2008 Parker - Collins - Multiple Proactive Behavior

Journal of Management http://jom.sagepub.
com/
Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating Multiple Proactive Behaviors

Sharon K. Parker and Catherine G. Collins
Journal of Management 2010 36: 633 originally published online 10 July 2008
DOI: 10.1177/0149206308321554
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/36/3/633
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Southern Management Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/36/3/633.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Mar 29, 2010
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 16, 2009
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 10, 2008

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014
What is This?
Journal of Management
Vol. 36 No. 3, May 2010 633-662
DOI: 10.1177/0149206308321554
© 2010 Southern Management Association.
All rights reserved.
Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating

Multiple Proactive Behaviors
Sharon K. Parker
University of Western Australia and University of Sheffield
Catherine G. Collins
University of New South Wales
The authors aimed to clarify the similarities, differences, and interrelationships among multiple
types of proactive behavior. Factor analyses of managers’ self-ratings (N = 622) showed concepts
were distinct from each other but related via a higher-order structure. Three higher-order proac-
tive behavior categories were identified—proactive work behavior, proactive strategic behavior,
and proactive person-environment fit behavior—each corresponding to behaviors aimed at bring-
ing about change in the internal organization (e.g., voice), the fit between the organization and
its environment (e.g., issue selling), and the fit between the individual and the organization (e.g.,
feedback seeking), respectively. Further analyses on a subsample (n = 319) showed similarities
and differences in the antecedents of these behaviors.
Keywords: proactive behavior; taking charge; voice; issue selling; feedback seeking; higher-
order factor analysis
Proactivity is very important in today’s decentralized work place, where there is greater
competition and enhanced pressure for innovation (Crant, 2000; Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker,
2000; Sonnentag, 2003). Proactive individuals, for example, perform their core tasks better
Acknowledgments: We thank the participants of this study, the Australian Research Council for funding support,
and Adam Grant for helpful feedback on drafts. A previous version of this article was presented at Academy of
Management Meeting in 2004. This article was accepted under the editorship of Russell Cropanzano.
Corresponding author: Sharon K. Parker, UWA Business School, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling
Highway, Crawley, WA 2009, Australia
E-mail address: [email protected]
633

634 Journal of Management / May 2010
(Thompson, 2005). Proactivity is also important for individual career success (Seibert,
Crant, & Kraimer, 1999). Careers are increasingly boundaryless and not confined to one
organization, so individuals must take charge of their careers so that they can continually add
value to the organization (Mirvis & Hall, 1996).
Perhaps reflecting its importance in today’s workplace, there has been considerable growth
in proactive concepts (Crant, 2000). Illustrative proactive behaviors that have been investi-
gated, and shown to be distinct from more passive behaviors, include actively adjusting to new
job conditions (Ashford & Black, 1996), using one’s initiative (Den Hartog & Belschak,
2007), expressing voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998), selling critical issues to leaders (Dutton
& Ashford, 1993), proactive service performance (Rank, Carsten, Unger, & Spector, 2007),
taking charge to bring about change (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), self-initiated role expansions
(Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997), proactively solving problems and implementing ideas
(Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006), and network building (Morrison, 2002).
As suggested by these examples, attention to proactive behavior has most often grown out
of interest in a particular domain. This phenomenon-driven approach has led to a rich array
of proactive behaviors that have been shown to be important in diverse areas. However, a
downside is that not much is known about how the various behaviors relate to one another
or more general processes and antecedents of proactive behavior. As Crant (2000) stated,
research on proactivity “has not emerged as an integrated research stream . . . there is no
single definition, theory, or measure driving this body of work” (p. 435). Of particular con-
cern is the possibility of a proliferation of potentially overlapping, yet nonintegrated, con-
cepts. As Block (1995) observed, if a variable is “explainable” by other correlated variables,
the best-case scenario is that more measures are used than needed to understand the phe-
nomenon. At worst, the building of knowledge is prevented because findings from highly
related topics are not integrated.
The overarching aim of the current article is to integrate and clarify the relationships among
individual-level proactive behaviors investigated across multiple domains. We have three spe-
cific goals. The first is to understand whether the various proactive behaviors are distinct or
overlapping. The second goal is to investigate whether these behaviors relate in a higher-order
structure. The third goal is assess whether the various proactive behaviors have similar
antecedents. Prior to developing these goals, we clarify what we mean by proactive behavior
so that we are clear about what behaviors should, or should not, be included in the study.
Conceptual Background: Clarifying the Proactive Domain
Dictionary definitions highlight two key elements of proactivity. First, they identify an
anticipatory element, involving acting in advance of a future situation, such as “acting in
anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
Second, definitions emphasize taking control and causing change; for example, “control-
ling a situation by causing something to happen rather than waiting to respond to it after it
happens” (Princeton University, 2003). Self-initiation is essential to both taking control and
being anticipatory. For example, if one needs to be asked to change something, one is not
taking control of a situation. Each of these elements—acting in anticipation, taking control,

Parker, Collins / Proactive Behaviors 635
and self-initiation—are present in most definitions of proactive behavior.1 For example,

Parker et al. (2006; also see Grant & Ashford, 2008) defined proactive behavior as self-ini-
tiated, anticipatory action that aims to change and improve the situation or oneself.
A confusion in the area concerns whether proactive behavior is extrarole behavior. Some
have argued that proactive behaviors are by definition extrarole because in-role activities are
nondiscretionary and hence not self-directed. However, classifications of in-role and extra-
role are unclear and depend on how employees construe the boundary of their role
(Morrison, 1994). Proactive individuals are likely to construe their roles more broadly
(Parker et al., 1997) and to redefine their roles to encapsulate new tasks and goals (Frese &
Fay, 2001). We suggest, consistent with others (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Griffin,
Neal, & Parker, 2007), that all types of performance—whether they are in-role, extrarole,
task performance, or citizenship—can be carried out more or less proactively. Proactive
behavior is also not the same as adaptive performance, in which individuals modify their
behavior to meet the demands of new situations (Pulakos, Arad, Dorovan, & Plamondon,
2000). Although adaptivity involves adapting to change, proactive behavior involves initiat-
ing change (Frese & Fay, 2001; Griffin et al., 2007).2
Aims and Hypotheses
Our aim in this study is to investigate similarities, differences, and interrelationships among
multiple types of proactive behavior. To achieve this, we use self-assessments of behavior.
Although there can be drawbacks with self-assessments, which we discuss later, there are also
advantages. Individuals have constant access to, and hence more examples of, their own per-
formance and can potentially detect differences among their behaviors to a greater degree than
can raters (Lance, Teachout, & Donnelly, 1992). Self-assessments also get around the issue that
external raters often draw on a general impression across all behaviors, the “halo” effect
(Lance, LaPointe, & Fisicaro, 1994). The current article is therefore an important starting point
for clarifying how multiple types of proactive behavior are similar or different.
Distinctiveness of behaviors. Our first goal is to establish whether multiple proactive

behaviors are distinct from each other. We included types of proactive behavior from many
different work domains, aiming for breadth in our coverage. Thus, we included proactive con-
cepts related to organizational change and improvement (taking charge, individual innovation,
and issue selling), voice, proactive feedback seeking (feedback monitoring, feedback
inquiry), proactive socialization (job change negotiation), and careers (career initiative).3 We
also assessed two additional important types of proactive behaviors not already explicitly
investigated within the literature yet that are a clear fit with the definition of proactive behav-
ior: problem prevention and strategic scanning. Problem prevention, acting to prevent the
reoccurrence of challenges and barriers to work, has been identified as an important proactive
behavior (e.g., Frese & Fay, 2001) yet thus far has not been empirically assessed. Strategic
scanning involves proactively surveying the organization’s environment to identify ways to
ensure a fit between it and the organization, such as identifying ways the organization might

respond to emerging markets. Such proactive behavior helps to ensure effectiveness in light
of frequent changes in the competitive and technological environment (Crant, 2000).
Table 1 describes each of the types of proactive behavior considered in our research,
including their definition from the original authors, illustrative behaviors, and primary
intended target of impact. We discuss the target of impact dimension shortly. As elaborated
in Table 1, each of these proactive behaviors has been investigated in independent research
domains, often using different theoretical perspectives. We therefore expect each of the
behaviors to be distinct from each other. Our hypothesis is,
Hypothesis 1: Taking charge, voice, individual innovation, problem prevention, issue selling (cred-
ibility and willingness), strategic scanning, feedback inquiry, feedback monitoring, job change
negotiation, and career initiative will be distinct from each other.
Relationships among proactive behaviors. The second goal of the article is to investigate
how the proactive behaviors relate to each other. We propose a higher-order structure in
which some proactive behaviors are more similar to one another than other proactive behav-
iors. The basis of similarity that we suggest is the intended target of impact, which refers to
whom or what the proactive behavior aims to affect or change (Grant & Ashford, 2008). We
identify three broad intended targets of impact toward which proactive behavior can be
directed: the internal organization environment (proactive work behavior), the organization’s
fit with the external environment (proactive strategic behavior), and the individual’s fit
within the organizational environment (proactive person–environment [P-E] fit behavior).
Underpinning these higher-order categories of behaviors are similar motivations and role
identities. Motivation determines the direction of behavior as well as its form, intensity, and
duration (Pinder, 1984), and hence common motivations are likely to direct proactive behav-
ior toward having a particular target of impact. For example, individuals committed to goals
regarding improving their work place are likely to engage in proactive work behavior, and
those committed to progressing within the organization are likely to engage in proactive P-E
fit behavior. In addition, individuals’ role identities guide their behavior because individuals
prefer to exhibit behaviors that are congruent with their self-concept (Neale & Griffin, 2006).
The different targets of impact tap into different roles for individuals, and the salience of these
roles for the person and their identity will affect behavioral enactment. For example, engag-
ing in proactive strategic behavior is likely to reflect strong identification with the organiza-
tion. We discuss the proposed higher-order categories, and their identifying behaviors, next.
Changing the internal organizational environment: Proactive work behavior. Taking

charge, voice, individual innovation, and problem prevention are proactive behaviors that all
focus on taking control of, and bringing about change within, the internal organizational
environment, such as by improving work methods or influencing work colleagues. We pro-
pose that these behaviors together identify a higher-order category of “proactive work behav-
ior.” Taking charge concerns constructive efforts by employees to effect organizationally
functional change with respect to how work is executed (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), as illus-
trated by the behavior of “trying to bring about improved procedures in your work place.”
Likewise, voice is concerned with speaking out about issues that affect one’s work group as
well as seeking information about such issues (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). As with taking

