You are on page 1of 8

Copyright © The British Psychological Society

Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

623

The
British
Psychological
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2007), 80, 623–629
q 2007 The British Psychological Society
Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

Challenging the status quo: What motivates


proactive behaviour?

Sandra Ohly1* and Charlotte Fritz2


1
Institute of Psychology, University of Frankfurt, Germany
2
Bowling Green State University, USA

To replicate and extend previous research regarding antecedents of proactive


behaviour at work, we examined four forms of work motivation (job self-efficacy, role
breadth self-efficacy, intrinsic work motivation and role orientation) in a sample of 98
employees in software development using co-worker rated proactive behaviour as an
outcome. Correlations indicate that whereas intrinsic motivation and job self-efficacy
were not related to co-worker rated proactive behaviour, role orientation and role
breadth self-efficacy showed significant relationships. This study stresses the
importance of role breadth self-efficacy in enhancing proactive behaviour at work.

Proactive behaviour is defined as ‘taking initiative in improving current circumstances;


it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present
conditions’ (Crant, 2000, p. 436). Instead of ‘carrying out narrowly defined tasks’ (job
performance), employees are expected to engage in broad work-roles (Parker, 2000,
p. 449). However, despite its importance in today’s work context, the antecedents of
proactive behaviour are not well understood (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006).
Previous research has examined the motivation to engage in proactive behaviour
(Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, & Waterson, 2000; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Parker
et al., 2006; Sonnentag, 2003; Speier & Frese, 1997), mostly using self-ratings of
proactive behaviour. The aim of the present study is to examine multiple motivational
predictors of proactive behaviour to replicate and extend previous studies using a
different rating source (co-workers). It has been argued that specific motivation is
needed for proactive behaviour (Parker, 2000). However, other forms of motivation such
as job self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation have a long tradition in predicting job
performance. To examine their relevance to proactive behaviour, we include intrinsic
motivation and job self-efficacy (traditional forms of motivation) as well as role breadth
self-efficacy and role orientation (proactive motivation) in this study.
Job self-efficacy (JSE) is the belief ‘in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the
courses of action required to produce given attainments’ (Bandura, 1997, p. 3) at work.

* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Sandra Ohly, Institute of Psychology, Goethe University of Frankfurt, Mertonstr.
17, Frankfurt, Germany (e-mail: ohly@psych.uni-frankfurt.de).

DOI:10.1348/096317907X180360
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

624 Sandra Ohly and Charlotte Fritz

Job self-efficacy has been found to be related to proactive behaviour (Morrison & Phelps,
1999; Speier & Frese, 1997). Since proactive behaviour may involve overcoming barriers
and difficult actions, and high self-efficacy increases effort and persistence on difficult
tasks (Bandura, 1997), we expect that:

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


Role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE), which is ‘the extent to which people feel confident
that they are able to carry out a broader and more proactive role’ (Parker, 1998, p. 835),
is expected to be related to proactive behaviour because employees high in RBSE expect
to be successful when they show proactive behaviour, thereby making this behaviour
more likely (Parker et al., 2006). This view was supported in previous studies (Axtell
et al., 2000; Parker et al., 2006). Thus, we hypothesize that:

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


Another form of motivation which is potentially relevant for predicting proactive
behaviour is intrinsic work motivation. It is defined as the ‘motivation to engage in work
primarily for its own sake because work itself is interesting, engaging or in some way
satisfying’ (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994, p. 950). When work is interesting,
engaging or satisfying, an employee will be more likely to show proactive behaviour
because such behaviour helps to further improve the work situation. In addition,
intrinsic work motivation shields against the temptation to detach oneself from work
when difficulties arise (cf. Sonnentag, 2003), making proactive behaviour more
probable. While the specific relationship between intrinsic motivation and proactivity
has not been empirically examined, research indicates that work engagement, a concept
similar to intrinsic work motivation, was positively related to daily proactive behaviour
(Sonnentag, 2003). Thus, we hypothesize that:

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


Role orientation targets the degree to which individuals incorporate certain
responsibilities into their work-role (cf. Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997), for example,
feeling responsible for the improvement of one’s work. Research indicates that role
orientation is related to proactive behaviour (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Unsworth, Wall,
& Carter, 2005). Feeling responsible for improvements at work and having a broad role
orientation make it more likely that employees engage in tasks that are not part of their
work-role. Thus, we hypothesize that:

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

Method
Sample and procedure
Participants in this study were employees from multiple German software development
companies. Data were collected between summer 2003 and summer 2006. Software
development companies were contacted and informed about the study, which was
labelled as ‘Behaviours at work’. Organizations received feedback about study results.
Surveys were sent to a contact person in the participating organizations and distributed
to employees. Each participant was instructed to give a ‘co-worker survey’ to a
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Motivation for proactive behaviour 625

co-worker with whom they worked together closely. Out of the 342 questionnaires
distributed, 135 were returned (response rate 39.5%), of which 98 had matching co-
worker data. Out of the 98 respondents, 86 were male (87.8%) and 52 had the
equivalent to a master’s degree (53.1%). Mean age was 36.2 years (SD ¼ 9:7) and mean
job experience in the current job was 12.46 years (SD ¼ 9:3). First comparisons indicate
that respondents in the final sample reported lower levels of intrinsic motivation and
RBSE than individuals without matching co-worker ratings.1

