from passive to proactive motivation: the importance of...

From Passive to Proactive Motivation:The Importance of Flexible Role Orientations

and Role Breadth Self-efficacy

Sharon K. Parker*Australian Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales,

Sydney, Australia

En deÂ pit de la conviction largement reÂ pandue qu'une force de travail proactiveest neÂ cessaire pour faire face aÁ la concurrence, les recherches portant surl'eÂ valuation et la promotion de tels changements sont en nombre limiteÂ . DeuxdeÂ terminants virtuellement importants de la proactiviteÂ sont la disposition aÁla flexibiliteÂ de roÃ le (FRO) et l'efficaciteÂ de l'ampleur du roÃ le (RBSE). Cesconcepts beÂ neÂ ficient d'une validiteÂ de construction et se diffeÂ rencient de vari-ables psychologiquement proches, mais leur validiteÂ discriminante en terme devariables deÂ pendantes n'a pas eÂ teÂ prouveÂ e. Je montre dans cet article que laFRO et la RBSE sont factoriellement distinctes des V.D. couramment utiliseÂ esen psychologie des organisations (satisfaction professionnelle, implication vis-aÁ -vis de l'organisation, effort deÂ ployeÂ ). Je montre aussi que la motivationproactive et les classiques variables deÂ pendantes ont comme preÂ vu des relationsqui leur sont propres avec les diffeÂ rent preÂ dicteurs. J'en esquisse les impacts surla recherche et dresse un programme d'investigation plus vaste qui porteraitsur la motivation proactive.

Despite the widely held belief that a proactive workforce is necessary forcompetitive advantage, research investigating how to assess and promote suchchange is limited. Two potentially important precursors to proactivity includeflexible role orientation (FRO) and role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE). Theseconcepts have been shown to have construct validity and to be distinct fromrelated dispositional variables, but their discriminant validity in terms ofoutcome variables has not been demonstrated. In this article, I show that FROand RBSE are factorially distinct from outcomes commonly used in organis-ational research (job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and job strain).I also show that, as expected, the proactive motivation and traditional out-come variables have different relationships with various predictor variables.I outline the study implications, and suggest a broader research agenda onproactive motivation.

________________

* Address for correspondence: Australian Graduate School of Management, The University

of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia. Email: [email protected]

This research was part-funded by the Centre for Corporate Change, whose support is

gratefully acknowledged. Part of this paper was presented at the Work Motivation Conference:

Theory, Research and Practice for the New Millennium, June 22±25, 1999, Sydney, Australia.

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2000, 49 (3), 447±469

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers,108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

INTRODUCTION

It is widely agreed that a different type and level of contribution is expectedfrom employees within today's organisations (Mohrman & Cohen, 1995;Lawler, 1992). To compete in a global market place, to satisfy demandingcustomers, and to fully exploit the opportunities offered by flexible tech-nologies, reliable performance of a fixed set of prescribed tasks is no longerconsidered adequate. Instead it has been argued that a competitive advantagewill come from having flexible employees who are actively engaged in broadopen-ended and interdependent roles, for example, employees who pro-actively use their knowledge and display personal initiative (Frese, Kring,Soose, & Zempel, 1996), and who have interpersonal skills and work cooper-atively (Parker, Mullarkey, & Jackson, 1994; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).In the words of one UK manager, employees are required who `̀ think ontheir feet not with them'' (Tailby & Turnbull, 1987, p. 17).One solution to the need for this type of workforce is to recruit employees

with the appropriate skills, attitudes, abilities, and personalities. However,it is clear that many organisations do not have the opportunity to selecttheir workforce carefully from scratch, especially when there are pressuresfor downsizing. An alternative strategy is to develop the existing workforce.This principle of development is at the heart of the concept of the learn-ing organisation (Handy, 1992), and is a core principle of practices such asempowerment (Spreitzer, 1995) and high involvement (Lawler, 1992).However, with a few exceptions (described later), there has been little

systematic research attention concerning how to promote proactive attitudesand behaviours amongst the workforce. The concept of proactivity, forexample, has more often been considered as a stable personality trait (Bate-man & Crant, 1993) than as an outcome. Most motivational research thatevaluates the effect of interventions such as learning programmes or workredesign uses objective measures such as performance and absence or, evenmore typically, attitudinal and affective reactions such as job satisfactionand affective organisational commitment. For example, a BIDS search1 ofpsychology and management articles over the last five years suggested thatthere were 5,893 work or job-related articles on job satisfaction, organis-ational commitment, and job strain. Not all of these articles can be assumedto be studies in which these variables are treated as outcomes, but even if

________________

1 PSCYHlit records from 1995 to 2000 were searched. The first search was: [job satisfaction

or organiz(s)ational commitment or affective commitment or stress or job strain or mental

health] and [job or work]. The second search was: [proactivity or proactive behavior/our or

proactive motivation or flexible role orientation or role breadth self-efficacy or personal

initiative or taking charge behavior/our or spontaneous behavior/our] and [job or work].

448 PARKER

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

this figure is halved, it still contrasts sharply with the 17 articles that con-sidered proactivity-related concepts (of which there were approximately fiveunpublished studies and six published articles that considered these vari-ables as work outcomes). Many researchers clearly focus on outcomes suchas job strain, job satisfaction, and organisational commitment, and thisresearch remains important. However, there is value in including motiva-tional variables that are explicitly designed to assess proactive and flexibleaspects.

One of the reasons for a lack of research attention to proactivity andrelated concepts stems from the unavailability of appropriate measures thatare reliable, valid, easy to use, and responsive to change. Two questionnaire-based indicators of proactive motivation have recently been developed:flexible role orientations (FRO; Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997) and rolebreadth self-efficacy (RBSE, Parker, 1998). These concepts have been shownto be distinct from related personality variables, such as proactive person-ality. However, there is no evidence that these concepts are distinguishablefrom outcome measures traditionally used in organisational research. Toencourage researchers to consider the inclusion of more proactive conceptsin their research, it is important to establish whether these variables aredistinct from those that are most commonly used. My aim in this article is toinvestigate the discriminant validity of the concepts by investigating whetherFRO and RBSE can be differentiated from attitudinal and affective reactionvariables frequently used in organisational research, that is, job satisfaction,organisational commitment, and job strain. I go on to describe the conceptsof FRO and RBSE and why they differ from traditional outcome measures.I then outline the approach used to investigate discriminant validity.