Table 1
Types of Proactive Behavior, Definitions, Illustrative Behaviors,
and Their Proposed Higher Order (HO) Category
Behavior and HO
Category Definition From Original Authors Illustrative Behavior
Proactive work Taking control of, and bringing about

behavior (HO) change within, the internal
organizational environment
Taking charge Voluntary and constructive efforts to effect Try to bring about improved
organizationally functional change with procedures in the work place
respect to how work is executed;
change-oriented behavior aimed at
improvement (Morrison & Phelps, 1999)
Voice Making innovative suggestions for change Communicate your views about
and recommending modifications to work issues to others in the
standard procedures even when others workplace, even if your views
disagree; speaking up that is constructive differ and others disagree
and intended to positively contribute to
the organization (Van Dyne & LePine,
1998)
Individual innovation Behaviors involved in the creation and Search out new techniques,
implementation of ideas (Scott & Bruce, technologies, and/or product ideas
1994), including identifying an
opportunity, generating new ideas or
approaches, and implementing the new
ideas
Problem prevention Self-directed and anticipatory action to Try to find the root cause of things
prevent the reoccurrence of work that go wrong
problems (Frese & Fay, 2001)
Proactive strategic Taking control of, and causing change in,
behavior (HO) the broader organization's strategy and
its fit with the external environment
Strategic scanning Proactively surveying the organization’s Actively scan the environment to see
environment to identify ways to ensure a how what is happening might
fit between the organization and its affect organization in the future
environment, such as identifying ways
the organization might respond to
emerging markets or actively searching
the environment for future
organizational threats and opportunities
Issue selling credibility Influencing the formation of a strategy in Positive track record for selling
organizations by making others aware of issues
particular issues (Dutton & Ashford,
1993); calling an organization’s attention
to key trends, developments, and events
that have implications for its performance
(Morrison & Phelps, 1999, p. 404)
(continued)

Table 1 (continued)
Behavior and HO
Category Definition From Original Authors Illustrative Behavior
Issue selling willingness Influencing the formation of a strategy in Amount of time willing to devote to
organizations by giving the time, energy, selling this issue
and effort into behaviors to ensure key
decision makers in the organization
know the issues (Ashford, Rothbard,
Piderit, & Dutton, 1998)
Proactive person- Changing oneself or the situation to
environment fit achieve greater compatibility between
behavior (HO) one's own attributes and the
organizational environment
Feedback inquiry Directly asking for feedback from others; a Seek feedback from supervisor about
type of proactive feedback seeking in work performance
which employees engage in voluntary
and anticipatory actions to obtain
information about their behavior
(Ashford & Black, 1996; Ashford, Blatt,
& Van de Walle, 2003)
Feedback monitoring Using as feedback the information obtained Observe what performance
from actively monitoring the situation behaviors the boss rewards and
and others' behavior (Ashford & Black, use this as feedback on one's own
1996; Ashford et al., 2003); is considered performance
a type of proactive feedback seeking
Job change negotiation Explicit attempts to change one’s job so Negotiate with others about task
that it better fits one's skills and abilities assignments and role expectations
(Ashford & Black, 1996; Nicholson,
1984); a type of proactive socialization
in which employees actively adjust to
new job conditions (Jones, 1986),
originally applied to newcomers, though
equally applicable to all employees
Career initiative Individual’s active attempts to promote his Engage in career path planning
or her career rather than a passive
response to the job situation as given
(Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001);
engaging in career planning, skill
development, and consultation with
more senior personnel (Tharenou &
Terry, 1998)
a. References for the measures from which items are taken are outlined in the method section.
charge, the internal organizational environment is the intended target of impact of voice.
Individual innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994) is distinct from both taking charge and voice
because of its emphasis on novelty, but it has in common with these behaviors the aim
of influencing one’s internal work environment. Finally, problem prevention focuses on
dealing with the reoccurrence of challenges and barriers in the work environment; therefore,
we also expect this construct to best fit within this higher-order category. In summary,

Hypothesis 2a: Taking charge, voice, individual innovation, and problem prevention will together
identify a higher-order category of proactive behavior.
Changing the organization’s fit with the external environment: Proactive strategic behavior.
Issue selling and strategic scanning are self-initiated behaviors that are concerned with taking
control of, and causing change in, the broader organization’s strategy and its fit with the exter-
nal environment. Issue selling involves managers proactively influencing the formation of
strategy in organizations by making others aware of particular events or trends in the environ-
ment (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Through bringing critical issues to the attention of leaders,
issue selling aims to influence and change the strategy of an organization and ultimately its per-
formance. Strategic scanning similarly has an organizational focus, being concerned with
proactively improving the organization’s fit with the environment, such as by identifying future
organizational threats and opportunities. We propose that together these behaviors identify a
higher-order category of behaviors, which we refer to as “proactive strategic behavior.”
Like proactive work behavior, proactive strategic behavior aims to change the environ-
ment in some way. Both types of behavior also potentially enhance an organization’s effec-
tiveness. However, for proactive strategic behavior, the target of impact—the organization’s
fit with the environment—is wider in scope and more external in focus than internal organi-
zational change. For example, Morrison and Phelps (1999) observed that “issue selling
focuses on strategic issues, whereas taking charge focuses on the internal means for accom-
plishing organizational goals, such as work methods, policies, and procedures” (p. 404). The
hypothesis is,
Hypothesis 2b: Strategic scanning and issue selling will together identify a higher-order category
of proactive behavior.
Changing the individual’s fit with the organizational environment: Proactive P-E fit
behavior. We propose that proactive feedback seeking, proactive socialization, and career
initiative identify a third higher-order category of behavior, which we refer to as “proactive
P-E fit behavior.” P-E fit refers to the compatibility of the attributes of a person with the sit-
uation (Caplan, 1987), such as whether the person’s abilities fit the demands of the job (an
example of person–job fit) or whether the values of the person are compatible with the orga-
nization (an example of person–organization fit). As has been recognized (Morrison, 1993),
employees can take a proactive role in increasing their level of P-E fit, such as by seeking
information about their performance in the situation.
Two types of compatibility have been identified as important to P-E fit (Edwards, 1996). The
first is demand–abilities fit, which occurs when individuals have the knowledge, skills, and other
resources demanded by the environment. A type of proactive behavior especially relevant to the
demand–abilities fit perspective is proactive feedback seeking, which involves actively gather-
ing information about one’s behavior, either by directly asking for feedback (inquiry) or by
actively monitoring the situation and others’ behavior (monitoring). In both types of proactive
feedback seeking, the aim is to gather information to better respond to the demands of the envi-
ronment and thereby perform more effectively within the context (Ashford & Black, 1996).
Thus, feedback seeking is an important way in which individuals can gain greater clarity about
what others expect of them so they can better adapt to the requirements of the situation.

