What Motivates Proactive Behavior - Ohly & Frizt

8/8/2019 What Motivates Proactive Behavior - Ohly & Frizt

1/8

Copyright The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Challenging the status quo: What motivatesproactive behaviour?

Sandra Ohly1* and Charlotte Fritz2

1Institute of Psychology, University of Frankfurt, Germany2Bowling Green State University, USA

To replicate and extend previous research regarding antecedents of proactive

behaviour at work, we examined four forms of work motivation (job self-efficacy, role

breadth self-efficacy, intrinsic work motivation and role orientation) in a sample of 98

employees in software development using co-worker rated proactive behaviour as anoutcome. Correlations indicate that whereas intrinsic motivation and job self-efficacy

were not related to co-worker rated proactive behaviour, role orientation and role

breadth self-efficacy showed significant relationships. This study stresses the

importance of role breadth self-efficacy in enhancing proactive behaviour at work.

Proactive behaviour is defined as taking initiative in improving current circumstances;it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to presentconditions (Crant, 2000, p. 436). Instead of carrying out narrowly defined tasks (jobperformance), employees are expected to engage in broad work-roles (Parker, 2000,p. 449). However, despite its importance in todays work context, the antecedents ofproactive behaviour are not well understood (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006).Previous research has examined the motivation to engage in proactive behaviour

(Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, & Waterson, 2000; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Parkeret al., 2006; Sonnentag, 2003; Speier & Frese, 1997), mostly using self-ratings ofproactive behaviour. The aim of the present study is to examine multiple motivational

predictors of proactive behaviour to replicate and extend previous studies using adifferent rating source (co-workers). It has been argued that specific motivation is

needed for proactive behaviour (Parker, 2000). However, other forms of motivation suchas job self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation have a long tradition in predicting jobperformance. To examine their relevance to proactive behaviour, we include intrinsicmotivation and job self-efficacy (traditional forms of motivation) as well as role breadthself-efficacy and role orientation (proactive motivation) in this study.

Job self-efficacy (JSE) is the belief in ones capabilities to organize and execute thecourses of action required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997, p. 3) at work.

* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Sandra Ohly, Institute of Psychology, Goethe University of Frankfurt, Mertonstr.17, Frankfurt, Germany (e-mail: [email protected]).

The

British

Psychological

Society

623

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2007), 80, 623629

q 2007 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

Edited by Foxit ReaderCopyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2006For Evaluation Only.


2/8


Job self-efficacy has been found to be related to proactive behaviour (Morrison & Phelps,

1999; Speier & Frese, 1997). Since proactive behaviour may involve overcoming barriers

and difficult actions, and high self-efficacy increases effort and persistence on difficult

tasks (Bandura, 1997), we expect that:

Hypothesis 1: Job self-efficacy will be positively related to proactive behaviour.

Role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE), which is the extent to which people feel confident

that they are able to carry out a broader and more proactive role (Parker, 1998, p. 835),

is expected to be related to proactive behaviour because employees high in RBSE expect

to be successful when they show proactive behaviour, thereby making this behaviour

more likely (Parker et al., 2006). This view was supported in previous studies (Axtell

et al., 2000; Parker et al., 2006). Thus, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2: Role breadth self-efficacy will be positively related to proactive behaviour.

Another form of motivation which is potentially relevant for predicting proactive

behaviour is intrinsic work motivation. It is defined as the motivation to engage in work

primarily for its own sake because work itself is interesting, engaging or in some way

satisfying (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994, p. 950). When work is interesting,

engaging or satisfying, an employee will be more likely to show proactive behaviour

because such behaviour helps to further improve the work situation. In addition,

intrinsic work motivation shields against the temptation to detach oneself from work when difficulties arise (cf. Sonnentag, 2003), making proactive behaviour more

probable. While the specific relationship between intrinsic motivation and proactivity

has not been empirically examined, research indicates that work engagement, a concept

similar to intrinsic work motivation, was positively related to daily proactive behaviour

(Sonnentag, 2003). Thus, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 3: Intrinsic work motivation will be positively related to proactive behaviour.

Role orientation targets the degree to which individuals incorporate certain

responsibilities into their work-role (cf. Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997), for example,

feeling responsible for the improvement of ones work. Research indicates that role

orientation is related to proactive behaviour (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Unsworth, Wall,

& Carter, 2005). Feeling responsible for improvements at work and having a broad roleorientation make it more likely that employees engage in tasks that are not part of their

work-role. Thus, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 4: Role orientation will be positively related to proactive behaviour.

Method

Sample and procedure

Participants in this study were employees from multiple German software development

companies. Data were collected between summer 2003 and summer 2006. Software

development companies were contacted and informed about the study, which was

labelled as Behaviours at work. Organizations received feedback about study results.

Surveys were sent to a contact person in the participating organizations and distributedto employees. Each participant was instructed to give a co-worker survey to a

624 Sandra Ohly and Charlotte Fritz

Edited by Foxit ReaderCopyright(C) by Foxit Software Company,2005-2006For Evaluation Only.