FLEXIBLE ROLE ORIENTATION ANDROLE BREADTHSELF-EFFICACY

To achieve organisational objectives, many organisations expect theiremployees to go from passively carrying out narrowly defined tasks toproactively and flexibly engaging in broad and emergent work roles. How-ever, such a behavioural change assumes change in two key psychologicalstates. First, employees must develop a view of their role and their responsi-bilities that aligns with these expectations; that is, they need a flexible roleorientation (Parker et al., 1997). For employees who have been working insimplified jobs, this can mean a move away from a narrow `̀ that's not myjob'' mentality to an orientation in which employees see broader problemsas their responsibility and recognise the importance of being proactive.This type of role orientation aligns with Davis and Wacker's (1987,p. 433) description of roles as opposed to jobs (see also Ilgen & Hollenbeck,1991):

FROMPASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 449


In a narrow `̀ job-description sense'', one's job is a particular task assignment

that may change daily; in a broad `̀ role'' sense, one's job is to help carry outthe responsibilities assigned to the team, to participate in team decisions, tocross-train, and to use one's judgement to contribute to the team's produc-tivity, maintenance, and development.

Within a production context, we operationalised the concept of FRO intwo ways. Rather than directly asking respondents whether they have abroad view of their role, which is likely to be highly susceptible to socialdesirability bias, both measures were designed be indirect. First, a measureof `̀ production ownership'' assessed the extent to which employees felt owner-ship of, or concern for, work issues beyond their immediate operationaltasks. Second, a measure of `̀ perceived importance of production knowl-edge'' assessed the degree to which employees recognised the importance ofacquiring and using a range of skills and knowledge to enable them tocontribute at that broader level. For example, a narrow role orientationis shown by someone who sees the most important requirement as doing`̀ what I am told'', whilst a more proactive role orientation is shown bysomeone who recognises that key competencies of the role include being self-directed, using initiative, and knowing about customers. This measure wasshown to discriminate amongst employees in the expected ways. In additionto the validity data presented in the Parker et al. (1997) study, unpublishedstudies have shown that FROs predict job performance amongst employeesworking in self-managing teams (Parker, 1994) and predict independentratings of employees' personal initiative (Swinden, Parker, & Clegg, 1998).A second prerequisite for employees behaving proactively and carrying

out a range of integrative and interpersonal tasks is that they must feelcapable of behaving in these types of ways, or possess what I have describedas `̀ role breadth self-efficacy'' (RBSE; Parker, 1998). Self-efficacy refersto people's judgments about their capability to perform particular tasks(Bandura, 1986), and it has been identified as a key motivational constructwithin organisations (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). For example, research hasshown that employees who have self-efficacy for particular tasks willperform them better (Barling & Beattie, 1983) and will persist at them whenproblems arise (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1987). The concept of RBSE wasdesigned to relate to the flexible performance requirements within modernorganisations, and concerns the extent to which people feel capable ofcarrying out a range of proactive interpersonal and integrative tasks beyondprescribed technical requirements (for example, designing improved pro-cedures, setting goals and targets, presenting information to management,and meeting with customers or suppliers).Conceptually, FRO and RBSE are considered as malleable states. It is

assumed that these states can change in response to situational change and

450 PARKER


interventions. These concepts therefore differ from related dispositionalvariables. For example, self-esteem is usually considered to be a stable traitreflecting an individual's characteristic and affective evaluation of the self.Self-efficacy, on the other hand, is a judgment about specific task capability(Brockner, 1988) that has been shown to be amenable to change throughinterventions such as training (Wood & Bandura, 1989). RBSE is a judg-ment about capability across a particular set of tasks that is also amenableto change. Parker (1998) showed that RBSE was distinct from both self-esteem and proactive personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993). By the samereasoning, the concept of FRO is related to, but distinct from, the dis-positional concept of openness to experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991).Although this latter concept emphasises aspects that are clearly related toproactive motivation, such as being receptive to new ideas, openness toexperience is considered to be stable over time.

Consistent with the argument that FRO and RBSE are malleable and canbe seen as outcome (or dependent) variables, longitudinal research has demon-strated change in these variables. Parker et al. (1997) showed that FROsincreased in a situation where autonomous forms of working were intro-duced, but not in a comparison group, and Parker (1998) showed enhancedjob autonomy and improved communication quality both predicted higherRBSE. These findings concur with long-established arguments that sim-plified low autonomy jobs engender passivity and learned helplessness (e.g.Argyris, 1957; Kornhauser, 1965; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). The conclusionsare also consistent with the few longitudinal studies that have examined therelationship between job design and proactive attitudes or behaviours; mostnotably, the studies by Frese and colleagues showing that enhanced jobcomplexity is associated with the display of more personal initiative (Freseet al., 1996) and that this association can be partly attributed to the devel-opment of greater work-related self-efficacy (Speier & Frese, 1997).

DIFFERENTIATING FROS ANDRBSE FROM TRADITIONALOUTCOMES

FROs and RBSE have in common three features that distinguish them fromjob satisfaction, organisational commitment, job strain, and other suchoutcome variables commonly used in motivational research. The first andmost important feature is that these concepts were deliberately designed tocapture proactive rather than reactive motivational states. Proactivity refersto acting on the environment in a self-directed way to bring about change,such as by showing initiative, preventing problems, and scanning foropportunities (see Bateman & Crant, 1993; Frese et al., 1996). An importantconsequence of proactivity is that it can lead to an expansion of the taskdomain through a process of role making (Graen, 1976). Thus, proactive



employees expand the set of established tasks of a `̀ job'' and take on orcreate the emergent tasks of a flexible `̀ role'' (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991;see also Speier & Frese, 1997). Role orientation encapsulates proactivity byassessing the scope of emergent problems that employees feel responsiblefor, as well as the extent to which they see proactive skills and knowledge asimportant for their performance. RBSE assesses employees' self-efficacy tocarry out a range of proactive, integrative, and interpersonal tasks thatmake up an emergent role.In contrast, most traditional outcome variables are not designed to tap