A second type of compatibility is supplies–values fit, which occurs when the environment
supplies the attributes desired or valued by an individual. A type of proactive behavior especially
relevant to achieving a better “supply” from the environment is job change negotiation, a form
of proactive socialization in which individuals attempt to change their job so that it better fits
their skills, abilities, and preferences (Ashford & Black, 1996; Nicholson, 1984). It involves, for
example, negotiating task assignments, role expectations, and desirable job changes.
A further proactive behavior that can enhance both types of compatibility is career initia-
tive. Career initiative includes proactive behaviors such as career planning, skill development,
and consultation (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001; Tharenou & Terry, 1998). These behav-
iors involve intervening in and sculpting one’s career instead of only reacting to opportuni-
ties. They are relevant to P-E fit because they focus on longer-term compatibility between the
organization’s requirements and the individual’s career expectations and preferences.
In summary, proactive P-E fit behavior refers to self-initiated behavior that aims to
change oneself or the situation to achieve greater compatibility between one’s own attributes
and the organizational environment. Such behavior is distinct from the two other higher-
order categories of behavior because it has a much stronger emphasis on changing the self
rather than the situation. Even job-role negotiation, although concerned with changing the
job, is about changing the job in relation to one’s own abilities, skills, and preferences. Our
hypothesis is,
Hypothesis 2c: Proactive feedback seeking (feedback monitoring, feedback inquiry), job change
negotiation, and career initiative will together identify a higher-order category of proactive
behavior.
Antecedents of proactive behavior. Our third goal is to investigate antecedents of the

proactive behaviors and, in so doing, to enhance our understanding of their commonalities and
points of difference. To achieve this, we include antecedents that we expect to predict all behav-
iors as well as antecedents that would predict only some. We also investigate the consistency
of the relationships within the higher-order category. If the higher-order representation is
meaningful, the antecedents should have reasonably similar relationships with behaviors in the
same broad category (Marsh, Ellis, & Craven, 2002; Marsh & Jackson, 1999).
Predictors of all proactive behaviors. First, being defined as a disposition toward taking
action to influence one’s environment and bring about change (Bateman & Crant, 1993),
proactive personality should positively predict all proactive behaviors. Indeed, proactive per-
sonality has been shown to predict proactive problem solving (Parker et al., 2006) and indi-
vidual innovation (Seibert et al., 2001) as well as more strategic proactive behaviors such as
entrepreneurship (Crant, 1996) and proactive P-E fit behaviors, such as career initiative
(Seibert et al., 2001). Second, consideration of future consequences refers to individual dif-
ferences in the extent to which one considers distant versus immediate consequences
(Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). Some individuals believe certain behav-
iors are worthwhile because of future benefits, even if the immediate outcome is reasonably
undesirable, whereas others are more concerned with maximizing immediate benefits than
with considering future consequences. These differences can significantly affect individuals’

choice of health-related behavior (Orbell, Perugini, & Rakow, 2004). As proactive behavior
involves anticipatory and future-focused action, individuals high in consideration of future
consequences should display proactivity across many domains.
Third, we propose learning goal orientation, or one’s emphasis on mastery of new situa-
tions (Dweck, 1986), as an antecedent of all proactive behaviors. Individuals with a strong
learning orientation are likely to view proactive action as worthwhile, seeing challenging sit-
uations as a development opportunity and setting higher goals in these situations (Sujan,
Weitz, & Kumar, 1994). Consistent with these ideas, Jannsen and Van Yperen (2004) found
that a learning goal orientation was positively related to innovative job performance.
Individuals with a learning goal orientation are also likely to see proactive P-E fit behaviors
as important because they provide a source of mastery. For example, a learning goal orien-
tation enhances one’s interest in feedback seeking (Van de Walle & Cummings, 1997) and
one’s response to feedback, seeing it as information about progress and as diagnostic cues
for change (Tuckey, Brewer, & Williamson, 2002). In summary, our hypothesis is,
Hypothesis 3: Proactive personality, consideration of future consequences, and learning goal orien-
tation will positively predict all proactive behaviors.
Predictors of specific proactive behaviors. We propose that conscientiousness will predict

proactive P-E fit behaviors only. Conscientiousness has a large achievement or “industrious”
element, which is about being hardworking and resourceful as well as being dependable and
thorough (Roberts, Chernysheako, Stark, & Goldberg, 2005). Conscientious individuals, with
their desire to be dependable, will want to achieve a good fit within the organization.
Consistent with this reasoning, conscientiousness has been linked to proactive P-E fit behav-
iors, such as career planning (Carless & Bernath, 2007) and information seeking (Tidwell &
Sias, 2005). We do not expect conscientiousness to predict proactive work behaviors or proac-
tive strategic behaviors. Although conscientiousness drives effort to better fit within the work
environment, it does not necessarily direct effort toward more personally “risky” behaviors
that change the environment, such as challenging the status quo or selling controversial issues.
Conscientious individuals are cautious and tend to think carefully before acting (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). Moreover, the dependability element of conscientiousness entails an appre-
ciation for rules, which can stifle externally focused proactive behavior (Tett, 1998).
Rather than conscientiousness, we propose that individual differences in role breadth self-
efficacy and felt responsibility for change will be important for proactive work behaviors and
proactive strategic behaviors. First, engaging in behavior aimed at changing the external envi-
ronment, which is recognized as potentially risky to the individual, is likely to involve a deci-
sion process in which the individual assesses the likely outcomes of these behaviors (Parker
et al., 2006). Self-efficacy is important because it raises one’s feelings of control and the per-
ceived likelihood of success (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). It also leads people to persist more
(Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1987) as well as choose more difficult goals (Locke & Latham,
1990), both of which are important for bringing about environmental change. In particular, we
propose the importance of role breadth self-efficacy, which refers to one’s perceived capabil-
ity of carrying out a range of proactive, interpersonal, and integrative activities beyond the
prescribed technical core (Parker, 1998). Role breadth self-efficacy has been shown to predict

proactive job performance (Griffin et al., 2007; Ohly & Fritz, 2007), suggesting improve-
ments (Axtell et al., 2000), and proactive problem solving (Parker et al., 2006).
Second, it has been suggested (Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker et al., 2006) that one
“approaches” proactive behavior because this behavior is important for fulfilling one’s
responsibilities, goals, or aspirations. Reflecting this process, we propose felt responsibility
for change, or one’s belief that one is personally obligated to bring about environmental
change (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), as an important predictor of proactive behaviors that
change the situation. Morrison and Phelps (1999) argued that those with high felt responsi-
bility for change will perceive behaviors such as taking charge because they provide a sense
of personal satisfaction. Felt responsibility for change predicts taking charge (Morrison &
Phelps, 1999) as well as voice and continuous improvement (Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006).
Our hypothesis is,
Hypothesis 4: Conscientiousness will positively predict proactive P-E fit behaviors, whereas role
breadth self-efficacy and felt responsibility for change will positively predict proactive work
behaviors and proactive strategic behaviors.
The final predictor variable we consider is performance goal orientation, which refers to an
emphasis on demonstrating competence and validating worth by seeking favorable judgments,
and avoiding negative judgments, about one’s performance. A performance orientation tends to
promote ego-focused and defensive behaviors, such as withdrawing in the face of obstacles
(Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996) and responding to difficulty with off-task thoughts (Colquitt
& Simmering, 1998). As such, high performance goal orientation individuals are unlikely to
engage in the more challenging behaviors associated with trying to change the way things are
done or the broader strategy. Indeed, they are likely to avoid such behaviors because a lack of
success might lead to a questioning of their ability. As such, we expect performance goal ori-
entation to inhibit proactive work behaviors and proactive strategic behaviors.
Regarding proactive P-E fit behaviors, on one hand, individuals with a high performance
orientation will be motivated to fit well with their environment because a good fit suggests
success and competence, whereas a poor fit can suggest a lack of competence. On the other
hand, they will also want to manage the achievement of such fit in ways that are not threat-
ening to their ego. Directly asking for feedback, initiating career conversations with senior
staff, and negotiating work roles all involve putting oneself on the line and are therefore
likely to be risky to individuals who are strongly concerned with demonstrating their self-
worth. Ashford, Blatt, and Van de Walle (2003) suggested that when individuals with a high
performance goal orientation perceive that seeking feedback will make them look bad, they
are less likely to seek feedback via inquiry, which is a more public feedback-seeking strat-
egy, than via monitoring, which is indirect and private. Our prediction is, therefore, that indi-
viduals with a performance goal orientation are likely to engage in feedback monitoring, but
not feedback inquiry or career initiative, because monitoring is a way of achieving fit while
also protecting one’s ego. The hypothesis is,
Hypothesis 5: Performance goal orientation will negatively predict all proactive work behaviors and
proactive strategic behaviors and will positively predict feedback monitoring.

Method
Sample and Procedure
The sample was Australian managers who worked full-time in middle- to senior-level
management positions in a range of industries from both the public and private sectors,
including both production and service industries. We chose managers as our focus because
we expected that proactive behaviors would be both possible and important. Managers typ-
ically possess sufficient autonomy to engage in proactive behavior (e.g., Griffin et al., 2007)
and are often rewarded for doing so (e.g., Grant & Ashford, 2008). All of the managers were
enrolled in a part-time executive master’s of business administration (MBA) course. Most
worked full-time, and each manager had on average 8 years of experience from a minimum
of one major functional area (accounting, finance, general management, human resources,
information technology, marketing, production). The average age of the sample was 35 years
(range = 26 to 50; SD = 5.07), and 72% were men. The average tenure in the organization
was 4.63 years (SD = 4.36). More than half (58%) had a degree as their highest educational
qualification, and 31% had an additional qualification beyond the degree (e.g., graduate cer-
tificate or diploma, master’s, PhD).
A survey was handed out to the managers prior to the beginning of the final year of the
part-time MBA during orientation. Participants returned the survey in a sealed envelope to
the second author. All managers completed the survey because it was strongly recommended
as part of course participation. Most managers (98%) gave informed consent to use the data
for research. Participants were informed that nonconsent did not in any way affect the their
role as MBA students. The second author also informed participants that although the sur-
veys were not anonymous (because participants subsequently received feedback on their per-
sonality as part of a teaching session), the data were confidential to the researchers (no one
else ever saw completed surveys or individual profiles). Participants were also assured that
the researchers were not involved in any course assessment.
The final sample available differed in size depending on the hypotheses. Missing data were
deleted listwise. For the confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) conducted to test Hypotheses 1,
2a, 2b, and 2c, managers from two consecutive years (n = 303 from one year and n = 319 from
the subsequent year) were included to achieve sufficient sample size (total N = 622). For the
tests of Hypotheses 3 to 5 regarding antecedents, managers from just the first sample were
used (n = 303) because the relevant antecedent data were collected only at that time.
Measures
In previous research, the various proactive behaviors have been operationalized in differ-
ent ways. For example, taking charge has typically been assessed via supervisor reports,
whereas voice has been assessed using self-assessments. We collected self-report data in the
current study only so that any differences between the concepts could not be attributed to dif-
ferences in operationalization. One drawback of self-ratings is that responses can be affected
by a desire to put forward socially acceptable responses. To minimize social desirability,