3/8


co-worker with whom they worked together closely. Out of the 342 questionnairesdistributed, 135 were returned (response rate 39.5%), of which 98 had matching co-

worker data. Out of the 98 respondents, 86 were male (87.8%) and 52 had theequivalent to a masters degree (53.1%). Mean age was 36.2 years (SD 9:7) and meanjob experience in the current job was 12.46 years (SD 9:3). First comparisons indicatethat respondents in the final sample reported lower levels of intrinsic motivation andRBSE than individuals without matching co-worker ratings.1

Measures

Cronbachs alpha for all scales are given in Table 1. Intrinsic work motivation was measured with 10 items from the enjoyment

subscale of the Work Preference Inventory (WPI; Amabile et al., 1994) on a four-pointscale. In addition, we measured intrinsic work motivation with six items from the JobDiagnostic Survey (JDS, Hackman & Oldham, 1975) on a seven-point scale to test ifresults were consistent across measures of intrinsic work motivation.

Role breadth self-efficacy was measured with 10 items from Parker (1998). Ratingswere given on a seven-point scale.

Job self-efficacywas measured using 12 items following recommendations by Leeand Bobko (1994). Items referred to the employees confidence in being able to do corejob tasks. To ensure that job self-efficacy was specific for the core job tasks, participants

were asked to first list three common work tasks (A, B and C), and then to rate theirconfidence to be able to fulfil each of these tasks. Tasks listed by participants included,for example, programming, network administration or support. Item wording wasHow confident are you to be able to accomplish at least 50% [70%, 90%, 100%] of thetasks in work area A [B, C]? Ratings were given on a 10-point scale.

Role orientation was measured with three items developed for this study. They

target the extent to which employees see developing and implementing new ideas atwork as their responsibility (cf. Unsworth et al., 2005). Items were It is my job todevelop new ideas and to test them. It is my task to be innovative. and My job requires

the development and implementation of new ideas.2 Ratings were made on a five-pointscale ranging from 1 not true at all to 5 totally true.

Proactive behaviour was rated by a co-worker using the seven-item personalinitiative scale (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997). Items were answered on a

seven-point scale.Demographic variables (age, gender and education) were measured with one item

each. Education was operationalized as the highest degree reached (1 none,2 apprenticeship completed, 3 master craftsman, 4 vocational school or5 masters degree).

Results

Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of the measures can be seen in Table 1.The data indicate that role breadth self-efficacy and role orientation are positively relatedto co-worker rated proactive behaviour, while job self-efficacy and intrinsic work

1 Details can be obtained from the first author.2 Evidence of validity of this measure can be obtained from the first author.

Motivation for proactive behaviour 625


4/8


Table

1.

Means,s

tandarddeviations,i

ntercorrelationsandinternalconsistenciesofstudyvariables

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

Age

36.1

9

9.69

2

Gender

1.88

.33

.06

3

Education

3.38

2.33

.05

.10

4

Jobself-efficacy

7.15

1.18

.13

2

.18

.01

.88

5

Rolebreadthself-efficacy

4.97

1.00

.18

.09

2

.07

.34

.93

6

IntrinsicworkmotivationWPI

2.88

.42

.12

2

.06

2

.22

.14

.11

.74

7

IntrinsicworkmotivationJDS

4.81

.59

2

.04

2

.23

2

.19

2

.04

.11

.37

.64

8

Roleorientation

3.75

.82

.22

.33

.05

.04

.29

.13

.17

.87

9

Co-workerratedproactivebehaviour

5.13

1.04

.08

.06

.07

.07

.27

.06

.10

.24

.89

Note.N

98.

Genderiscodedas1

female,2

male.W

PI,WorkPreferenceInventory;JDS,JobDiagnosticSurvey.

r.

:22

,p,

:

05;r.

:

27,p,

:01;r.

:

37,p,:

001.



5/8


motivation are unrelated to co-worker rated proactive behaviour. To examine whichmotivational variable is most relevant for proactive behaviour, we regressed co-worker

rated proactive behaviour on all four motivational variables. Since none of thedemographic variables were related to proactive behaviour (Table 1), they were notentered into the regression equation.3 Results (using the WPI measure of intrinsic workmotivation) can be seen in Table 2. Results using the JDS measure of intrinsic workmotivation are virtually identical and are thus not shown here.

Result revealed that only RBSE is significantly related to proactive behaviour whenexamining all motivational variables simultaneously. Thus, H1, H3 and H4 are notsupported, while H2 receives full support. Based on results from previous research(Parker et al., 2006), we tested for interactive effects of role orientation and RBSE.However, the interaction was not significant.

