Fuller, 2010

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

1/18

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUESVol. XXII Number 1 Spring 2010: 35-51

Proactive Personality and Job Performance: Exploring JobAutonomy as a Moderator

Jerry Bryan Fuller, Jr.Assistant Professor of Management

Louisiana Tech University

Kim HesterProfessor of Management

Arkansas State University

Susie S. CoxAssistant Professor of Management

McNeese State University

As organizations attempt to cope with more dynamic competitiveenvironments, there has been a growing interest in workers who are not onlycooperative, but who are self-starting and proactive in helping their organizationsfunction more effectively (Chan, 2000; Crant, 2000). Indeed, the competitiveadvantage and success of organizations is thought to be increasingly dependentupon personal initiative and proactive behavior (Crant, 2000; Fuller et al.,2007; Seiling, 2001). As a result, more and more organizations are beginning

to hold employees accountable for behavior that contributes to constructiveimprovement in the workplace (Seiling, 2001). Griffin et al. (2007) note thatwork performance is no longer considered as simply completing required tasksproficiently and broader meanings of work performance are being examined.

Consequently, a growing stream of research has focused upon gaining agreater understanding of people with proactive personalities. According toRank, Pace, and Frese (2004), the trait components of personal initiative arecaptured by the proactive personality construct (Bateman and Crant, 1993).

A person who has a proactive personality is one who is relatively unconstrained

by situational forces and who effects environmental change (Bateman andCrant, 1993: 105). People with proactive personalities seek out opportunitiesto impro e things take action and tend to perse ere ntil the bring abo t

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

2/18

PROACTIVE PERSONALITYAND JOB PERFORMANCE36

meaningful change (Seibert et al., 1999: 417). People who are less proactivedo not show personal initiative and do not identify or act upon opportunities toproduce constructive change. Accordingly, people with proactive personalities

tend to engage in constructive, change-oriented behavior and create situationsthat facilitate high job performance (Crant, 1995). Empirical investigations ofthe criterion validity of the proactive personality scale indicate that proactivepersonality is positively related to proactive behavior (e.g., Kammeyer-Muellerand Wanberg, 2003; Seibert et al., 2001; Thompson, 2005) and job performance(e.g., Crant, 1995; Pitt et al., 2002; Thompson, 2005).

From a practical and theoretical perspective, the proactive personalityconstruct is appealing and unique, in part, because it is what Locke and Latham(2004) call a strong personality trait. According to Locke and Latham, strong

personalities are traits that should be less constrained by situations thanweak ones (2004: 395). However, no research has examined the extent towhich situational forces, such as job autonomy, might enhance or attenuatethe positive relationship between proactive personality and job performance.This is unfortunate because in Bateman and Crants (1993) original article,there was a call for research to assess the extent to which situational strengthinfluences manifestations of a proactive personality. Consequently, there has yetto be a complete critical evaluation of the proactive personality construct, andprior findings indicating a positive relationship with proactive behavior and

performance should be considered incomplete (Thompson, 2005: 1016).Because part of the appeal of a trait-based measure of personal initiativeis that it captures a tendency to persevere in enacting environmental changeeven when faced with substantial obstacles, an examination of the extent to

which situational constraints suppress or reduce the performance of peoplewith proactive personalities appears to be long overdue. Although Chan (2006)finds that the relationship between proactive personality and job performance

was influenced by the individuals situational judgment effectiveness, this studydiffers from Chans research in that it assesses a characteristic of the work

environment as a moderator rather than a characteristic of the individual asa moderator. In short, the purpose of this study is to provide the first criticaltest of the strong personality aspect of the proactive personality construct byassessing the extent to which one situational constraint, job autonomy, influencesthe relationship between proactive personality and job performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

The proactive personality construct is grounded in the social interactionist

perspective (Bandura, 1977; Jones, 1983), which holds that people are not onlyinfluenced by their environment, but also are capable of creating or enactingtheir environment (Bateman and Crant 1993) The essence of the proactive

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

3/18

FULLER, HESTER, AND COX 37

to initiate change-oriented actions (Bateman and Crant, 1993). People withproactive personalities are purported to identify and act upon opportunities,show personal initiative, and persist in their pursuit of constructive change

(Crant, 1995). Non-proactive, or passive, people do not actively scan theenvironment for opportunities to change their surrounding environment nordo they take action when the opportunity arises--they are more likely to adaptto environmental change rather than enact it. Thus, proactive personalityis thought to be a stable trait characterized by a tendency to take personalinitiative in a broad range of activities and situations (Seibert et al., 2001:847).