individuals were reminded several times throughout the survey to “rate how you actually
behave and not how you think you should behave.” In addition, individuals were repeat-
edly reassured throughout administration that their survey data were confidential and that
nobody except the researchers would see their personal responses. These procedures are con-
sistent with recommendations by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) to
reduce common-method variance.
Items from published scales were used to assess the concepts. Where necessary, we adapted
the item wording to fit with a set of consistent item stems and response scales. A 5-point Likert-
type response scale was used for all measures (for item stems and scale anchors, see Note a to
Table 2). Some of the existing scales were shortened to prevent survey fatigue (Gosling,
Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). Without shortening, the number of items required to assess proac-
tive behavior and the antecedents would have been more than 100, which was too many given
their common theme. Thus, to balance the goals of minimizing response bias (Rogelberg &
Stanton, 2007) and maintaining construct validity (Nunnally, 1976), all measures consisted of
three to five items. For each construct, we selected the highest-loading items from established
measures. Face validity of the items was also checked against original construct definitions.
The internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) of the final scales were all above .70 (see the diagonal
in Table 3). The full set of proactive items and the response scales are listed in Table 2.
Proactive work behaviors. Taking charge items from Morrison and Phelps (1999) were
adapted to be self-report rather than supervisor ratings. Four items with the highest factor
loading were selected. Voice items were selected from Van Dyne and LePine (1998). As a
complex range of factor loadings were provided by these authors across time and multiple
raters, and as all were high, we selected four items that were most consistent with the con-
struct definition.4 Individual innovation was assessed with three of Scott and Bruce’s (1994)
six-item scale, which they found to correlate significantly with an objective, archival mea-
sure of innovative history (total number of invention disclosures filed by an individual
divided by organizational tenure). Factor loadings were not reported, so we selected items
that focused on generating and promoting innovation because this behavior is most distinc-
tive to innovation (the other items focus on implementation and hence potentially overlap
with the concept of taking charge). Problem prevention was assessed with three items we
developed that focused on achieving continual systems improvement through preventing
problems. Because this scale was new, we examined its validity by relating it to participants’
functional experience. We expected that problem prevention behaviors would be higher
among individuals who had experience in functional roles that required systematic problem
solving to ensure business flow. This was the case. Thus, problem prevention significantly
correlated with job experience in logistics, strategy and planning, operations, and general
management. As one would expect, problem prevention did not correlate significantly with,
for example, experience in accounting, auditing, finance, or sales.
Proactive strategic behaviors. Strategic scanning was assessed with three items we devel-
oped to assess this concept. For validity purposes, we examined the correlation between
strategic scanning and job experience. As expected, strategic scanning was significantly cor-
related with experience in strategy and planning; no other proactive behavior included in the

Table 2
Item Loadings From Exploratory Factor Analysis of Items
(Item Stem)a F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11
Issue selling willingness (How much . . .)

Effort would you be willing to devote to selling this issue in your organization? .96
Energy would you be willing to devote to selling this issue in your organization? .95
Time would you be willing to devote selling this issue in your organization? .94
Issue selling credibility: (Do you agree with or disagree with . . .)
I have a positive track record for selling issues. .85
I have been successful in the past in selling issues in organizations. .77
I am known as a successful issue seller. .75
Strategic scanning: (How frequently do you . . .)
Actively scan the environment to see what is happening might affect your .88
organization in the future?
Identify long-term opportunities and threats for the company? .73
Anticipate organization changes that might be needed in the light of .61
developments in the environment (e.g., markets, technology)?
Career initiative: (Do you agree with or disagree with . . .)
I have discussed my aspirations with a senior person in the organization. .85
I have discussed my career prospects with someone with more experience .85
in the organization.
I have engaged in career path planning. .55
Problem prevention: (How frequently do you . . .)
Try to develop procedures and systems that are effective in the long term, .75
even if they slow things down to begin with?
Try to find the root cause of things that go wrong? .64

Spend time planning how to prevent reoccurring problems? .55
Feedback monitoring: (How frequently do you . . .)
Observe the characteristics of people who are rewarded by your supervisor .79
and use this information?
Observe what performance behaviors your boss rewards and use this as .70
feedback on your own performance?
Pay attention to how your boss acts toward you in order to understand how .66
s/he perceives and evaluates your work performance?
645
(continued)
646
Table 2 (continued)
a
(Item Stem) F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11
Individual innovation: (How frequently do you . . .)

Generate creative ideas? .71
Search out new techniques, technologies and/or product ideas? .66
Promote and champion ideas to others? .49
Voice: (How frequently do you . . .)
Communicate your views about work issues to others in the workplace, .71
even if your views differ and others disagree with you?
Speak up and encourage others in the workplace to get involved with .61
issues that affect you?
Keep well informed about issues where your opinion might be .43
useful to your workplace?
Speak up with new ideas or changes in procedures? .42
Job change negotiation: (To what extent do you . . .)
Negotiate with others about your task assignments and role expectations? .86
Negotiate with others (e.g., supervisor, coworkers) about the demands placed .61
on you?
Negotiate with others (e.g., supervisor, coworkers) about desirable job changes? .48
Taking charge: (How frequently do you . . .)
Try to bring about improved procedures in your workplace? .71
Try to institute new work methods that are more effective? .42 .69
Try to implement solutions to pressing organization problems? .34
Feedback inquiry: (How frequently do you . . .)

Seek feedback from your supervisor about your work performance? .93
Seek feedback from your supervisor about potential for advancement .49
within your company?
Seek information from your coworkers about your work performance? .48
Note: Loadings < .40 are not presented here.

a. Voice, taking charge, individual innovation, problem prevention, strategic scanning, feedback monitoring, and feedback inquiry had a response scale ranging from 1
(very infrequently) to 5 (very frequently). Job change negotiation had a response scale from 1 (to no extent) to 5 (to a great extent). Issue selling willingness had a response
scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). Issue selling credibility and career initiative had a response scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Table 3
Correlations Among Proactive Behaviors and Among Proactive Behaviors and Antecedents
Model No. Type Model Description χ2 df Normed χ2 RMSEA NNFI CFI IFI χ2 Difference
M1 FO One-factor model in which all proactive 8670.14 528 16.24 .16 .62 .64 .64 M1 vs. M3A = 7519.31,
behavior items load on one df = 56, p < .05; M3A
underlying proactive factor better
M2 FO An 11-factor orthogonal model in which 2843.18 527 5.39 .10 .89 .90 .90 M2 vs. M3A = 1692.35,
each factor is distinct and uncorrelated df = 55, p < .05; M3A better
from each other; suggested the proactive
behaviors have nothing in common
with each other
M3A FO An 11-factor oblique model in which each 1150.83 472 2.43 .05 .96 .97 .97 M3A vs. M6 = 230.96,
factor is distinct from each other df = 41, p < .05; M3A better
(same as Model 2), albeit correlated
M3B FO An 11-factor oblique model in which 1341.30 482 2.78 .05 .96 .96 .96 M3A vs. M3B = 190.47,
problem prevention and taking charge df = 10, p < .05; M3A better
form a single factor but all other
concepts are distinct from each other
and intercorrelated
M3C FO An 11-factor oblique model in which 1367.02 482 2.83 .06 .95 .96 .96 M3A vs. M3C = 216.19
individual innovation and taking charge df = 10, p < .05; M3A better
form a single factor but all other
concepts are distinct from each other
and intercorrelated
M4 HO An 11-factor oblique model with one HO 1660.90 516 3.21 .06 .94 .95 .95 M4 vs. M6 = 279.11,
factor on which all the 11 factors load; df = 3, p < .05; M6 better