proactive elements. Job satisfaction is typically conceptualised as employees'affective response to their overall job or various aspects of their job such aspay, intrinsic job content, and coworkers. As Bruggeman, Groskurth, andUlich (1975) argued, employees can experience a sense of resigned satis-faction in which, because they can't change the situation, they have loweredtheir level of aspiration and become resigned to the job. Most job satisfac-tion measures are not designed to separate this type of passive satisfactionfrom a more proactive motivational state. Affective organisational commit-ment refers to the degree of identification, involvement, and emotionalattachment to an employing organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Althoughthis concept is often operationalised in active terms (such as being willing toput in extra effort for the organisation), the direction of this activity is notassessed (e.g. putting in effort does not necessarily encompass behavingproactively or engaging in integrative tasks).Job strain (also called job-related mental health) refers to negative

affective reactions experienced at work, and is typically assessed by thepresence or absence of various stress symptoms, such as feelings of anxietyor inability to sleep. As such, this variable does not have a proactive com-ponent. Interestingly, however, there is a compelling argument to considermental health not just in terms of an absence of stress symptoms but in moreactive terms, such as having feelings of competence, mastery, and aspiration(Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Warr, 1994). As Warr (p. 86) commented: `̀ weshould reject a `passive contentment' view of mental health''. From thisperspective, the development of RBSE and FRO can be seen as indicating`̀ active'' mental health.Although I focus on attitudinal and affective reaction outcomes in this

study, it should be noted that FRO and RBSE are distinct from behaviouraloutcomes such as contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993)and organisational citizenship behaviour (Organ, 1988). These latter con-cepts are concerned with volitional nontechnical activities, but definitions oroperationalisations of them typically include behaviours that are quitepassive in their orientation, such as compliance with procedures, punctu-ality, and attendance (George & Brief, 1992; Parker, 1998; Speier & Frese,1997).

452 PARKER


A second way in which the traditional outcome variables differ fromRBSE and FRO is that the former tap more affective elements, whereas thelatter are more cognitive in their emphasis. Mischel & Shoda (1998)identified the following types of cognitive-affective units in the personalitymediating system: encodings (categories, or constructs, for the self, people,events, and situations); expectancies and beliefs (about the social world,about outcomes for behaviour in particular situations, about self-efficacy);affect (feelings, emotions, and affective responses); goals and values (e.g.desirable outcomes and affective states); and competencies and self-regulatoryplans. Using this typology, job satisfaction and job strain relate moststrongly to the affect unit. Organisational commitment is also focused onaffect, although it emphasises identification with the organisation andtherefore relates to goals and values. FRO relates to the encoding unit (i.e.people's encoding for their role) and the expectancies and beliefs unit. Rolebreadth self-efficacy relates most closely to expectancies and beliefs. Theproactive motivation concepts are therefore more cognitive in their emphasisthan job satisfaction, organisational commitment, or job strain.

Related to the above point, a third way that FRO and RBSE differ fromthe affective reaction outcome variables is that change in proactive moti-vation is likely to be a learning process to a greater extent than is the case forchange in satisfaction, strain, or commitment. One way to conceptualise thelearning that takes place is in terms of development. Argyris (1957, 1964)suggested that adult development can be seen in terms of progression alongvarious dimensions, such as from passive, reactive individuals to active andproactive ones; from dependent to independent individuals; and from indi-viduals with few abilities to ones with many abilities. The proactive moti-vation concepts relate to these dimensions, albeit within the specific domainof work roles. For example, employees who see their role as performing asingle task and calling the supervisor to deal with all problems could be seenas passive and dependent employees whose learning and development atwork has probably been restricted. Change in role orientations is thereforelikely to involve some degree of learning or development.

ASSESSING THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE OUTCOMEVARIABLES

To test whether the FRO and RBSE are distinct from job satisfaction, jobstrain, and affective organisational commitment (i.e. their discriminant validity),I conducted two types of analyses. First, I conducted exploratory factoranalyses, including a first-order factor analysis of items and a second-orderfactor analysis of the scales. Second, I examined the relationship betweenthe outcome variables and various predictor variables to determine whetherthere were differential associations. I proposed that one predictor variable



(job autonomy) would be associated with all of the outcome variables, onepredictor (job security) would be associated particularly with the traditionaloutcome variables, and that another predictor (change receptiveness) wouldbe associated most strongly with the proactive motivation variables.Research has shown strong links between job autonomy (employees'

degree of discretion in their work) and all of the outcome variables; that is,job satisfaction (Black & Gregersen, 1997; Parker & Wall, 1998) job strain(e.g. Karasek & Theorell, 1990), organisational commitment (Mathieu &Zajac, 1990), FROs (Parker et al., 1997) and RBSE (Parker, 1998). Jobsecurity, an employee's sense of power to be able to maintain desiredcontinuity in a threatened job situation (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984),has been shown to be a strong determinant of job mental health, jobsatisfaction, and commitment (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989; Jacobson, 1991;Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990). However, there is no reason to expect astrong link between the proactive motivation concepts and job security.Finally, it is reasonable to expect that change receptiveness, the degree towhich an individual welcomes and copes well with change within the work-place, will be related to the proactive motivation concepts. Individuals whofeel comfortable with and open to change are also likely to have a moreproactive role orientation and higher RBSE. More satisfied and committedemployees are perhaps also expected to be more receptive to change,although it is anticipated that these relationships will be weaker than theassociations between change receptiveness and the proactive motivationvariables.

Method

Participants and Sample. The sample was 650 employees and managersfrom a UK manufacturing company (the sample used the third wave of datafrom the company described in Parker, 1998; this earlier study drew on thefirst and second wave). All staff were given the opportunity to complete aconfidential questionnaire during work time in group sessions facilitated bythe researchers. The response rate was 80%.