According to Crant (1995), people with highly proactive personalities arelikely to perform better than more passive individuals because they engage

in behaviors that make important contributions to work-related tasks. Forexample, proactive people are purported to be persistent, which has beenfound to be related to job performance (e.g., Barrick and Mount, 1991).Crant further states that more proactive people can be expected to createsituations and environments conducive to effective performance (1995: 532-533). In discussing his finding that proactive personality is positively related toobjective job performance, Crant (1995) suggests that future research is neededto more broadly assess criterion validity by studying both objective as well assubjective measures of job performance. Subsequent research examining the

relationship between proactive personality and job performance has utilizedsubjective performance ratings. Utilizing survey questionnaires, Pitt et al.(2002) and Thompson (2005) use supervisors to evaluate their subordinates

job performance. Both Pitt et al. (2002) and Thompson (2005) report a positiverelationship between proactive personality and job performance. Therefore,research indicates that proactive personality predicts both objective andsubjective job performance. These findings are important because meta-analyticresearch indicates that objective and subjective ratings of performance shouldnot be viewed as interchangeable (Bommer et al., 1995). Therefore, research

may benefit from examining performance measures that have elements of bothsubjectivity and objectivity. Multiple dimensional performance appraisal toolsmay offer such a benefit.

However, researchers have yet to relate proactive personality to perhapsthe most common and important measure of job performance--the employeesformal performance evaluation. Research relating personality characteristics

with job performance rarely utilizes results of the performance appraisalinstrument used by the job incumbents organization (c.f. Taylor et al., 2004).This is unfortunate for several reasons. First, the outcome of the organizations

performance appraisal process is likely to be the most important measure ofjob performance from the employees perspective. Performance appraisals areoften the instrument used by not only management but also the employee to

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

4/18


for promotion, salary, and bonuses. Second, efforts to validate a personalityvariable as a selection tool are likely to be based upon the organizationsperformance appraisal data rather than on subjective supervisor performance

ratings obtained by survey or an objective performance rating. Performance asassessed by the firm is much more likely to withstand legal scrutiny than othermeasures of performance. Third, performance appraisal instruments used byorganizations often require supervisors to assess subordinates on dimensionsof performance beyond that assessed by objective measures of performance(Duarte et al., 1994). For example, a salespersons performance appraisal maynot only include the number of new accounts they acquired or units they soldin a certain period, but also the extent to which they serviced old accounts,helped new hires and other sales people, and assisted with non-sales-related

duties. Consequently, it seems that performance as evaluated by a firms formalappraisal process is likely to be a more salient criterion measure than either solelyobjective measures or survey-based subjective measures of job performance.For this reason, the organizations formal performance evaluation was used toassess job performance in the present study.

Hypothesis 1. Proactive personality has a positive relationship to jobperformance.

Although we expect to replicate prior findings indicating a positiverelationship between proactive personality and performance, this relationshipmay vary according to the degree of strength of the job environment. Accordingto the situational strength hypothesis (Mischel, 1977), individual differencesdetermine behavior more strongly in situations that are unstructured than insituations that are structured. Unstructured situations are considered weakbecause they do not provide clear expectations about appropriate behavior orprovide incentives to perform desired behaviors (Mischel, 1977). On the otherhand, structured or strong situations are likely to reduce the influence of

individual differences on behavior because they constrain behavioral choice bycreating invariant expectations of appropriate behavior or by providing strongincentives to perform only specified behavior. Research generally supports the

view that the relationship between personality variables and outcomes suchas behavior and job performance is strongest in weak psychological situations(e.g., Barrick and Mount, 1993; Lee et al., 1990).