same as M3A with 1 HO factor
M5 HO An 11-factor oblique model with two HO 1433.59 515 2.78 .06 .96 .96 .96 M5 vs. M6 = 51.80,
factors: work and strategic combined df = 2, p < .05; M6 better
and P-E fit; same as M3A with 2
HO factors
M6 HO An 11-factor oblique model with the 1381.79 513 2.69 .05 .96 .96 .96 —
hypothesized three HO factors (work,
strategic, P-E fit); same as M3A with
3 HO factors
647
Note: N = 622. FO = first-order model; HO = higher-order model; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = non-normed fit index;
CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; P-E = person–environment.
study correlated as strongly with this experience variable. Strategic scanning was also higher
for those with experience in other functions with a longer-term planning emphasis, such as
marketing, general management, and research and development, but was not correlated with
experience in professions such as law and accounting that have a retrospective focus.
Issue selling was assessed with Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, and Dutton’s (1998) two mea-
sures of this concept. Consistent with Ashford et al., the instructions for both measures
explained that issue selling is a strategic process that involves “getting the time and attention
of the critical decision makers in their organization on an issue that is important to the future
success of the organization.” The first measure, issue selling willingness, tapped how much
time, energy, and effort the individual would put into selling strategic issues. Participants
were instructed to “think about a general issue that you believe is very important to the future
success of your organization (such as a problem or an emerging opportunity) that you feel
should be heard or acted upon.” Because we expected that participants might think of issues
that were not very strategic, we asked them to categorize their issue into one of five cate-
gories, such as changes in the external environment (e.g., technological, market change, cus-
tomer dissatisfaction) or internal structural or procedural issues (e.g., inefficiencies). We
then weighted the willingness scores such that higher scores were received for more strate-
gic issues focused on aligning the organization with the external environment (e.g., technol-
ogy or market changes in the external environment, external opportunities such as strategic
alliances or a new market). The second measure was issue selling credibility, which captures
the extent of success in an individual’s previous selling behaviors.
Proactive P-E fit behaviors. Proactive feedback seeking was assessed with established
measures from Ashford (1986). Specifically, feedback monitoring was measured with three
items assessing the frequency of this behavior, as was feedback inquiry. Career initiative was
assessed with three of the highest loading items from Tharenou and Terry (1998) that have
also been extensively used with Seibert and colleagues (1999; Seibert et al., 2001). Job
change negotiation was assessed with the validated measure from Ashford and Black (1996).
Items were adapted from past to present tense so that they were applicable to all respondents
rather than only to newcomers.
Antecedents. Each of the antecedent measures were assessed on a 5-point Likert measure
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Proactive personality was assessed with four
of the highest loading items from Bateman and Crant’s (1993) measure. An example item is,
“I am always looking for better ways to do things.” Consideration of future consequences was
assessed with two items from the measure developed by Strathman et al. (1994). An example
item is, “I consider how things might be in the future, and try to influence those things with
my day to day behavior.” Learning goal orientation and performance goal orientation were
assessed using four items each from the scales developed by Button et al. (1996). Example
items for learning goal orientation and performance goal orientation are, “I prefer to work on
tasks that force me to learn new things” and “The things I enjoy the most are the things I do
best,” respectively. Conscientiousness was assessed with the 12-item scale from the NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Role breadth self-efficacy was assessed with
four of the highest loading items from Parker (1998), an example item being, how confident

would you be if you were asked to “design new work procedures for your work area?” Felt
responsibility for change was assessed with three items from Morrison and Phelps (1999). An
illustrative item is, “I feel a personal sense of responsibility to bring about change at work.”
The diagonal of Table 3 shows the alpha coefficients for the final antecedent scales.
Results
To assess whether the various proactive behaviors were distinct from each other
(Hypothesis 1), we first conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the items using
maximum likelihood extraction with varimax rotation. One of the taking charge items (“try
to introduce new structures, technologies, or approaches to improve efficiency”) had its
highest loading on the individual innovation scale and hence was excluded from further
analysis. Table 2 shows the loadings for the final 11-factor solution, which accounted for
63% of the variance. As can be seen, the variables are defined by distinct items, consistent
with Hypothesis 1. However, there is some overlap, as suggested by the relatively low load-
ings for some items.
To compare alternative structures, we conducted a series of CFAs using LISREL 8.5
(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996) with maximum likelihood estimation. Fit statistics for the various
factor structures are shown in Table 4. A model in which all items loaded on a single factor
(Model M1) had a very poor fit to the data, suggesting that the different concepts do not rep-
resent just one factor. Model M2, in which each item loaded only on its hypothesized factor
and the latent variables were orthogonal, was also a poor fit. Model M3A, in which each item
loaded on the hypothesized factor and the latent variables were allowed to intercorrelate with
each other, provided a very good fit to the data, and all factor loadings for this model were sta-
tistically significant and greater than .40. Nevertheless, in Model 3A, intercorrelations among
some of the latent factors were high, particularly between the latent variables of taking charge
and problem prevention (r = .72) and taking charge and individual innovation (r = .72). To test
whether these high intercorrelations reflect a lack of differentiation between behaviors, we
investigated models in which these very correlated behaviors were collapsed into a single vari-
able (see Model 3B and Model 3C, Table 4). In all cases, the difference in chi-square statistics
suggested Model 3A was a better fit. In sum, the CFA statistics suggest that the proactive
behaviors are separate constructs, consistent with EFA findings and Hypothesis 1.
The high intercorrelations between some proactive behaviors suggests the possibility of a
higher-order structure. Indeed, it is relevant to consider a higher-order model only if first-
order factors are correlated (Bollen, 1989; Marsh & Jackson, 1999). Because it is the most
stringent approach, we first conducted an EFA based on scales rather than items. The result-
ing three-factor solution accounted for 58% of the variance and was consistent with the
hypothesized structure. The first factor was defined by the proactive work role scales: taking
charge (loading = .91), problem prevention (.63), individual innovation (.51), and voice
(.45). The second factor was defined by each of the proactive P-E fit scales: feedback inquiry
(.78), feedback monitoring (.61), job change negotiation (.47), and career initiative (.45). The
third factor was defined by strategic scanning (.60), issue selling willingness (.49), and issue
selling credibility (.47). There were no cross-loadings greater than .40 for any scale.

650
Table 4
Fit Indices for First-Order and Higher-Order Models
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. Taking charge 4.00 0.67 .83

2. Individual innovation 3.81 0.74 .58** .76
3. Problem prevention 3.87 0.71 .61** .41** .75
4. Voice 4.06 0.63 .56** .45** .37** .75
5. Feedback inquiry 3.35 0.87 .20** .16** .25** .24** .76
6. Feedback monitoring 3.66 0.82 .05 .12** .14** .11* .48** .79
7. Job change negotiation 3.67 0.71 .30** .28** .30** .32** .40** .33** .74
8. Career initiative 3.85 0.96 .11** .07 .11* .17** .39** .24* .23** .80
9. Issue-selling credibility 3.58 0.78 .41** .36** .30** .42** .18** .13** .27** .16** .89
10. Issue-selling willingness 6.19 2.41 .13** .26** .04 .17** .10* .05 .11* .06 .32** .97
11. Strategic scanning 3.56 0.93 .37** .46** .34** .36** .19** .15** .25** .15** .39** .31** .85
12. Proactive personality 3.82 0.65 .33** .29** .30** .30** .14* .12* .20** .19** .25** .11 .14* .75
13. Consideration of future 3.74 0.74 .17** .20** .22** .18** .19** .23** .19** .26** .23** .22** .21** .31** .69
consequences
14. Learning goal orientation 4.35 0.52 .31** .25** .29** .22** .20** .15* .18** .16** .13* .12* .18** .39** .26** .81
15. Performance goal 3.61 0.68 –.09 –.07 .04 –.07 .12* .23** .14* .11 –.13* –.11 –.12* .18** .11 .05 .70
orientation
16. Role breadth self-efficacy 4.38 0.47 .43** .33** .33** .39** .05 .02 .20** .10 .36** .15** .25** .24** .16** .39** –.10 .74

17. Felt responsibility for 4.14 0.61 .55** .32** .38** .41** .04 .00 .11 .16** .31** .11 .19** .30** .13* .34** –.02 .46** .78
change
18. Conscientiousness 3.96 0.49 .18** .03 .19** .12* .23** .20** .23** .19** .25** .00 .01 .25** .28** .14* .10 .18** .14* .80
Note: proactive behaviors N = 622; proactive behaviors and antecedents N = 303. The diagonal shows Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
To further assess the structure, we used CFA to compare alternative models (see Table 4),
including a model with a single higher-order category of behavior (Model M4); a plausible
two-category model where proactive work behavior and proactive strategic behavior are
combined into a single higher-order category, with a separate category of P-E fit behavior
(Model M5); and a model with the hypothesized three higher-order categories (Model M6).
As recommended by Marsh et al. (2002), in the higher-order models, correlations between
first-order factors are constrained to be zero, and relations among these first-order factors are
explained only in terms of higher-order categories. Model M6, the hypothesized three-cate-
gory higher-order model, was the best fitting model and was a better fit than Model M4 or
Model M5. For this model, all of the first-order factors had loadings greater than .35 on the
higher-order dimensions (see Figure 1). Overall, the hypothesized higher-order structure is
an acceptable representation of the data.
It is important to observe that the correlated first-order model (Model M3A), according to
the chi-square difference statistic, provides better fit indices than Model M6, the three-category
higher-order model. This situation is to be expected because higher-order models are nested
under first-order models. Marsh et al. (2002) suggested that “if the fit of the higher-order model
approaches that of the first-order model . . . then one might argue for the higher-order model
of the basis of its greater parsimony” (p. 383). In the current case, both models appear accept-
able. In circumstances where parsimony is preferable, the higher-order structure is a reason-
able way of summarizing proactive behaviors. However, for a more nuanced understanding of
different proactivity behaviors, the first-order structure is preferable.
To investigate the relationship between the antecedents and the proactive behaviors
(Hypotheses 3 to 5), we conducted separate regression analyses with each proactive behavior as
the dependent variable and the antecedents as independent variables (see Table 5).5 We chose
this approach of separate analyses to predict each behavior because it enables a better map onto
the existing literature, which has tended to consider one proactive outcome at a time. Hypothesis
3, regarding antecedents that would predict all proactive behaviors, was partially supported.
Proactive personality predicted all proactive work behaviors as well as issue selling credibility,
but it did not predict any P-E fit behaviors, nor strategic scanning or issue selling willingness.
Consideration of future consequences was a significant predictor of most proactive behaviors.
Prior to the entry of the mediating psychological states (role breadth self-efficacy and flexible
role orientation), learning goal orientation predicted all proactive work behaviors except voice
as well as two proactive P-E fit behaviors. Although each of these antecedents did not uniquely
predict all behaviors, in most cases the zero-order correlations between these antecedents and
proactivity were significant. In addition, each of the proactive behaviors was predicted by at
least one of the three general antecedents in the regression analyses in Table 5.
Hypotheses 4 and 5 concerned more specific relationships. As proposed in Hypothesis 4,
conscientiousness predicted most of the proactive P-E fit behaviors and, unexpectedly, issue
selling credibility. Also, as proposed, role breadth self-efficacy and felt responsibility for
change were significant predictors of all proactive work behaviors and half of the proactive
strategic behaviors. As expected, these variables did not predict proactive P-E behaviors,
with the one exception being that role breadth self-efficacy predicted job change negotiation.
Although it was not the major purpose of the current study, it is worth noting that
role breadth self-efficacy and felt responsibility for change appear to play a mediating role

