model generalizableacross different cultures.

While the present findings supported most of the proposed linkages, several excep-tions were observed in the results of SEM. First, attitudes toward proactive behaviorwere predicted by both LGO and POS, which suggests that not only one’s own learninggoal orientation but also one’s perception of organizational support are important inshaping attitudes toward proactive behavior. It is reasonable that in supportive work


environments, employees possess favorable attitudes toward proactive behavior due tofeelings of psychological safety (Kahn, 1990). Thus, even though our findings dem-onstrated that LGO, POS, and job autonomy are primary antecedents of attitudes, SN,and PBC, respectively, potential complicated dynamics between the three antecedentsand attitudes, SN, and PBC may need to be further elucidated in future research.

Unlike our predictions, the mediating effect of intention was not found for attitudes,due to the lack of association between attitudes and intention. One plausible explana-tion for this finding is that attitudes might have been linked to intention through SN orPBC. As proposed by the TPB, attitudes, SN, and PBC can be intertwined with oneanother to affect intention (Ajzen, 1991). Therefore, even though attitudes towardproactive behavior did not directly predict intention to behave proactively, they mighthave exerted indirect effects on intention by eliciting perceptions of norms and controlrelated to proactive behavior.

Another interesting finding is a negative relationship between SN and proac-tive behavior (β=−.28, p<.001). Although SN for proactive behavior waspositively associated with intentions to behave proactively, which in turn had apositive relationship with proactive behavior, a negative, direct relationshipexisted between SN and proactive behavior. One possible explanation is thatthe presence of strong norms can be detrimental to proactive or change-orientedbehavior. Given that proactive behavior is often motivated by dissatisfaction withthe current situation (Janssen & Huang 2008) or necessity for change (Seppälä,Lipponen, Bardi, & Pirttilä-Backman, 2012), if an individual is exposed to strongpeer pressure to conform to the norm, the individual may not feel the necessityof changing the current situation, thereby displaying decreased proactive behav-ior. Such a potential relationship between strong norms and proactive behaviorwarrants further empirical investigations.

Practical implications

The findings of the present study have several implications for practitioners.Organizational leaders who seek to promote the proactive behavior of employeesshould be aware of individual and contextual factors that can enhance proactivebehavior. Given that LGO, POS, and job autonomy are the antecedents of proac-tive behavior, selecting individuals with a high level of LGO can be an avenue toboost proactive behavior within the organization. Organizations can also developthe LGO of their employees by training them to change the attributions that theemployees make about their ability and to perceive ability as a malleable attribute(VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999).

Based on the findings that POS and job autonomy are critical features of workcontext supportive of proactive behavior, organizational leaders may need to promotethese two factors as a way to enhance proactive behavior in their organization. Material(e.g., pay, promotion, fringe benefits) and symbolic (e.g., praise, approval) rewards canbe used to increase POS (Eisenberger et al., 1986). In particular, cultivating a workclimate that allows trial and error can cause employees to perceive a high level of POS.On the other hand, organizations can consider assigning employees jobs with greaterchallenges and decision-making authority to elevate their levels of job autonomy. Eventhough employees are exposed to high levels of organizational support and job

Y. Shin, M. Kim

autonomy, unless they experience peer pressure or norms for proactive behavior andfeel that it is easy to behave proactively, they may not exhibit proactive intention andbehavior. Likewise, if employees’ LGO is not linked to positive attitudes towardproactive behavior, they may not engage in proactive behavior. Thus, organizationalleaders or managers may need to help their employees maintain positive attitudestoward proactive behavior, and perceive norms and behavioral control fostering pro-active behavior so that these attitudes and perceptions can be materialized into proac-tive intention and behavior.