Outcome Measures. FRO was assessed in two ways. The first measure wasthe production ownership scale developed and validated by Parker et al.(1997; a=0.94). Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which theywould feel personal concern for a range of problems that might occur intheir work area on a scale from 1 (to no extent) to 5 (to a large extent). Therewere three categories of problem types: production goals (e.g. slow deliverytimes), operational efficiencies (e.g. large amount of rework), and teamcohesion and coordination (e.g. no coordination of efforts). The secondmeasure of role orientation assessed the extent to which employees recognise

454 PARKER


the importance of gaining and using a wide range of knowledge in order toperform effectively, referred to by Parker et al. (1997) as the `̀ perceivedimportance of production knowledge'' (PIPK). I used a slightly differentmeasure to that developed originally. Employees were asked to indicatewhether they felt they needed to know various things to do their job well,such as knowing what the end customer of the product wants and knowingthe strengths and weaknesses of competitors. Respondents indicated yes (1)or no (0), and responses were summed and averaged across nine items(a=0.88).

Role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE ; a=0.95) was assessed using the 10-itemscale developed and validated by Parker (1998). Employees were asked torate how confident they would feel on a scale from 1 (not at all confident)to 5 (very confident) carrying out various tasks, such as `̀ making suggestionsto managers about improving the working of their area''.

Job satisfaction (a=0.88) was assessed by the 14-item scale developed byWarr, Cook, & Wall (1979). Items assess satisfaction with those aspects thatare intrinsic to the job (e.g. use of skills) and those aspects that are extrinsicto the job (e.g. pay, management). Items are scored from 1 (extremelydissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied), and summed together to give anoverall job satisfaction score.

Organisational commitment (a=0.77) was assessed using six items fromthe Cook and Wall (1980) measure that has been extensively used inoccupational studies. Respondents indicated on a five-point scale from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) their responses to statements such as`̀ I feel myself to be part of this company''.

Job strain (a=0.86) was assessed using the negatively worded items fromthe two subscales (anxiety±contentment and depression±enthusiasm) of Warr's(1990) measure of job-related affective well-being. I used only negativelyworded items because previous research has shown that the positive andnegative items tend to factor into separate dimensions (e.g. Warr, 1990).Employees were asked to indicate how much of the time in the past monththeir job had made them feel miserable, worried, tense, depressed, anxious,or gloomy on a five-point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (all of the time).

Work Characteristic and Individual Difference Measures. I assessed jobautonomy (a= 0.90) using the measure of job control developed by Jackson,Wall, Martin, & Davids (1993). Items assessed the extent of timing control(control over work pace and scheduling) and method control (choice in howto carry out work tasks). A five-point response scale was used from 1 (not atall) to 5 (a great deal).

Job security (a= 0.85) was assessed using a four-item scale derived fromCaplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison, and Pinneau (1975) that has beenshown to correlate with other measures of job security (Ashford, Lee, &



Bobko, 1989). Respondents indicated how certain they felt about aspects oftheir future job and career (e.g. `̀ whether your job skills will be valued fiveyears from now?'') on a six-point response scale from 1 (very uncertain) to 6(very certain).Change receptiveness was assessed by four items (a=0.71). Participants

indicated their extent of agreement with statements such as `̀ I am mostcomfortable with a stable work environment in which things tend to stay thesame'' (reverse scored), and `̀ I like being in a work environment where thereis a lot of change occurring''.

Background Variables. Questions about age, tenure, gender (1=male,2= female) and job type (dummy coded) were included in the survey. Thesevariables were used as controls in the analyses investigating links betweenpredictor variables and outcomes.

Results

Factor Analyses. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the jobsatisfaction, organisational commitment, job strain, RBSE, ownership, andPIPK items using maximum likelihood extraction and oblimin rotation. Thecase to item ratio was approximately 12, which exceeds the recommendedminimum ratio of five (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989) and means that factoranalysis was appropriate. Nine factors were extracted from the solution,accounting for 56.3% of the variance in the items. However, this solutionhad two factors with no items loadings greater than 0.40. I repeated thefactor analysis with a criterion of seven factors. The results of the sevenfactor solution, which accounted for 54% of the variance in the items, areshown in Table 1. The loadings approximated a simple structure; that is,most items had high loadings on only one factor and each factor had someitems with high loadings and some items with low loadings. RBSE,perceived importance of production knowledge, job strain, and organis-ational commitment items all loaded on single discrete factors. Productionownership loaded on two factors: one was the goal achievement andoperational inefficiency items, and the second factor was the teamcoordination and cooperation items. Most job satisfaction items loadedon a single factor, except for satisfaction with management and job security(which loaded on the organisational commitment factor) and satisfactionwith salary (which had no high loadings on any factor). It is interesting tonote that this factor analysis did not suggest it was necessary to distinguishbetween the anxiety±contentment and depression±enthusiasm subscales ofjob strain (Warr, 1990), nor the intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of jobsatisfaction.

456 PARKER


TABLE 1Pattern Matrix Factor Loadings for FactorAnalysis of Items Using Maximum Likelihood

Extraction and Oblimin Rotation

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

Team ownership (Would it be of concern if:)

different people in your area were not coordinating their

efforts?

.92

some colleagues in your area were not pulling their weight? .83

there was a lack of well-trained people in your area? .56

Job Satisfaction (Satisfaction with:)

the opportunity to use your ability .82

the amount of responsibility you are given .78

the amount of variety in your work .74

the freedom to choose your own method of working .68

the attention paid to suggestions you make .60

relationships between different levels in the organisation .57

the recognition you get for good work .55

your immediate boss .48

your chance of promotion .47

the physical work conditions .38

your fellow colleagues .31

RBSE (How confident would you feel:)

representing your work area in meetings with senior

management

.89

writing a proposal to spend money in your work area .86

analysing a long-term problem to find a solution .84

making suggestions to management about ways to improve

the working of your section

.84

helping to set goals and targets in your area .84

designing new procedures for your work area .81

contacting people outside the company (e.g. suppliers,

customers) to discuss problems

.81

presenting information to a group of colleagues .81

contributing to discussions about the company's strategy .77

visiting people from other departments to suggest doing

things differently

.71

PIPK (Perceived importance of knowing:)

the strengths and weaknesses of (Company C's)

competitors

.87

who will be a major competitor in the future .85

(Company C's) current market position .76

what makes a leading product .65

the ideas and plans (Company C) has for the next five years .54

what new orders are coming in, in addition to the

production schedule

.54

the type of relationship Company C has with external

suppliers

.52

what the end user of Company C's products (i.e. the

customer) wants

.50

about production costs .46

FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 457


F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

Job strain (Frequency of feeling:)

tense .75

anxious .74

worried .73

depressed .72

gloomy .67

miserable .63

Goal ownership (Would it be of concern if:)

the quality of output from your area was not as good as it

could be?