Figure 1
Emerged Higher-Order Factor Model: A 12-Factor Orthogonal Model
With Three Higher-Order Categories of Proactive Behavior
.87
TakingTaking
chargecharge
.86
.77
Individual Voice
innovation
Proactive .77
.73
work
behavior .73
.86 Problem prevention
Individual innovation
Voice
Problem prevention
.38
.87 Feedback inquiry

Feedback inquiry
.67
.71 Proactive Feedback
Feedbackmonitoring
monitoring
PE-fit
.60
behavior
Job
Job change
change negotiation
negotiation
.50
Career initiative
Career initiative
.39
.65
Strategic scanning
Strategic scanning
.73
.38
Proactive
strategic .38
.73 Issue selling credibility
Issue selling willingness
behavior
Issue
Issueselling
sellingcredibility
willingness
Note: PE = person–environment.
between some of the dispositional antecedents and proactive work behavior. Finally, as
predicted in Hypothesis 5, performance goal orientation was negatively associated with the
proactive strategic behaviors and most proactive work behaviors yet, at the same time, was
positively associated with feedback monitoring. It also predicted job change negotiation,
which was unexpected.

Table 5
Relationships Among Antecedents and Types of Proactive Behavior
Proactive Work Behavior Proactive Strategic Behavior Proactive Person–Environment Fit Behavior
Issue Issue Job

Taking Individual Problem Selling Strategic Selling Feedback Feedback Change Career
Charge Innovation Prevention Voice Credibility Scanning Willingness Inquiry Monitoring Negotiation Initiative
(β1) β2 (β1) β2 (β1) β2 (β1) β2 (β1) β2 (β1) β2 (β1) β2 (β1) β2 (β1) β2 (β1) β2 (β1) β2
Step 1
Proactive (.26**) .15** (.28**) .23** (.24**) .17** (.28**) .20** (.20**) .14* (.12) .09 (.06) .04 (.03) .04 (–.04) –.03 (.03) .02 (.07) .04
personality
Consideration (.02) .03 (.12*) .13* (.07) .07 (.08) .08 (.14*) .14* (.19**) .19** (.12**) .12** (.09) .09 (.14*) .14* (.09) .09 (.16**) .16**
of future
consequences
Learning goal (.16**) .01 (.12*) .04 (.13*) .04 (.08) –.05 (.00) –.10 (.09) .03 (.04) .00 (.14*) .16* (.10) .12 (.13*) .08 (.06) .04
orientation
Performance goal (–.14**) –.08 (–.13*) –.09 (–.03) –.01 (–.15**) –.09 (–.20**) –.15** (–.15**) –.12* (–.14*) –.12* (.08) .07 (.21**) .20** (.09) .12* (.06) .07
orientation
Conscientiousness (.08) .04 (–.07) –.10 (.09) .06 (.01) –.03 (.16**) .13* (–.07) –.09 (–.08) –.09 (.18**) .19** (.15**) .15** (.13*) .11 (.11) .10
Step 2
Role breadth .15** .14* .14* .23** .23** .16** .10 –.04 –.02 .16* .00
self-efficacy
Felt responsibility .42** .18** .22** .24** .15* .08 .04 –.03 –.04 –.02 .09

for change
Adjusted R2 (.15**) .35** (.15**) .21** (.14**) .22** (.13**) .25** (.14**) .22** (.08**) .11** (.05**) .06** (.09**) .09** (.10**) .10** (.06**).08** (.09**) .09**
R2 change .20** .06 .08** .12** .08** .03** .01 .00 .00 .02* .00
Note: N = 303. Values in parentheses are standardized beta weights (R2) at Step 1 in the regression equation. Values not in parentheses are standardized beta weights in the final
step (Step 2) of the regression equation.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
653
A further aim of the antecedent analyses was to assess the construct adequacy of the
higher-order structure by assessing the consistency of antecedents across behaviors within the
same category. For the proactive work behaviors, the pattern of relationships was quite cohe-
sive. Proactive personality, role breadth self-efficacy, and felt responsibility for change were
consistent positive predictors across all of the proactive work behaviors; learning goal orien-
tation positively predicted all of these work role behaviors except voice, and performance goal
orientation was a consistent negative predictor for all except problem prevention. For proac-
tive strategic behaviors, consideration for future consequences was a consistent positive pre-
dictor, performance goal orientation was a consistent negative predictor, and learning goal
orientation was a consistent nonpredictor, though for most other predictors issue selling cred-
ibility differed from the other two proactive strategic behaviors. Finally, the pattern for proac-
tive P-E fit behaviors shows some common patterns (e.g., proactive personality and felt
responsibility for change were unimportant in all cases and conscientiousness was important
for all but career initiative), but there were some inconsistencies with regard to the other
antecedents, suggesting important differences among the various ways of achieving P-E fit.
Discussion
In a field where there has been considerable growth in the number of concepts, we set out
to integrate and clarify the relationships among key proactive behaviors. Our approach was
deliberately broad, encompassing behaviors from areas as diverse as organizational change,
careers, and innovation. An initial, and important, conclusion is that each of the proactive
behaviors we considered here appears to be empirically distinguishable, based on both EFAs
and CFAs. These findings suggest that there are indeed differences among the types of proac-
tive behavior assessed in this study and that researchers from different domains are not using
completely overlapping concepts.
Nevertheless, although distinguishable from one another, there is some overlap among the
concepts at both the item and construct levels. At the item level, one item loaded on more
than one factor, suggesting the need for care choosing items in the future. At the construct
level, some of the behaviors were highly correlated with each other. Higher-order structural
analyses, in combination with analyses of relationships with antecedents, supported greater
interrelations between proactive behaviors if they had a similar intended target of impact.
In particular, proactive work behavior is a reasonably clear higher-order category includ-
ing taking charge, voice, individual innovation, and problem prevention. All of these behav-
iors concern taking control of, and aiming to bring about change within, the internal
organization. For the most part, these behaviors had similar patterns of relationships with the
antecedents. Proactive personality, role breadth self-efficacy, and felt responsibility for
change were consistently positive predictors; learning goal orientation positively predicted
all of these work role behaviors except voice; and performance goal orientation was a con-
sistent negative predictor for all except problem prevention. Thus, there appear to be largely
common processes underpinning these behaviors. It is interesting that limited attention has
been given to these processes in some of the domains. For example, although self-efficacy
has been identified as an important precursor of taking charge and similar behaviors (e.g.,

Axtell & Parker, 2003; Speier & Frese, 1997), it has received less attention as an influence
on voice. Likewise, felt responsibility for change has been shown to predict taking charge
(Morrison & Phelps, 1999) and voice (Fuller et al., 2006), yet it also appears to be important
for innovation and problem prevention. The same argument applies to other antecedents. For
example, an array of cognitively oriented variables (e.g., problem-solving style) has been
shown to predict individual innovation (Unsworth & Parker, 2002), but such variables have
not been investigated in relation to taking charge or voice.
The higher-order category of proactive strategic behavior was reasonably well identified
by issue selling and strategic scanning. These behaviors were positively predicted by con-
sideration of future consequences, which is not surprising given their focus on bringing
about strategic change and alignment of the organization with its environment. Performance
goal orientation was negatively associated with these behaviors, and learning goal orienta-
tion was a consistent nonpredictor. We recommend that future studies consider in this cate-
gory other types of proactive strategic behavior, such as the dynamic strategies used by
successful entrepreneurs (e.g., von Gelderen, Frese, & Thurik, 2000).
The higher-order category of proactive P-E fit behavior was reasonably well defined by those
behaviors that are oriented toward achieving a better alignment between the individual and the
organization, including feedback inquiry, feedback monitoring, job change negotiation, and
career initiative. In addition to the higher-order structure supporting the grouping of these behav-
iors, they also had consistently moderately positive intercorrelations, and their antecedents were
collectively quite different from those for the other proactive behaviors. In particular, proactive
personality and felt responsibility for change were not important antecedents for any proactive
P-E fit behavior; instead, as expected given its emphasis on achievement, conscientiousness
played a bigger role. Proactivity in this domain thus appears to be driven by different motivations
than proactivity in other spheres, which is perhaps not surprising given the greater emphasis on
the self of these behaviors relative to proactive work behaviors or proactive strategic behaviors.
At the same time, however, there were some important ways that the proactive P-E fit
behaviors are different from each other. In particular, although feedback inquiry was posi-
tively predicted by learning goal orientation, feedback monitoring was positively predicted by
performance goal orientation. It appears that individuals with a strong performance goal ori-
entation want to manage their P-E fit in indirect or covert ways that are the least “threaten-
ing” to their ego or, in Van de Walle’s (2003) terms, least costly for self-presentation. The two
types of proactive feedback seeking appear to be quite distinct strategies, albeit with the same
goal of obtaining performance feedback. We recommend further research on this issue, such
as by examining indirect inquiry (Miller & Jablin, 1991), a third type of feedback seeking that
involves indirect questions and using third parties to seek feedback. One would expect that
those with strong performance orientations will also prefer this mode of obtaining feedback.
A further difference is that, in contrast to the other P-E fit behaviors, job change negotiation
was predicted by role breadth self-efficacy. We proposed earlier that job change negotiation
is a “supply”-oriented form of P-E fit in which individuals attempt to change their job so that
it better fits their skills and preferences. As such, it is more oriented toward changing the envi-
ronment than the other P-E fit behaviors, which may explain why self-efficacy is important.
In summary, there appears to be a reasonably clear higher-order structure of proactive
behavior according to intended target of impact. Although there are differences among