In organizational settings, job autonomy is often used to assess situationalstrength (Barrick and Mount, 1993; Lee et al., 1990; Peters et al., 1982). Hackmanand Oldham (1975) define job autonomy as the degree of freedom one has to

schedule and determine the method of how his/her work is to be accomplished.In situations where individuals have a high degree of job autonomy (i.e., aweak situation) behavior is more likely to be related to individual personality

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

5/18


of autonomy (i.e., a strong situation), an individuals actions are likely to beconstrained by a variety of factors including close supervision, machine-drivenpacing, and detailed work rules. Therefore, in conditions of low job autonomy,

personality is likely to play little or no role in the behavior of individuals becausethey have no discretion with regard to performance-related activities. AlthoughMischel (1977) specifically refers to behavior as the criterion variable in hissituational strength argument, little research has been conducted examining theextent to which job autonomy moderates the relationship between personalityand behavior. However, research has shown that job performance is a functionof the interaction between job autonomy and a variety of individual difference

variables including: Type A personality characteristics (Lee et al., 1990);conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness (Barrick and Mount, 1993);

growth-need strength (Hackman and Lawler, 1971); and need for achievement(Steers and Spencer, 1977).While level of job autonomy is unlikely to affect the proactive behavior and

job performance of passive individuals, it may have a significant effect uponpeople with proactive personalities. Individuals with proactive personalitiesmay be less proactive when they experience low levels of job autonomy becausesome forms of proactive or performance- enhancing behavior may be either

very difficult or even impossible to perform when freedom of behavior isseverely curtailed (e.g., network building, information-seeking, altering or

experimenting with processes and procedures). Further, explicit consequencesfor deviation from unambiguous behavioral demands may also deter proactivebehavior in low job autonomy conditions. Alternatively, high levels of jobautonomy have ambiguous expectations with regard to how and when tasks areperformed as well as little in the way of negative consequences for deviating fromtraditional task behavior, thus providing people with a proactive personality theopportunity to try new ways of accomplishing their work assignments. Thisis consistent with recent theoretical models of work design which predict that

job performance is likely to be a function of the interaction between proactive

personality and work design characteristics such as job autonomy (Parkeret al

.,2006). To the extent this is true, the predictive validity of proactive personalitymay be substantially reduced in conditions of low job autonomy and substantiallyenhanced in conditions of high job autonomy.

It may also be that high job autonomy is relevant to proactive personalityin the sense that situations with high job autonomy offer cues for expressingproactive personality. Trait activation theory suggests that personality traitsare expressed as responses to trait relevant situational cues (Tett and Burnett,2003: 502). Situations with high job autonomy are likely to present cues that

suggest it is acceptable or even desirable to alter the way work is performed(e.g., lack of supervision, limited task structure, no external pacing signals,co worker communication) People with proactive personalities are likely to

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

6/18


personalities are likely to ignore cues suggesting work tasks may be performedin a variety of ways. In a situation with a low level of job autonomy, few cues arelikely to be present signaling that personal initiative is acceptable or desired.

Therefore, from a trait activation perspective, high job autonomy activatespeople with proactive personalities, while low job autonomy is likely to havelow trait activation potential. Thus, trait activation may also be a factorthat contributes to the relationship between proactive personality and jobperformance being moderated by job autonomy.

Hypothesis 2. The relationship between proactive personality and jobperformance is moderated by job autonomy, such that the positive relationshipis strongest when job autonomy is highest.

METHODS

Data and Sample

Data were collected at a small utility company in the southern UnitedStates with 120 employees. Employees were informed that participation in thesurvey was voluntary and confidential. Employees were also informed that topmanagement supported the research and was providing time during regular

work hours for employees to complete the survey. The first survey collecteddata on control variables, proactive personality, and perceived job autonomy.The company conducted performance appraisals for all employees at thesame timeduring the time period between the initial data collection and thecollection of data from the supervisors. These performance appraisal data

were drawn from company records immediately prior to the collection of thesupervisor data. A total of 115 sets of matching subordinate-supervisor data

were obtained, which represents a 95.8% response rate. With regard to jobtenure, a majority of the respondents had been with the company less than 10

years (15years, 28%). With regard to education, a majority of the respondents reportedsome college education (some high school, 1%; high school degree, 35%; somecollege, 39%; college degree, 22%; graduate degree, 3%). With regard to age,the majority of the workers were 40 or younger (60, 3%).

Measures

Job Performance.