.85

requests for output from your area were repeatedly not

being met on time?

.78

your customers (internal or external) were dissatisfied with

what they receive?

.67

the way some things are being done in your area means

work was done unnecessarily?

.58

some essential equipment in your area was not being well

maintained?

.52

costs in your area were higher than budget? .51

Organisational commitment (Degree of agreement that:)

I feel myself to be part of this company .67

Even if Company X was not doing well financially, I would

be reluctant to change to another employer

.65

I am quite proud to be able to tell people who it is I work for .64

I sometimes feel like leaving this job for gooda .60

I'm not willing to put myself out just to help Company Xa .44

(Satisfaction with the way your firm is managed) .39 .40

The offer of a bit more money with another employer

would not seriously make me think of changing my joba.37

(Satisfaction with job security) .30 .32

(Satisfaction with salary)

Loadings less than .3 are not shown. a indicates item is reverse-scored.

TABLE 2Pattern Matrix Factor Loadings for Second-order Factor Analysis of Scales Using

Maximum Likelihood Extraction and Oblimin Rotation

Factor 1 Factor 2

Flexible role orientation (goal ownership) .87

Flexible role orientation (team ownership) .75

Role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE) .49

Flexible role orientation (perceived importance of production

knowledge)

.45

Organisational commitment .31 .74

Job satisfaction .74

Job strain 7.51

Loadings less than .3 are not shown.

458 PARKER


TABLE 3Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of MajorVariables (N=650)

Mean(SD)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

1. Age 39.11(10.94)

1.00

2. Gender 1.07(.25)

70.10** 1.00

3. Tenure 8.85(7.33)

0.51** 70.05 1.00

4. Production .73(.44)

70.09* 70.30** 70.07 1.00

5. Managers .005(.22)

0.05 70.01 0.14** 70.39** 1.00

6. Administration .004(.20)

70.02 0.45** 0.04 70.36** 70.05 1.00

7. Engineering &support

.008(.27)

0.05 0.03 70.04 70.51** 70.07 70.07 1.00

8. Other jobs .007(.27)

0.07 0.11** 0.02 70.48** 70.07 70.06 70.09 1.00

9. Job autonomy 3.36(.93)

0.14** 0.13** 0.19** 70.40** 0.24** 0.15** 0.16** 0.17** 1.00

10. Job security 2.62(1.23)

0.15** 0.04 0.20** 70.13** 0.11** 0.00 0.02 0.11** 0.30** 1.00

11. Changereceptiveness

3.37(.62)

70.08 0.09* 70.15** 70.24** 0.18** 0.00 0.11** 0.13** 0.15** 0.09* 1.00

12. Job satisfaction 4.33(.97)

0.10* 0.07 0.04 70.14** 0.13** 0.03 70.02 0.13** 0.35** 0.47** 0.08* 1.00

13. Organisationalcommitment

3.50(.71)

0.16** 70.03 0.17** 70.01 0.13** 70.04 70.13** 0.09* 0.20** 0.40** 0.09* 0.54** 1.00

14. Job strain 2.00(.72)

70.07 0.06 0.07 70.16** 0.07 0.11** 0.06 0.05 70.09* 70.26** 70.10* 70.36** 70.35** 1.00

15. Goalownership

3.43(.90)

0.21** 70.01 0.19** 70.28** 0.26** 0.02 0.05 0.16** 0.23** 0.10* 0.23** 0.12** 0.24** 0.03 1.00

16. Teamownership

3.11(1.05)

0.12** 70.02 0.18** 70.27** 0.27** 0.01 0.02 0.17** 0.25** 0.06 0.18** 0.08* 0.16** 0.13** 0.67** 1.00

17. PIPK 0.61(.34)

0.16** 70.14** 0.15** 70.10** 0.17** 70.10* 70.03 0.13** 0.13** 0.13** 0.17** 0.19** 0.28** 0.03 0.38** 0.29** 1.00

18. RBSE 3.02(1.06)

0.16** 70.01 0.17** 70.40** 0.31** 0.05 0.14** 0.20** 0.40** 0.11** 0.42** 0.13** 0.16** 0.00 0.44** 0.35** .30**

**P5.01, * P5.01

FROM

PASSIVETO

PROACTIV

EMOTIVA

TION

459

#Intern

atio

nalAsso

ciatio

nforApplied

Psychology,2000.

Results of the factor analysis of items show that the concepts of RBSEand role orientation are distinct from each other and distinct from the otheroutcome measures. A second-order factor analysis using the scales asvariables was then conducted to determine whether there was a higher orderstructure. Two factors were extracted, accounting for 46% of scale variance(see Table 2 for the loadings). The proactive motivation scales factored on asingle factor, and the other outcome variables factored on the second factor.There was a small positive loading of organisational commitment on thefirst factor suggesting some shared variance between this concept and theproactive motivation outcomes. This second-order factor analysis supportsthe idea that proactive motivation variables can be differentiated from thoseoutcomes traditionally used in organisational research.Consistent with the second-order factor analysis, inspection of the cor-

relations between the scales derived from the factor analysis2 (see Table 3)showed that proactive motivation variables had moderate to high inter-correlations with each other, as did the traditional outcome variables, butthe correlations between the proactive motivation concepts and the tradi-ional outcome variables were low to moderate. Job satisfaction had smallpositive associations with perceived importance of production knowledge,RBSE, goal ownership and team ownership; organisational commitmenthad small positive associations with these variables; and job strain had asmall positive association with team ownership, but nonsignificant associ-ations with the other proactive motivation variables.