behaviors within categories, this higher-order framework is a useful starting point for identi-
fying synergies and common processes across the related behaviors, especially because it is
likely that common goals underpin the higher-order categories of behavior. From a method-
ological perspective, assessing a more restricted set of items focused on the higher-order
dimensions might be sufficient when survey space is restricted and one’s interest in proactiv-
ity is broad. At the same time, considering higher-level categories will sometimes be inade-
quate and will gloss over important differences. The choice between a more parsimonious set
of higher-order measures and measures of more fine-grained behaviors will depend on the
research question. This argument about specificity is analogous to the personality literature
about bandwidth. For example, narrow bandwidth personality facets tend to be more predic-
tive (Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999), but there are nevertheless advantages to focusing on “the
big five.”
In practical terms, an advantage of the “big three” proactive dimensions is that, rather
than presenting managers with many proactive concepts that sound similar yet have differ-
ent labels, one can use the higher-order framework to help structure thinking. Focusing man-
agers’ attention on understanding 3 broad types of proactivity with different targets of
impact, rather than 15 or more, might help to more readily transfer research findings into
practice. At the same time, the finding that the various concepts were distinct from each other
alerts managers to the idea that staff can be proactive in one domain without being proactive
in another. These findings can be used to counter halo effects. For example, managers might
assume, incorrectly, that individuals who are engaging in proactive P-E fit behavior, which
is perhaps the most visible, will also be proactive in improving the organization.
Although the main purpose of the antecedent analyses was to help us understand similar-
ities and differences across several types of proactive behavior, these analyses also have
implications for understanding the antecedents of proactivity. For example, proactive per-
sonality did not predict any of the proactive P-E behaviors, which is surprising given it has
been shown to predict career initiative (Seibert et al., 2001). Closer inspection suggests the
findings between the current study and this previous study are not so different (if our study,
like Seibert et al. [2001], had included proactive personality as the only antecedent, we too
would have concluded it was a significant predictor). The bandwidth of proactive personal-
ity appears too narrow for it to reliably predict proactive behaviors across all domains.
Proactive personality focuses on seizing control to bring about environmental change,
whereas proactive P-E fit behaviors are focused on taking control to achieve fit, which can
be through changing the self rather than the environment.
Few studies have investigated the association between goal orientation and proactive
behavior. Yet goal orientation appears to play a powerful role. Learning goal orientation pre-
dicted several proactive behaviors, which is perhaps not surprising given the high degree of
effort, persistence, and recovery from setbacks that is required for proactive action. Even
more intriguing is that performance goal orientation was negatively correlated with several
proactive behaviors. Perhaps the stronger one’s emphasis on demonstrating capability to pro-
tect and enhance self-worth, the more “risky” proactive behavior feels to that person. From
a broader perspective, the current study suggests that if high levels of proactive work behav-
ior or proactive strategic behavior are required, such as in the case of high-level executives,
one approach is to select individuals with particular dispositions (e.g., proactive personality),

but another is to build individuals’ role breadth self-efficacy and felt responsibility for
change. Both of these motivational states were consistent and strong predictors of these
behaviors. Previous evidence has found these states to be malleable (Axtell et al., 2000;
Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007; Parker, 1998, 2003), suggesting proactive behavior can be devel-
oped via these processes.
Study Limitations and Future Research
The current research relies on all self-report assessments, which means relationships could
be inflated because of common-method variance. The conclusions could be strengthened with
a multitrait-multimethod approach (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Nevertheless, we believe common-
method variance is unlikely to be a major threat here. As discussed in the method section, we
took steps in the design of the study to minimize biases. Moreover, to the extent that common-
method variance is in operation, the differences among proactive behaviors would be obscured
(Spector, 2006). Yet we found, using both EFAs and CFAs, differences among multiple proac-
tive behaviors. Indeed, in relation to this point, the demonstration that all items are not just one
factor has often been used as an argument against common-method variance (the Harman sin-
gle-factor test; see Podsakoff et al., 2003). Common-method variance is more of an issue for
the second part of the article, in which we investigated antecedents. However, in this respect,
we showed differential relationships (e.g., proactive personality predicted some proactive
behaviors but not others), which speaks against common-method variance (Spector, 2006). As
Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002) recommended, given the enhanced complexities of mul-
timethod approaches, often the most efficient process will be to first establish relationships
with a mono-method study (as we have done here) and then, once established, to conduct fur-
ther studies designed to control for the most likely biases.
The use of self-reports of proactive behavior has a further specific limitation, which is that
we do not know if observers will be able to make the same distinctions in behavior.
Individuals, more so than third-party observers, can often detect more fine-grained differ-
ences in their own actions (Lance et al., 1992; Lance et al., 1994). Further research is needed
to ascertain whether observers can detect the same differences. At the same time, we advise
caution with the use of observer ratings. In addition to some of the usual problems associ-
ated with using reports from third parties (e.g., halo effects; see Spector, 2006), proactive
behavior often involves challenging the status quo and hence can be viewed negatively by
supervisors or colleagues, rendering their ratings potentially less reliable than self-ratings
(Frese & Fay, 2001). As Frese and Zapf (1999) suggested, in cases such as this, the job
incumbent might be the most valid source of data.
The current research is also limited by its cross-sectional design, which means the findings
concerning antecedents in particular need cautious interpretation. Having raised this issue, our
main purpose was to clarify the relationships among multiple proactive behaviors, and we
used relationships with theoretically derived antecedents to aid in this goal. A further limita-
tion is the sample. We focused only on reasonably well-educated managers who were in an
MBA program. Managers at this level typically have sufficient autonomy in their jobs to dis-
play proactive behavior. In other more constrained contexts, one might not observe the same
degree of proactivity, nor the same degree of differentiation among proactive behaviors.

There remain several avenues for further inquiry. Existing research suggests proactive behav-
iors have different consequences, but just like studies on antecedents, most studies on outcomes
tend to consider a single proactive behavior at a time. By including multiple related behaviors
within the same study, one can identify the key drivers of particular outcomes. It is also impor-
tant to consider additional proactive behaviors and how they might fit or extend the higher-order
framework, such as proactive coping and proactive safety behavior. Further research may also
identify unexplored proactive behaviors by expanding current constructs into different targets
(Grant & Ashford, 2008). For example, the focus of taking charge may be expanded from the
work focus to include bringing about strategic change (here, we focused on the behaviors as they
are currently defined and operationalized). The higher-order structure supported in this article
can be refined by considering it in relation to other behaviors. For example, as indicated earlier,
personal initiative has been positioned as a cluster of behaviors (Frese & Fay, 2001), so perhaps
this is a third-order, overarching construct. A related issue is that this study focused only on
proactive behaviors that are constructive. However, employees can be proactively destructive
(Moss, Valenzi, & Taggard, 2003). Campbell (2000), for example, suggested a paradox can
occur when employees use their initiative in misguided ways.
We also encourage researchers to continue to compare proactive behaviors with broader
models of work performance (Griffin et al., 2007), such as how proactive work behaviors are
distinct from task performance, adaptive performance, and citizenship. Perhaps there are
some settings where the distinctions among these behaviors are most important. There is also
a relative lack of investigation into the processes underpinning proactive behaviors, such as
whether proactivity is preceded by some kind of internal cost–benefit analysis (Ashford &
Cummings, 1983; Crant, 2000) or is strongly driven by goals (Grant & Ashford, 2008). We
hope that the integrative framework presented here will facilitate such theoretical extensions.
Notes
1. Additional elements have been included in the definition of some forms of proactive behavior. Frese and Fay
(2001) included persistence as a defining element of personal initiative. Although being proactive can indeed
involve persistence, persistence per se is not always proactive (e.g., one might be persistent at asking a supervisor
for help). Being constructive and/or prosocial is also sometimes highlighted as a feature of proactive behavior (e.g.,
taking charge is defined as constructive). However, too much, or misguided, proactive behavior can also be dys-
functional and counterproductive (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Campbell, 2000).
2. Note that some dimensions of adaptive performance identified by Pulakos et al. (2000) fit closely with our
definition of proactive behavior, such as the dimension of solving problems creatively (an example behavior is
“developing innovative methods of obtaining resources”).
3. One concept we did not include was personal initiative, which, when assessed via self-report questionnaire,
is highly correlated with proactive personality (which was included in our study as an antecedent). Fay and Frese
(2001) reported a disattenuated correlation, corrected for unreliability, between proactive personality and personal
initiative of .96.
4. We chose items that focused on the act of communicating, including speaking up and listening to ensure voicing
opinions would be informative. We did not include items that were likely to overlap with other behaviors. For example,
the item “speaks up in this group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures” overlaps with taking charge.
5. The antecedents were placed into the regression in two steps. Step 1 was the dispositions; step 2 was the
proactive psychological states. This approach was important given that many researchers postulate that proactive
psychological states mediate the relationship between the dispositions and proactive behavior (Morrison & Phelps,
1999; Parker et al., 2006).