Limitations and directions for future research

Despite its theoretical and practical implications, the present study has somelimitations that suggest directions for future research. First, although our hypoth-eses were developed on the basis of a solid theoretical foundation, indications ofcausality among the variables should be interpreted with caution. Because allstudy variables were measured simultaneously, it was impossible to ascertain thecausal sequences among the variables. For instance, individuals who have be-haved proactively are prone to possess more favorable attitudes toward proactivebehavior and to perceive higher levels of norms and control for proactivebehavior. Therefore, to make stronger causal inferences among the variables,future researchers need to test the hypotheses developed in the present study byemploying a longitudinal or experimental research design.

Second, even though we used several remedies to reduce CMV (e.g., use ofsupervisor ratings, Harman’s one-factor test), it is still possible that the significantrelationships detected among the three antecedents, attitudes, SN, PBC, andintention were influenced by CMV. Moreover, as we relied on employee self-reports as measures of these variables, rater biases might have affected theirresponses. Given that individuals in Asian cultures tend to display greater degreesof social desirability and evaluation apprehension in their survey responses (Kim,Chiu, Peng, Cai, & Tov, 2010b), the findings of our study might have reflectedthese tendencies. To address this issue, it is desirable to measure and control forsocial desirability or evaluation apprehension in testing the relationship among thestudy variables.

Third, it should be made clear that there might be other antecedents thatcontribute to proactive behavior at work. LGO, POS, and job autonomy are notthe exclusive antecedents of proactive behavior. Furthermore, there might beboundary conditions that strengthen or weaken the associations between thoseantecedents and proactive behavior. Thus, future work could be directed at ex-ploring more diverse antecedents and boundary conditions that influence proactivebehavior.

Finally, although we considered individual, organizational, and job characteristics asantecedents of proactive behavior, these variables were conceptualized and measured atthe individual level. However, organizational (e.g., organizational culture) or team-levelfactors (e.g., team leader’s leadership, team climate) may affect individuals’ intention tobehave proactively. To capture the effects of organizational or team-level factors onindividual proactive behavior, we recommend future researchers to conduct multilevelresearch into these relationships.


References

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50(2): 179–211.

Ajzen, I. 2002. Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. http://www.people.mass.edu/ajzen/tpb.html.

Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. 2000. Shop floorinnovation: Facilitating suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 73: 265–285.

Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2):191–215.

Bandura, A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37: 122–147.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.Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A

qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8: 274–289.Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggre-

gation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methodsin organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349–381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Brislin, R. W. 1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry

(Eds.). Field methods in cross-cultural research: 137–164. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1996. Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual

and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1): 26–48.Chiaburu, D. S., Marinova, S. V., & Lim, A. S. 2007. Helping and proactive extra-role behaviors: The

influence of motives, goal orientation, and social context. Personality and Individual Differences, 43:2282–2293.

Crant, J. M. 2000. Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 26(3): 435–462.De Stobbeleir, K. E. M., Ashford, S. J., & de Luque, M. F. S. 2010. Proactivity with image in mind: How

employee and manager characteristics affect evaluations of proactive behaviors. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 83: 347–369.

Dikkers, J. S. E., Jansen, P. G. W., de Lange, A. H., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Kooji, D. 2010. Proactivity, jobcharacteristics, and engagement: A longitudinal study. Career Development International, 15(1): 59–77.

Dweck, C. S. 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10): 1040–1048.Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.

Psychological Review, 95: 256–273.Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 44(2): 350–383.Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71(3): 500–507.Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. 1998. Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 54: 5–12.Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. 1976. Personality and person by situation interactions. In N. S. Endler & D.

Magnusson (Eds.). Interactional psychology and personality. New York: Hemisphere.Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. 1996. Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and

West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 37–63.Gibson, C. B. 1999. Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across

tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 138–152.Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 28: 3–34.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(2): 327–347.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2): 250–279.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hirschi, A., Lee, B., Porfeli, E. J., & Vondracek, F. W. 2013. Proactive motivation and engagement in career

behaviors: Investigating direct, mediated, and moderated effects. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83: 31–40.