Performance data were collected from company records.The organization used a common performance appraisal instrument for allemployees except the chief executive officer Supervisors were required to

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

7/18


communication skills, teamwork, external/internal customer relations, problem-solving, quality, organizational skills, continuous improvement, safety andattendance), with each dimension consisting of multiple items. Each subordinate

was also required to perform a self-evaluation on the same dimensions anditems. Each item was evaluated on a three-point scale (exceeds standards, meetsstandards, or below standards). When an item was rated exceeds standardsor below standards by either supervisor or subordinate, they were required toinclude a comment justifying this rating. Further, employees were evaluated onthe extent to which they achieved a variety of specific, measurable performancegoals that had been established in the prior performance evaluation. Researchindicates that this tends to minimize rating bias (Huber, 1989). Finally,supervisors were required to synthesize all of these data into an overall

performance appraisal rating utilizing the same three-point rating scale (i.e.,exceeds standards, meets standards, or below standards) and provide writtencomments justifying the overall performance rating. Supervisors were requiredto discuss the completed performance evaluation with their own supervisor andthe human resources manager. In addition, supervisors were required to receiveapproval from both of these individuals before conducting the performanceevaluation with the employee. Each employee was provided the opportunity todetail the extent to which he or she agreed or disagreed with the supervisorsoverall performance appraisal rating. The company provided the researchers

with the overall performance evaluation assigned to the employee at the endof this evaluation process (i.e., below standards, meets standards, or exceedsstandards). For the purposes of this study, job performance was coded for eachindividual as a 3 (exceeds standards), 2 (meets standards), or 1 (belowstandards). The organization used these performance ratings to make meritraise decisions.

Proactive Personality. Proactive personality was assessed with Seibert et al.s(1999) 10-item scale by subordinates at time 1 (e.g., Wherever I have been, Ihave been a powerful force for change.). The response scale used for proactive

personality was a Likert-type scale of 1 to 7 where 1 represented StronglyDisagree and 7 represented Strongly Disagree.Job Autonomy. Job Autonomy was assessed with Spreitzers (1995) three-

item scale by subordinates at time 1 (e.g., I have considerable opportunity forindependence and freedom in how I do my job.). Self-reports of perceived

job autonomy were used in the present study because in person-situationinteractional models, the psychological meaning of the situation for theindividual is the important determining factor (Endler and Magnusson, 1976:968). That is, individuals act upon their perceptions rather than objective reality

(Jones, 1990). The response scale for job autonomy was a Likert-type scaleof 1 to 5 where 1 represented Strongly Disagree and 5 representedStrongly Disagree

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

8/18


safety), trust in the organizationwas included as a control variable. Trust in theorganization was assessed with Robinson and Rousseaus (1994) seven-itemscale (e.g., In general, I believe my employers motives and intentions are

good.). Consistent with Barrick and Mount (1993), the respondentsjob levelwithin the firms hierarchy was included as a control variable. Job level withinthe firms hierarchy was included based upon the likelihood that individuals athigher levels of the organization would have more authority and responsibilityto address problems and undertake improvement initiatives. Further, higher-level jobs might have greater job complexity, and research has shown that therelationship between general mental ability and job performance is strongerat higher levels of job complexity than it is at low levels of job complexity(Hunter and Hunter, 1984). Based upon an organizational chart provided by

the organization, individuals were grouped into three categories: lower-level(i.e., non-supervisory and first line supervisors, 83%), mid-level (i.e., mid-levelmanagers, 13%), and top management team (4%). Finally, tenure, education, andage were included as demographic control variables.

AnalysisTo test the studys hypotheses, moderated hierarchical regression analysis

is used. In order to reduce the effects of non-essential ill-conditioning

encountered in moderated hierarchical regression analysis, Aiken and Wests(1991) suggestion to center both main effects variables prior to creating theinteraction term is followed. This involves subtracting the mean value of the

variable from the score of each respondent, the result being a variable witha mean value of zero. Performing this transformation prior to creating theinteraction term reduces the potential for multicollinearity among main effect

variables to bias the interaction term and its interpretation (i.e., its statisticalsignificance).

RESULTSThe summary statistics for the study variables are reported in Table 1.