Discussion

We examined four types of work motivation that may enhance proactive behaviour: job

self-efficacy, role breadth self-efficacy, intrinsic work motivation and role orientation.Results provide evidence for the importance of role breadth self-efficacy, and to a lesser

extent of role orientation, but not for the more traditional forms of work motivation.For example, we found no evidence for the hypothesized relationship between jobself-efficacy and proactive behaviour. Although this result is in contrast to previousfindings (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Speier & Frese, 1997), the different operationaliza-tions of job self-efficacy may explain the difference in results. Whereas previous studiesused measures of general job self-efficacy, we assessed the confidence in doing specificcore job tasks. The results for RBSE, the confidence to execute a broader range of tasks,

suggest that it is valuable to distinguish between these two forms of self-efficacy.Although JSE and RBSE were moderately correlated (cf. Table 1), only RBSE was relatedto proactive behaviour.

Based on our study and previous results, it seems that both general job self-efficacyand RBSE are related to proactive behaviour (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Speier & Frese,1997). Since RBSE specifically targets behaviour that goes beyond what is formally

Table 2. Co-worker rated proactive behaviour regressed on motivational variables

Proactive behaviour

b t

Job self-efficacy 2 .04 2 .35

Role breadth self-efficacy .27 2.35*

Intrinsic work motivation WPI .08 .75

Role orientation .14 1.32

R2 .12*

Note. N 98. WPI, Work Preference Inventory.*p , :05.

3 Including age, gender and education into the regression equation did not change the pattern of results.



6/8


required in a given job (Parker, 2000), we recommend its use in future research. Intrinsic work motivation (measured with the JDS or WPI) was not related to proactive

behaviour. Having work that is interesting, engaging or satisfying is apparently notenough for an employee to engage in proactive behaviour. This result suggests thatproactive behaviour, operationalized here as personal initiative, is not the same asintrinsic work motivation, despite claims to the contrary (cf. Gagne & Deci, 2005).Research indicates that a suboptimal work environment characterized by high timepressure or situational constraints calls for proactive behaviours at work (e.g.

Sonnentag, 2003). Thus, the work environment that elicits intrinsic motivation probablydiffers from the one that enhances proactive behaviour. This argument is in line withresearch showing that under some circumstances, negative mood or attitudes, ratherthan intrinsic motivation, fosters creativity (e.g. George & Zhou, 2002). Future research

should test this argument, examining job dissatisfaction or negative mood. However,before dismissing intrinsic motivation as predictor of proactive behaviour, the differentlevels of autonomous motivation as discussed by Gagne and Deci may be examined.

Our results also revealed that our measure of role orientation was related toproactive behaviour, but only when RBSE was not taken into account. Different resultmight be obtained when using other measures of role orientation (e.g. Parker et al.,1997). The divergent findings with regard to zero-order correlations and the regressionanalysis suggest that role orientation is partly overlapping with role breadth self-efficacy.Indeed, both were moderately correlated (Table 1), indicating that feeling responsible

for a broader range of tasks might foster the confidence to do them. Alternatively, onemight feel more confident for tasks that one has done before because one sees them aspart of ones work-role. Owing to the cross-sectional nature of our study, we do not

know which one of these explanations is true. The nature of our study also prohibits anycausal inferences regarding the relationship between RBSE and proactive behaviour.However, since we used co-worker ratings of proactive behaviour, some alternativeexplanation for our results can be ruled out (common-source bias, consistency, self-enhancement). Given that some forms of motivation were not significantly related toco-worker ratings, it seems unlikely that co-worker ratings were inflated by the raterliking a person who is highly motivated. Taken together, the present study suggests thatproactive motivation (RBSE and, to a lesser extent, role orientation) is predictive ofproactive behaviour. Since previous research has shown that RBSE can be enhanced

through training, involvement in extra-role tasks (improvement groups), and by grantingjob control (Axtell & Parker, 2003; Parkeret al., 2006), we suggest that through the samemeans, proactive behaviour can be promoted.

Acknowledgements

This paper was presented at the 21st SIOP conference in Dallas, USA. We are grateful to Sabine

Sonnentag for the impetus to write this article, and to numerous research interns for their help

with the data collection.

References

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory:Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 66, 950967.



7/8


Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Waterson, P. E. (2000). Shopfloor

innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265285.

Axtell, C. M., & Parker, S. K. (2003). Promoting role breadth self-efficacy through involvement,

work redesign and training. Human Relations, 56, 112131.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435462.

Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative:

Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139161.Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26, 331362.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones

dont: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687697.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 60, 159170.

Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79, 364369.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate

workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403419.

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other

organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835852.

Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role

orientation and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49,447469.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). Thats not my job: Developing flexible employee

work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899929.

Parker, S. K., Williams, E. S., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior

at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636652.

Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the

interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518528.

Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between

control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field study in East

Germany. Human Performance, 10, 171192.

Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Carter, A. (2005). Creative requirement: A neglected construct in

the study of employee creativity? Group and Organization Manangement, 30, 541560.

Received 13 July 2006; revised version received 9 November 2006



8/8

What Motivates Proactive Behavior - Ohly & Frizt

Documents

Transcript of What Motivates Proactive Behavior - Ohly & Frizt