Y. Shin, M. Kim

http://www.people.mass.edu/ajzen/tpb.html

http://www.people.mass.edu/ajzen/tpb.html

Janssen, O., & Huang, X. 2008. Us and me: Team identification and individual differentiation as comple-mentary drivers of teammembers’ citizenship and creative behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(1): 69–88.

Joo, B., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., & Yoon, S. W. 2012. Team creativity: The effects of perceived learningculture, development feedback and team cohesion. International Journal of Training and Development,16: 77–91.

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy ofManagement Journal, 33(4): 692–724.

Kelloway, E. K. 1996. Common practices in structural equation modeling. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson(Eds.). International review of industrial and organizational psychology: 141–180. Chichester: Wiley.

Kelloway, E. K. 1998. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks:Sage.

Kim, T., Hon, A. H. Y., & Crant, J. M. 2009. Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomeroutcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24: 93–193.

Kim, T., Hon, A. H. Y., & Lee, D. 2010a. Proactive personality and employee creativity: The effects of jobcreativity requirement and supervisor support for creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1): 37–45.

Kim, Y., Chiu, C., Peng, S., Cai, H., & Tov, W. 2010b. Explaining East–West differences in the likelihood ofmaking favorable self-evaluations: The role of evaluation apprehension and directness of expression.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(1): 62–75.

Liang, J., Lawrence, R. H., Bennett, J. M., & Whitelaw, N. A. 1990. Appropriateness of composites instructural equation models. Journal of Gerontology, 45(2): 552–559.

Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. 2010. Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitiveperspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy ofManagement Journal, 53: 1090–1109.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. 2007. Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58:593–614.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing andvalidating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 90: 399–406.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change.Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403–419.

Nevitt, J., & Hancock, G. R. 2004. Evaluating small sample approaches for model test statistics in structuralequation modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39: 439–478.

Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. 2010. Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: Amulti-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 543–565.

Parker, S. K. 1998. Role breadth self-efficacy: Relationship with work enrichment and other organizationalpractices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 835–852.

Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. 1999. Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, jobcontrol, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6): 925–939.

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.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioralresearch: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(5): 879–903.

Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. 1973. Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover andabsenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2): 151–176.

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. 2010. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on jobperformance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3): 617–635.

Seppälä, T., Lipponen, J., Bardi, A., & Pirttilä-Backman, A. M. 2012. Change-oriented organizationalcitizenship behavior: An interactive product of openness to change values, work unit identifica-tion, and sense of power. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1): 136–155.

Shin, Y., & Choi, J. N. 2010. What makes a group of good citizens? The role of perceived group-level fit andcritical psychological states in organizational teams. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 83(2): 531–552.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New proceduresand recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4): 422–445.

Sonnentag, S., & Spychala, A. 2012. Job control and job stressors as predictors of proactive work behavior: Isrole breadth self-efficacy the link?. Human Performance, 25: 412–431.


Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. 2011. Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical controlvariables. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2): 287–305.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct andpredictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 108–119.

VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. 1999. The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, (84)2:249–259.

Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.Wu, C., & Parker, S. K. 2012. The role of attachment styles in shaping proactive behavior: An intra-individual

analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85: 523–530.

Yuhyung Shin (PhD, Columbia University) is an associate professor of organizational behavior at the Schoolof Business, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea. She earned her PhD in organizational psychology fromColumbia University. Her current research interests include team processes and effectiveness, organizationalcitizenship behavior, proactive behavior, organizational creativity, and person-organization fit. Her researchhas been published in academic journals such as the Journal of Management, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, and Journal of Business Ethics.

Min-Jeong Kim (MA, Hanyang Univerisity) received an MA from the School of Business, HanyangUniversity, Seoul, Korea. Her current research interests include proactive behavior, organizational citizenshipbehavior, and goal orientation.

Y. Shin, M. Kim

Antecedents and Mediating Mechanisms of Proactive Behavior: Application of the Theory of Planned...

Documents

Transcript of Antecedents and Mediating Mechanisms of Proactive Behavior: Application of the Theory of Planned...