All of the latent variable scales exhibited acceptable reliability. The resultspresented in Table 2 indicate that proactive personality is positively related tothe employees performance appraisal rating. These results provide support forHypothesis 1 that proactive personality is directly related to job performance.The results of the analysis utilizing subordinate-rated job autonomy indicatethat the relationship between proactive personality and employee performance

appraisal is moderated by job autonomy, supporting Hypothesis 2. Theadditional four percent of variance accounted for by the interaction term ismarginally larger than the 1 3% of incremental variance explained in most field

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

9/18


7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

10/18


However, the amount of incremental variance explained by an interactionterm is an incomplete measure of the effects of a moderator variable(Champoux and Peters, 1980, 1987). Therefore, following Cohen et al.s (2003)recommendation, the regression of proactive personality on job performance

was plotted at three values of job autonomy: the mean of job autonomy, onestandard deviation above the mean, and one standard deviation below the

mean. Figure I shows that this positive average effect is suppressed by lowperceived job autonomy and enhanced by high perceived job autonomy.Th t i ti lit i t l l t d t j b f f th

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

11/18


DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research is to provide an initial examination of theextent to which job autonomy influences the relationship between the proactivepersonality trait and job performance. The results indicate that proactivepersonality is positively related to job performance. This study establishes,for the first time, criterion-related validity of the proactive personalityconstruct utilizing the measure used by the workers organization to assessemployee performance. This new finding provides an important contributionto the literature not only because it is based upon a more salient measure of

performance (i.e., salient to the employee) than prior research, but also becauseit provides the missing component of a triangulation approach (i.e., objectiveperformance subjective performance and actual performance as measured

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

12/18


personality and job performance found in this study (r = +.19) is generallyconsistent with prior research utilizing other measures of performance (e.g.,

r = +.23, Crant, 1995;r = +.20, Thompson, 2005), although the correlation

reported by Pittet al.

s (2002) study is somewhat larger than reported here (i.e.,r = +.29).However, the main purpose of the present research is to provide an

examination of the extent to which proactive personality is indeed a strongpersonality. This research is long overdue given that a plea was made byBateman and Crant (1993) in the original article introducing the proactivepersonality construct for research evaluating the extent to which people withproactive personalities are, or are not, constrained by strong situations. Theresults indicate that low levels of job autonomy do attenuate the positive

relationship between proactive personality and job performance, whichsuggests that job autonomy does serve as a significant workplace constraintfor people with proactive personalities. Figure I reveals that low perceived jobautonomy completely attenuates the relationship between proactive personalityand job performance. Alternatively, high levels of perceived job autonomyappear to enhance the positive relationship between proactive personalityand job performance. Thus, these results suggest that proactive personality isnot a strong personality trait. Therefore, this study suggests there are otherimportant performance-related behaviors that proactive people may be unable

to perform in low job autonomy conditions. For example, if the design of the jobrestricts the employees movement within the workplace and interaction withother employees, then it may be difficult for even proactive people to engage innetwork-building activities which Thompson (2005) suggests may be importantfor increased levels of job performance. To the extent that this is true, thenthis studys results suggest that the relationship between proactive personalityand other task- and performance-related behaviors are likely moderated by jobautonomy. This is something that future research needs to examine in greaterdepth.

Managerial Implications

This research has implications for those organizations that wish toincrease the level of personal initiative and performance in the workplace.If performance is what selection and classification procedures should bedesigned to maximize (Campbell, 1990: 715), then this studys results suggestthat a proactive disposition may be a useful tool for human resource managersseeking to enhance adaptive behavior and job performance. However, given

that there is support for the hypothesis that the relationship between proactivepersonality and performance is moderated by job autonomy, it would appearthat Campbells (1990) distinction between selection and classification was

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

13/18


maximization is not solely a function of selecting people with proactivepersonalities, but also a matter of assigning these individuals to jobs wherethey feel they have a relatively high degree of freedom to determine how they

do their job. Practically, this means that personality-oriented job analysisshould be an important part of any system designed to extract the most frompeople selected for their proactive personalities (Tett and Burnett, 2003). Inaddition, managers may facilitate expression of the proactive personality trait byproviding appropriate and timely cues that reinforce the autonomy the workerhas to employ new and untried work methods and engage in problem-solving(i.e., exhibit personal initiative). That is, managers may effectively motivateemployees with proactive personalities based upon this trait, as trait expressivebehavior tends to be intrinsically satisfying (Tett and Burnett, 2003). In short,

organizations and managers have a degree of control over how jobs are designedand managed, including the level of autonomy allowed for a specific job andthe cues that reinforce that autonomy. Therefore, job autonomy appears to bean important factor in extracting the most from proactive employees.