Differential Associations Between Predictors and Outcomes. The next stepwas to examine whether there were differential associations of the outcomevariables with work characteristics and individual differences as predicted.The zero-order correlations shown in Table 3 do not take account of inter-correlations among the variables. I therefore examined the hypothesisedlinks between predictors and outcomes using structural equation modelling.This analysis provided information on the unique paths between constructsand also corrects for unreliability of measures.A model in which each of the predictors linked to outcomes in the

hypothesised way was tested using the LISREL VIII programme (Joreskog& Sorbom, 1993). The measurement error in each variable was fixed to[(1-reliability)6variance of the observed measure]. Internal consistencyreliability estimates were used to estimate the reliability of the measures. The

________________

2 These scales were the same as described in the method, except I created a separate scale for

team ownership (team ownership items) and goal ownership scale (goal and operational

ownership items), and I excluded the three items from the job satisfaction scale that loaded on

other factors.

460 PARKER


predictor variables were allowed to intercorrelate, as were the outcomevariables. Using multiple fit indices, and drawing on accepted principles forevaluating these indices (e.g. Bentler, 1990), this model provided a very goodfit to the data: w2 (7)=13.73, Goodness of Fit Index=1.00 (adjusted=0.97), Standardised Root Mean Square Residual=0.02, Normed FitIndex=0.99, Nonnormed Fit Index=0.97, Comparative Fit Index=1.00.The hypothesised model was a significantly better fit than the null model,w2diff (38)=1617.68, P50.02, which was a very poor fit to the data, w2 (45)=1631.41.

In accordance with accepted practice for testing structural models, I testedplausible alternative models. These alternative models tested whether themodel fit was significantly improved by specifying all possible additionaldirect paths, or significantly impaired by deleting the hypothesised paths.Support for the hypothesised model emerges if the models with additionalpaths do not fit the data better than the hypothesised model, and if themodels with core paths deleted provide a poorer fit (Kelloway, 1996). Thiswas the case here. Including additional paths from job security to the fourproactive motivation outcomes did not significantly improve the fit, w2 diff(4)=8.86, nor did including additional paths from change receptiveness tojob satisfaction, commitment, and strain, w2 diff (3)=4.85. Removing thefollowing hypothesised paths resulted in a significantly worse fit: betweenjob autonomy and the three affective reaction variables, w2 diff (3)=39.77,P50.01; between job autonomy and the four proactive motivationoutcomes, w2 diff (4)=89.51, P50.01; between job security and the threeaffective reaction outcomes, w2 diff (3)=134.93, P5.01; and between changereceptiveness and the four proactive motivation outcomes, w2 diff (4)=111.87, P50.01. These results support the hypothesised model. The nextstep was therefore to examine each of the hypothesised pathways in moredetail.

Inspection of the standardised parameter estimates showed that mosthypothesised pathways were significant. Job autonomy predicted job satis-faction (b=0.25, P50.01), organisational commitment (b=0.10, P50.05),goal ownership (b=0.19, P50.01), team ownership (b=0.24, P50.01),perceived importance of production knowledge (b=0.11, P50.01), androle breadth self-efficacy (b=0.34, P50.01). Job security predicted job satis-faction (b=0.44, P50.01), organisational commitment (b=0.43, P50.01),and job strain (b=70.28, P50.01). Change receptiveness predicted goalownership (b=0.23, P50.01), team ownership (b=0.18, P50.01), perceivedimportance of production knowledge (b=0.19, P50.01), and role breadthself-efficacy (b=0.44, P50.001). The only hypothesised pathway that wasnot significant was that between job autonomy and job strain (b=70.01).

The above analyses were repeated controlling for age, gender, tenure, andjob type. This was achieved by including pathways between these and all of



the other variables in the structural equation model. The same pattern ofresults was obtained, with the only exception being that job autonomy no longerhad a significant link with perceived importance of production knowledge.

SUMMARYAND IMPLICATIONS

This study shows that RBSE and FRO are factorially distinct from theattitudinal and affective reaction variables most commonly used inmotivational research: job satisfaction, organisational commitment, andjob strain. The proactive motivation measures are also more similar to eachother than they are to the traditional outcome measures, as shown byexamining the correlations between scales and the structure obtained fromthe second-order factor analysis. Comparing associations with various workcharacteristics and individual difference factors further shows theirdistinctiveness. As hypothesised, job autonomy predicted all outcomes(except job strain), job security predicted only the traditional outcomevariables, and change receptiveness predicted only FRO and RBSE. Thelatter finding is consistent with Parker and Sprigg (1999) who found apositive association between proactive personality and both FRO andRBSE, but no association between this individual difference variable andjob strain. Both of these findings support the argument that the RBSE andFRO encapsulate more proactive elements than traditional outcomes.Taking the results together with those from earlier studies, it is clear that

there is added value in including proactive motivation concepts as outcomesin organisational research, especially given the increasing emphasis ondeveloping a flexible, self-directed, and interpersonally effective workforce.Previous research has shown that it is possible for employees to develop onthese dimensions, and the current study has shown that this type of changewill be distinct from change on the most commonly investigated dimensions.The proactive motivation concepts can be used for a multitude of purposes,and the fact that they are questionnaire-based facilitates their wider use. Forexample, they could be used as indicators of the employee propensity toproactively and flexibly engage in a broader work role; as measures ofpositive mental health over and above assessing the presence of sympto-matology; as broad indicators of employees' learning and development(Parker & Sprigg, 1999); as measures of the degree to which individuals'orientations and self-efficacy are aligned with organisational goals. Which-ever framework they are considered from, the key point is that the inclusionof concepts like these in motivational research should help to close thegap between the much talked about proactive workforce and the lack ofsystematic inquiry on how to promote this type of employee.To date, I have emphasised the distinctiveness of the proactive motivation

concepts, as that was the focus of this study. However, it is worth noting

462 PARKER


that organisational commitment and job satisfaction had small positiveassociations with these concepts, suggesting that employees with higherproactive motivation are also more committed to their work and moresatisfied with their jobs. One explanation for this finding is that job satis-faction and commitment lead employees to take on broader and moreproactive roles; another is that employees with a sense of self-efficacy or arole orientation that is consistent with organisational goals might experiencea better fit with the organisation and therefore be more satisfied andcommitted. The important conclusion is that aiming for a committed andsatisfied workforce is likely to be compatible with aiming to develop a moreproactive one.