References
Ashford, S. J. 1986. Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management

Journal, 29: 465-487.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. 1996. Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 81: 199-214.
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Van de Walle, D. 2003. Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feed-
back-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29: 769-799.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. 1983. Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating infor-
mation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32: 370-398.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. 1998. Out on a limb: The role of context and impres-
sion management in issue selling. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 23-57.
Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. 2000. Shopfloor inno-
vation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 73: 265-285.
Axtell, C. M., & Parker, S. K. 2003. Promoting role breadth self-efficacy through involvement, work redesign and
training. Human Relations, 56: 112-131.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. 1993. The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and corre-
lates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 103-118.
Block, J. 1995. A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin,
117: 187-215.
Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1996. Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and
empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67: 26-48.
Campbell, D. J. 2000. The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Executive,
14: 52-66.
Caplan, R. D. 1987. Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspec-
tives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31: 248-267.
Carless, S. A., & Bernath, L. 2007. Antecedents of intent to change careers among psychologists. Journal of Career
Development, 33: 183-200.
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. 1998. Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the
learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 654-665.
Costa, P. T. J., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory and New Five-Factor Inventory:
Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crant, J. M. 1996. The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small
Business Management, 34: 42-49.
Crant, J. M. 2000. Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26: 435-462.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. 2007. Commitment, affect and initiative at work. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 80: 601-622.
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18: 397-428.
Dweck, C. S. 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41: 1040-1048.
Edwards, J. R. 1996. An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress.
Academy of Management Journal, 39: 292-339.
Fay, D., & Frese, M. 2001. The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performance,
14: 97-124.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. 2001. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 23: 133-187.
Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. 2007. Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics
and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92: 1084-1102.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. 1999. On the importance of the objective environment in stress and attribution theory.
Counterpoint to Perrewé and Zellars. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 761-765.

Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. 2006. Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive
behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27:
1089-1120.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. 2003. A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37: 504-528.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work. In B. M. Staw & A. P. Brief (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 28). New York: Elsevier.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. 2007. A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncer-
tain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 5: 327- 347.
Jannsen, O., & Van Yperen, M. W. 2004. Employees goal orientation, the quality of leader-member exchange, and
the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 368-384.
Jones, G. R. 1986. Socialization tactics, self, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 29: 262-279.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. 1996. LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Moorseville, IN: Scientific Software
International.
Lance, C. E., LaPointe, J. A., & Fisicaro, S. A. 1994. Test of three causal models of halo rater error. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57: 83-96.
Lance, C. E., Teachout, M. S., & Donnelly, T. M. 1992. Specification of the criterion construct space: An applica-
tion of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 437-452.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. 1987. Comparison of three theoretically derived variables in predicting
career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy, interest congruence, and consequence thinking. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 34: 293-298.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 1998. Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83:
853-868.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Marsh, H. W., Ellis, L., & Craven, R. G. 2002. How do preschool children feel about themselves? Unravelling mea-
surement and multidimensional self-concept structure. Developmental Psychology, 38: 376-393.
Marsh, H. W., & Jackson, S. A. 1999. Flow experience in sport: Construct validation of multidimensional, hierar-
chical state and trait responses. Structural Equation Modeling, 6: 343-371.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. n.d. Retrieved June 7, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. 1991. Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics and a model
of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16: 92-120.
Mirvis, P. H., & Hall, D. T. 1996. New organizational forms and the new career. In D. T. Hall & Associates (Eds.),
The career is dead, long live career: A relational approach to careers: 72-101. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morrison, E. W. 1993. Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78: 173-183.
Morrison, E. W. 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of employees per-
spectives. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1543-1562.
Morrison, E. W. 2002. Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social networks during socialization. Academy of
Management Journal, 45: 1149-1160.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change.
Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403-419.
Moss, S. E., Valenzi, E. R., & Taggard, W. 2003. Are you hiding from your boss? The development of a taxonomy
and instrument to assess the feedback management behaviors of good and bad performers. Journal of
Management, 29: 487-510.
Neale, M., & Griffin, M. A. 2006. A model of self-held work roles and role transitions. Human Performance, 19:
23-41.
Nicholson, N. 1984. A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 172-191.
Nunnally, J. C. 1976. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. 2007. Challenging the status quo: What motivates proactive behavior? Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 80: 623-629.

Orbell, S., Perugini, M., & Rakow, T. 2004. Individual differences in sensitivity to health communications:
Consideration of future consequences. Health Psychology, 2: 388-396.
Parker, S. K. 1998. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational inter-
ventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 835-852.
Parker, S. K. 2000. From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role
breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49: 447-469.
Parker, S. K. 2003. Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and the mediating role of work
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 620-634.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. 1997. “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orien-
tations. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 899-929.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H., & Turner, N. 2006. Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91: 636-652.
Pinder, C. C. 1984. Work motivation: Theory, issues, and applications. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
Princeton University. 2003. WordNet 2.0. Retrieved June 7, 2008, from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Dorovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. 2000. Adaptability in the workplace: Development
of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 612-624.
Rank, J., Carsten, J. M., Unger, J. M., & Spector, P. E. 2007. Proactive customer service performance: Relationships
with individual, task, and leadership variables. Human Performance, 20: 363-390.
Roberts, B. W., Chernysheako, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. 2005. The structure of conscientiousness: An
empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58: 103-139.
Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. 2007. Introduction: Understanding and dealing with organizational survey non-
response. Organizational Research Methods, 10: 195-209.
Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. 1999. Hierarchical subcomponents of the big five personality factors: A cross-language
replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 613-627.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in
the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 580-607.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. 1999. Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84: 416-427.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. 2001. What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking
proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54: 845-875.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for general-
ized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Sonnentag, S. 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between non-
work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 518-528.
Spector, P. E. 2006. Method variance in organisational research: Truth or urban legend. Organizational Research
Methods, 9: 221-232.
Speier, C., & Frese, M. 1997. Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between control and complex-
ity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal study in East Germany. Human Performance, 10: 171-192.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. 1994. The consideration of future consequences:
Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 742-752.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. 1994. Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. Journal of
Marketing, 58: 39-52.
Tett, R. P. 1998. Is conscientiousness always positively related to job performance. Industrial-Organizational
Psychologist, 36: 24-29.
Tharenou, P., & Terry, D. J. 1998. Reliability and validity of scores on scales to measure managerial aspirations.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58: 475-492.
Thompson, J. A. 2005. Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90: 1011-1017.
Tidwell, M., & Sias, P. 2005. Personality and informational seeking. Journal of Business Communication, 42: 51-77.
Tuckey, M., Brewer, N., & Williamson, P. 2002. The influence of motives and goal orientation on feedback seek-
ing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75: 195-216.

Unsworth, K., & Parker, S. K. 2002. Proactivity, creativity, and innovation: Promoting a new workforce for the new
workplace. In D. Holman, T. D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow, & A. Howard (Eds.), The new workplace: A
handbook and guide to the human impact of modern working practices: 175-196. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Van de Walle, D. 2003. A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human Resource Management
Review, 13: 581-604.
Van de Walle, D., & Cummings, L. L. 1997. A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking
process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 390-400.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive
validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 108-119.
von Gelderen, M., Frese, M., & Thurik, R. 2000. Strategies, uncertainty and performance of small business start-
ups. Small Business Economics, 15: 165-181.

2008 Parker - Collins - Multiple Proactive Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2008 Parker - Collins - Multiple Proactive Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2008 Parker - Collins - Multiple Proactive Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management http://jom.sagepub.

Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating Multiple Proactive Behaviors

The online version of this article can be found at:

Southern Management Association

Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Mar 29, 2010

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 16, 2009

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 10, 2008

Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating

E-mail address: [email protected]

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Conceptual Background: Clarifying the Proactive Domain

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

and self-initiation—are present in most definitions of proactive behavior.1 For example,

Aims and Hypotheses

Distinctiveness of behaviors. Our first goal is to establish whether multiple proactive

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Changing the internal organizational environment: Proactive work behavior. Taking

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Proactive work Taking control of, and bringing about

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Antecedents of proactive behavior. Our third goal is to investigate antecedents of the

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Predictors of specific proactive behaviors. We propose that conscientiousness will predict

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Sample and Procedure

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Issue selling willingness (How much . . .)

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Individual innovation: (How frequently do you . . .)

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Note: Loadings < .40 are not presented here.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

1. Taking charge 4.00 0.67 .83

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

.87 Feedback inquiry

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Issue Issue Job

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Study Limitations and Future Research

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Ashford, S. J. 1986. Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on August 25, 2014

You might also like