Limitations

In the present study, the predictor and criterion variables were drawnfrom multiple sources (i.e., employee self-report and company records) at

different times, which should reduce the concern that common methodsvariance accounts for the relationships found in the data (Podsakoffet al., 2003).Concerns about representativeness are all but eliminated due to the very highparticipation rate of company employees (i.e., 96% response rate). However,caution should be used with regard to any conclusions about the causal natureof the relationships examined in this study due to its non-experimental design.It may also be the case that the significant interaction reported here may notgeneralize to other types of performance data (i.e., objective performance orsurvey-based subjective supervisor ratings of performance). Therefore, caution

should also be used when generalizing this studys results to other types ofperformance measures. It may also be that the results here were influenced bythe predominance of lower-level employees in the sample in that this may haveconstrained the variability of the autonomy variable to some degree. Further,controlling for job level in this studys analyses may have reduced the degree of

variation in the autonomy variable. Even so, the differences in job autonomywere enough to moderate the relationship between proactive personality andjob performance in the analysis.

Future Research

Future research should not only seek to replicate this studys results with the

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

14/18


innovation. This research could also assess other contextual influences thatmight constrain proactive individuals from engaging in change-related behaviorsuch as access to resources and access to strategy-related information. Further,

research should investigate other features of work situations that are relevantto the expression of the proactive personality trait (e.g., innovation climate,supervisor personality, environmental turbulence/dynamism). To the extentthat this is performed in future research, there should be greater understandingof the boundary conditions under which proactive people may or may notflourish. Future research should also focus upon more clearly determining themotivational processes that move people with proactive personalities to takepersonal initiative in enacting positive change. For example, prior researchsuggests that the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance

is partially mediated by autonomous goal setting and goal commitment.Investigations of the types of goals and self-management strategies associatedwith proactive personalities would be beneficial.

References

Aiken, L. S. and S. G. West. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting

Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Barrick, M. R. and M. K. Mount. 1993. Autonomy as a Moderator of theRelationships between the Big Five Personality Dimensions and JobPerformance.Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 111-118.

________ and ________. 1991. The Big Five Personality Dimensions and JobPerformance: A Meta-analysis.Personnel Psychology 44: 1-26.

Bateman, T. S. and J. M. Crant. 1993. The Proactive Component of

Organizational Behavior: A Measure and Correlates. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior 14: 103-118.Bommer, W. H., J. L. Johnson, G. A. Rich, P. M. Podsakoff, and S. B. MacKenzie.

1995. On the Interchangability of Employee Performance: A Meta-analysis.Personnel Psychology 48: 587-606.

Campbell, J. P. 1990. Modeling the Performance Prediction Problem inIndustrial and Organizational Psychology. In Handbook of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology. Eds. M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough. Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. pp. 687-732.

Champoux, J. E. and W. S. Peters. 1987. Form, Effect Size, and Power inModerated Regression Analysis.Journal of Occupational Psychology 60: 243-255

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

15/18


Design Research.Personnel Psychology 33: 759-783.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.__________. 2000. Understanding Adaptation to Changes in the WorkEnvironment: Integrating Individual Difference and Learning Perspectives.InResearch in Personnel and Human Resource Management. Ed. G. R. Ferris.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 1-42.

Cohen, J., P. Cohen, S. G. West, and L. S. Aiken. 2003.Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd Edition. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Crant, M. J. 2000. Proactive Behavior in Organizations.Journal of Management

26: 435-462.__________. 1995. The Proactive Personality Scale and Objective JobPerformance among Real Estate Agents. Journal of Applied Psychology 80:532-537.

Duarte, N. T., J. R. Goodson, and N. R. Klich. 1994. Effects of Dyadic Qualityand Duration on Performance Appraisal. Academy of Management Journal37: 499-521.

Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in WorkTeams.Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 350-383.

Endler, N. S. and D. Magnusson. 1976. Toward an Interactional Psychology ofPersonality.Psychological Bulletin 83: 956-974.Fuller, J. B., T. Barnett, K. Hester, C. Relyea, and L. Frey. 2007. An Exploratory

Examination of Voice Behavior from an Impression ManagementPerspective.Journal of Managerial Issues 19: 134-151.