This compatibility, however, might not extend to minimising job strain.Parker and Sprigg (1999) found no association between RBSE and FROwith job strain. There was also little evidence here that a workforce withproactive motivation was also a less stressed one; indeed, one aspect of roleorientationÐteam ownershipÐwas associated with more job strain. On thesurface, these findings might be seen as contradicting the view that roleconcepts can be conceived as positive mental health indicators. However,the different components of mental health are not always related. As Warr(1994, p. 86) stated, `̀ healthy people often experience strain or anxiety incoping with their environment, and indeed they may create stressful situ-ations as they identify and pursue difficult targets''. Warr (1994) suggestedthat feelings of strain can be associated with an overall high level of mentalhealth, so long as the strain is neither excessive nor sustained over a longperiod of time. Warr's perspective suggests the value of a broader definitionof mental health, and points to the inclusion of proactive motivation instress audits and mental health assessments.

It is also possible that the relationship between proactive motivation andoutcomes such as job strain and job satisfaction is more complex than thedirect links examined here. Jex and Bliese (1999) found that, compared tothose with low self-efficacy, army soldiers with high self-efficacy reacted lessnegatively in terms of psychological and physical strain to long work hoursand work overload, and responded more positively in terms of job satis-faction to tasks with high significance. One might predict the same bufferingconsequences of RBSE, especially for those work stressors that relate tocarrying out a demanding and flexible work role, such as frequent exposureto change.

A final comment on the study results concerns the production ownershipmeasure of FRO. This measure was designed to assess ownership of threetypes of problems: goals, operational efficiencies, and team cohesion andcoordination. However, results of the factor analysis suggest that employeesdo not necessarily distinguish between ownership of goals and ownership ofthe operational mechanisms that support these goals, but they do differ-



entiate both of these from ownership of problems relating to team cohesionand coordination. One explanation for this is that employees might not seea link between `̀ soft'' processes such as team coordination and the achieve-ment of `̀ hard'' goals, and therefore they can feel ownership for one but notthe other aspect. In future studies, there could be value in distinguishingbetween these types of ownership to examine whether they have differentantecedents and outcomes. For example, team ownership is likely to beespecially salient in team-working settings but less important when indi-viduals work independently.

LIMITATIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDYANDBROADERDIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH

There is room for further development of the proactive motivation concepts.To date there is only one measure of RBSE and two measures of FRO.Developing multiple operationalisations of each concept, and showing theirconvergence, will enhance confidence in the construct validity of the con-cepts. Moreover, to establish the predictive validity of the concepts, thereis a need to investigate the link between the proactive motivation conceptsand behavioural outcomes (ideally using nonself-report measures), such asproactive behaviour, personal initiative, adaptability, and job performance.Exploratory studies have shown a link between flexible work orientations

and the extent to which employees display proactive behaviours (Swinden,Parker, & Clegg, 1998) and job performance (Parker, 1994), but these studiesare not published. There is also considerable general evidence that self-efficacy is related to performance and choice of behaviour (Gist & Mitchell,1992), and, more specifically, to the display of greater personal initiative(Speier & Frese, 1997). It is therefore entirely plausible to expect that RBSEwill promote greater displays of proactive behaviours, and hence employeeperformance, but this has not been tested. Neither has there been any con-sideration of the moderators of these associations. I propose that RBSE androle orientations will promote proactive and self-directed behaviours, butthat the ultimate effect of these behaviours on overall job performance willdepend on the context. It is likely that proactivity will be especially import-ant for performance in highly uncertain and interdependent environments,but that it will be less important or even unimportant in other situationssuch as highly routinised and stable contexts. One could also investigatewhether there is an interactive effect of having both a FRO and RBSE. Thus,perceiving it is one's job to take on proactive tasks as well as having theconfidence to carry out such tasks might be much more strongly related toproactivity and job performance than the additive effects of these components.Another issue concerns proactive motivation at the group level. Although

team issues are implicit in the concepts (RBSE assesses employees' self-efficacy

464 PARKER


carrying out interpersonal skills central to team working), the concepts areoperationalised at the individual level. If team proactivity is the outcome ofinterest (e.g. Tesluk & Mathieu, 1999), then it could make more sense tocompare teams' mean levels, and variations, on the proactive motivationvariables. For example, teams that have a moderate but homogenous levelof aggregated RBSE could differ from teams that have a moderate level ofaggregated RBSE but much heterogeneity.

A second way the concepts could be developed for teams is to assessemployees' perceptions of their team's RBSE and orientation. For example,rather than asking employees how confident they feel about makingsuggestions to management, employees could be asked how capable theyfeel their team is in these respects. This approach would be similar to thatused to assess `̀ collective self-efficacy'' (e.g. Jex & Gudanowski, 1992), butit would be a more specific approach. The latter concept usually focuseson employees' perceptions about the general performance capability of theteam (e.g. `̀ The department I work for has above average ability'', Jex &Gudanowski, 1992).

The proactive motivation concepts can also potentially be applied toother domains. For example, the author and colleagues are currentlydeveloping these variables in relation to safety (a proactive orientationtowards safety); and in today's increasingly uncertain world, one could alsosee the value of developing a flexible career orientation.

A further research need relates to the question posed at the outset ofthis paper concerning how flexible and proactive attitudes and behaviourscan be facilitated. Existing research has pointed to the importance of jobautonomy (e.g. Parker et al., 1997), job complexity (e.g. Speier & Frese,1997) and, in the case of RBSE, high quality communication (Parker, 1998).It is important to investigate these interventions further. For example, jobredesigns that enhance job autonomy also often involve other supportingchanges, such as participative goal setting, clearer feedback, a coaching styleof supervision, and skill-based payment systems. Job autonomy withoutthese supportive changes could be worse than no change in autonomy, or itmight be ineffective. Moreover, where employees have had long-term sim-plified jobs, and hence are likely to have become passive as a result, preparatoryinterventions that help employees to take advantage of the autonomy affordedto them might be needed. In a recent study, we found that job autonomypredicted RBSE for very proactive employees, but was a weaker predictorfor passive employees, especially in situations of high demand (Parker &Sprigg, 1999). We concluded from this finding that employees who arepassive could be trained or coached to deal more effectively with commonjob demands as a precursor to job design interventions.