Griffin, M. A., A. Neal, and S. K. Parker. 2007. A New Model of Work RolePerformance: Positive Behavior in Uncertain and Interdependent Contexts.

Academy of Management Journal 50: 327-347.Hackman, J. R. and E. E. Lawler. 1971. Employee Reactions to Job

Characteristics.Journal of Applied Psychology 55: 259-286.__________ and G. R. Oldham. 1975. Development of the Job DiagnosticSurvey.Journal of Applied Psychology 60: 159-170.

Huber, V. L. 1989. Comparison of the Effects of Specific versus GeneralPerformance Standards on Performance Appraisal Decisions. DecisionSciences 20: 545-557.

Hunter, J. E. and R. F. Hunter. 1984. Validity and Utility of AlternativePredictors of Job Performance.Psychological Bulletin 96: 72-98.

Jones, E. E. 1990.Interpersonal Perception. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and

Co.Jones, G. R. 1983. Psychological Orientation and the Processes of OrganizationalSocialization: An Interactionist Perspective Academy of Management Review

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

16/18


Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. and C. R. Wanberg. 2003. Unwrapping theOrganizational Entry Process: Disentangling Multiple Antecedents andTheir Pathways to Adjustment.Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 779-794.

Lee, C., S. J. Ashford, and P. Bobko. 1990. Interactive Effects of Type ABehavior and Perceived Control on Worker Performance, Job Satisfaction,and Somatic Complaints. Academy of Management Journal 33: 870-881.

Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham. 2004. What Should We Do About MotivationTheory? Six Recommendations for the Twenty-first Century. Academy of

Management Review 29: 388-403.McClelland, G. H. and C. M. Judd. 1993. Statistical Difficulties of Detecting

Interactions and Moderator Effects. Psychological Bulletin 114: 376-390.Mischel, W. 1977. The Interaction of Person and Situation. InPersonality at the

Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology. Eds. D. Magnusson andN. S. Endler. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 333-352.Parker, S. K., H. M. Williams, and N. Turner. 2006. Modeling the Antecedents

of Proactive Behavior at Work.Journal of Applied Psychology 91:636-652.Peters, L. H., C. D. Fisher, and E. J. OConner. 1982. The Moderating Effect of

Situational Control of Performance Variance on the Relationship betweenIndividual Differences and Performance.Personnel Psychology 35: 609-621.

Pitt, L. F., M. T. Ewing, and P. R. Berthon. 2002. Proactive Behavior andIndustrial Salesforce Performance. Industrial Marketing Management 31:

639-644.Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. CommonMethod Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literatureand Recommended Remedies.Journal of Applied Psychology 88:879-903.

Rank, J., V. L. Pace, and M. Frese. 2004. Three Avenues for Future Research onCreativity, Innovation, and Initiative. Applied Psychology: An International

Review 53: 518-528.Robinson, S. L. and D. M. Rousseau. 1994. Violating the Psychological Contract:

Not the Exception but the Norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior 15:

245-259.Seibert, S. E., J. M. Crant, and M. L. Kraimer. 1999. Proactive Personality andCareer Success.Journal of Applied Psychology 84: 416-427.

________, M. L. Kraimer, and M. L. Crant. 2001. What Do Proactive People Do?A Longitudinal Model Linking Proactive Personality and Career Success.Personnel Psychology 54: 845-875.

Seiling, J. G. 2001. The Meaning and Role of Organizational Advocacy: Responsibilityand Accountability in the Workplace. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Individual Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions,

Measurement, and Validation. Academy of Management Journal 38: 1442-1465.Steers R M and D G Spencer 1977 The Role of Achievement Motivation in

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

17/18


Taylor, P. J., K. Pajo, G. W. Cheung, and P. Stringfield. 2004. Dimensionality andValidity of a Structured Telephone Reference Check Procedure.PersonnelPsychology 57: 745-772.

Tett, R. P. and D. D. Burnett. 2003. A Personality Trait-based InteractionistModel of Job Performance.Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 500-517.Thompson, J. A. 2005. Proactive Personality and Job Performance: A Social

Capital Perspective.Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 1011-1017.

7/31/2019 Fuller, 2010

18/18

Copyright of Journal of Managerial Issues is the property of Journal of Managerial Issues / PSU and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Fuller, 2010

Documents

Transcript of Fuller, 2010