A further potentially important facilitator of proactive motivation istransformational leadership. Transformational leaders are leaders who



transmit a sense of mission, stimulate learning experiences, and arouse newways of thinking in order to promote performance beyond ordinaryexpectations (Hater & Bass, 1988). This style of leadership could directlypromote the development of more FROs and greater RBSE, or couldpromote this change indirectly such as by increasing job autonomy andimproving communication quality. Finally, it might be possible to designspecific interventions to promote proactive motivation, such as programmesthat socialise employees into more flexible work roles (e.g. introducing a job`̀ induction'' process for employees already in their jobs) or interventionsthat enhance employees' understanding of the wider organisation and context(e.g. visiting schemes, increasing knowledge of customer needs).The above recommendation for research focuses primarily on situational

determinants of proactive motivation. However, there is a need to considermore explicitly how individual differences in personality, ability, skills, andknowledge affect the development of role orientations and RBSE, and howthese factors interact with the situation. Some dispositional variables havebeen considered in relation to proactive motivation (e.g. proactive person-ality and change receptiveness), but there are likely to be other importantvariables. Reviewing the potential personality determinants is beyond thescope of this article, but there are several literatures to draw on, such asresearch on self-efficacy (Gist & Mitchell, 1992) and on role making. Forexample, Graen (1976; see also Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991) suggested `̀ rolereadiness'' as an aspect that might ease an individual's assimilation of newroles.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: HarperCollins.Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York:

Wiley.

Ashford, S., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and consequences of jobinsecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of ManagementJournal, 32, 803±829.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barling, J., & Beattie, R. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal

of Organizational Behavior Management, 5, 41±51.Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1±23.

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

Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. PsychologicalBulletin, 107, 238±246.

Black, J.S., & Gregersen, H.B. (1997). Participative decision-making: An integrationof multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50, 859±878.

466 PARKER


Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include

elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.),Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71±98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Bruggeman, A., Groskurth, P., & Ulich, E. (1975). Arbeitszufriedenheit. Bern:

Huber.Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P. Jnr, Van Harrison, R.V., & Pinneau, S.R. Jr

(1975). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences.

Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.Cook, J.D., & Wall, T.D. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organ-

isational commitment, and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational

Psychology, 53, 39±52.Davis, L.E., & Wacker, G.J. (1987). Job design. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of

human factors (pp. 431±445). New York: Wiley.

Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work:Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal,39, 37±63.

George, J.M., & Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeling goodÐdoing good: A conceptual

analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 112, 310±329.

Gist, M.E. & Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its

determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183±211.Graen, G.B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M.D.

Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201±

1245). Stokie, IL: Rand McNally.Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity.

Academy of Management Review, 9, 438±448.

Handy, C. (1992). Managing the dream: The learning organization. London: GeminiConsulting.

Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988). Supervisor's evaluations and subordinate'sperceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 73, 695±702.Ilgen, D.R., & Hollenbeck, J.R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles.

In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiz-

ational psychology (2nd edn., pp. 165±207). California: Consulting Psychology Press.Jackson, P.R., Wall, T.D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. (1993). New measures of job

control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 753±762.Jacobson, D. (1991). A personological study of the job insecurity process. In J.F.

Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity:Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 23±29). London: Sage Publications.

Jex, S.M., & Bliese, P.D. (1999) Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact ofwork-related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 349±361.

Jex, S.M. & Gudanowski, D.M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An

exploratory study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 509±517.Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL VIII: User's reference and guide.

Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 467


Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the

reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.Kelloway, E.K. (1996). Common practice in structural equation modelling. In C.L.

Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organ-izational Psychology (pp. 141±180). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Kornhauser, A. (1965). Mental health of the industrial worker. New York: Wiley.Lawler, E.E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement

organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, K.C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretic-ally derived variables in predicting career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy,interest congruence, and consequence thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

34, 293±298.Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,

correlates, and consequences of commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171±194.

Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research,and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personalitydispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229±258.

Mohrman, S., & Cohen, S.G. (1995). When people get out of the box: Newrelationships, new systems. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work(pp. 365±410). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Parker, S.K. (1994). Towards a new approach to job design research within modern

manufacturing: The investigation of employee work orientations. Unpublisheddoctoral thesis. University of Sheffield.

Parker, S.K. (1998). Role breadth self-efficacy: Relationship with work enrichment

and other organizational practices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835±852.Parker, S.K., Mullarkey, S., & Jackson, P.R. (1994). Dimensions of performance

effectiveness in high-involvement work organisations. Human Resource Manage-ment Journal, 4, 1±21.

Parker, S.K., & Sprigg, C.A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: Therole of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 84, 925±993.

Parker, S.K., & Wall, T.D. (1998). Job and work design: Organizing work to promotewell-being and effectiveness. London: Sage.

Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D., & Jackson, P.R. (1997). `̀ That's not my job'': Developing

flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899±929.Roskies, E., & Louis-Guerin, C. (1990). Job insecurity in managers: Antecedents and

consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 345±359.Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator

between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinalstudy in East Germany. Human Performance, 10, 171±192.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the work place: Dimensions,

measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442±1465.Swinden, C.J., Parker, S.K., & Clegg, C.W. (1998) Personal initiative and the role of

work design: Definition, measurement developments, and validation in a specific

468 PARKER


work context. Proceedings of the First International Work Psychology Confer-

ence, Sheffield, UK 1±3 July: University of Sheffield.Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd edn.). New

York: Harper & Row.Tailby, S., & Turnbull, P. (1987). Learning to manage Just-in-time. Personnel

Management, January, 16±19.Tesluk, P.E., & Mathieu, J.E. (1999). Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness:

Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of work group

effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 200±217.Warr, P.B. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental

health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129±148.

Warr, P.B. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health.Work and Stress, 8, 84±97.

Warr, P., Cook, J.D., & Wall, T.D. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work

attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 52, 285±294.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory and organizationalmanagement. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361±384.



from passive to proactive motivation: the importance of...

Documents