Measures
Cronbach’s alpha for all scales are given in Table 1.
Intrinsic work motivation was measured with 10 items from the enjoyment
subscale of the Work Preference Inventory (WPI; Amabile et al., 1994) on a four-point
scale. In addition, we measured intrinsic work motivation with six items from the Job
Diagnostic Survey (JDS, Hackman & Oldham, 1975) on a seven-point scale to test if
results were consistent across measures of intrinsic work motivation.
Role breadth self-efficacy was measured with 10 items from Parker (1998). Ratings
were given on a seven-point scale.
Job self-efficacy was measured using 12 items following recommendations by Lee
and Bobko (1994). Items referred to the employee’s confidence in being able to do core
job tasks. To ensure that job self-efficacy was specific for the core job tasks, participants
were asked to first list three common work tasks (A, B and C), and then to rate their
confidence to be able to fulfil each of these tasks. Tasks listed by participants included,
for example, ‘programming’, ‘network administration’ or ‘support’. Item wording was
‘How confident are you to be able to accomplish at least 50% [70%, 90%, 100%] of the
tasks in work area A [B, C]?’ Ratings were given on a 10-point scale.
Role orientation was measured with three items developed for this study. They
target the extent to which employees see developing and implementing new ideas at
work as their responsibility (cf. Unsworth et al., 2005). Items were ‘It is my job to
develop new ideas and to test them.’ ‘It is my task to be innovative’. and ‘My job requires
the development and implementation of new ideas.’2 Ratings were made on a five-point
scale ranging from 1 ¼ ‘not true at all’ to 5 ¼ ‘totally true’.
Proactive behaviour was rated by a co-worker using the seven-item personal
initiative scale (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997). Items were answered on a
seven-point scale.
Demographic variables (age, gender and education) were measured with one item
each. Education was operationalized as the highest degree reached (1 ¼ none,
2 ¼ apprenticeship completed, 3 ¼ master craftsman, 4 ¼ vocational school or
5 ¼ master’s degree).

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

1
Details can be obtained from the first author.
2
Evidence of validity of this measure can be obtained from the first author.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and internal consistencies of study variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

626 Sandra Ohly and Charlotte Fritz


1 Age 36.19 9.69 –
2 Gender 1.88 .33 .06 –
3 Education 3.38 2.33 .05 .10 –
4 Job self-efficacy 7.15 1.18 .13 2 .18 .01 .88
5 Role breadth self-efficacy 4.97 1.00 .18 .09 2.07 .34 .93
6 Intrinsic work motivation WPI 2.88 .42 .12 2 .06 2.22 .14 .11 .74
7 Intrinsic work motivation JDS 4.81 .59 2 .04 2 .23 2.19 2.04 .11 .37 .64
8 Role orientation 3.75 .82 .22 .33 .05 .04 .29 .13 .17 .87
9 Co-worker rated proactive behaviour 5.13 1.04 .08 .06 .07 .07 .27 .06 .10 .24 .89

Note. N ¼ 98.
Gender is coded as 1 ¼ ‘female’, 2 ¼ ‘male’. WPI, Work Preference Inventory; JDS, Job Diagnostic Survey.
r . :22, p , :05; r . :27, p , :01; r . :37, p , :001.
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Motivation for proactive behaviour 627

motivation are unrelated to co-worker rated proactive behaviour. To examine which


motivational variable is most relevant for proactive behaviour, we regressed co-worker
rated proactive behaviour on all four motivational variables. Since none of the
demographic variables were related to proactive behaviour (Table 1), they were not
entered into the regression equation.3 Results (using the WPI measure of intrinsic work
motivation) can be seen in Table 2. Results using the JDS measure of intrinsic work
motivation are virtually identical and are thus not shown here.

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

Proactive behaviour

b t

Job self-efficacy 2.04 2.35


Role breadth self-efficacy .27 2.35*
Intrinsic work motivation WPI .08 .75
Role orientation .14 1.32
R2 .12*

Note. N ¼ 98. WPI, Work Preference Inventory.


*
p , :05.

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

Discussion
We examined four types of work motivation that may enhance proactive behaviour: job
self-efficacy, role breadth self-efficacy, intrinsic work motivation and role orientation.
Results provide evidence for the importance of role breadth self-efficacy, and to a lesser
extent of role orientation, but not for the more traditional forms of work motivation.
For example, we found no evidence for the hypothesized relationship between job
self-efficacy and proactive behaviour. Although this result is in contrast to previous
findings (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Speier & Frese, 1997), the different operationaliza-
tions of job self-efficacy may explain the difference in results. Whereas previous studies
used measures of general job self-efficacy, we assessed the confidence in doing specific
core job tasks. The results for RBSE, the confidence to execute a broader range of tasks,
suggest that it is valuable to distinguish between these two forms of self-efficacy.
Although JSE and RBSE were moderately correlated (cf. Table 1), only RBSE was related
to proactive behaviour.
Based on our study and previous results, it seems that both general job self-efficacy
and RBSE are related to proactive behaviour (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Speier & Frese,
1997). Since RBSE specifically targets behaviour that goes beyond what is formally

3
Including age, gender and education into the regression equation did not change the pattern of results.
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

628 Sandra Ohly and Charlotte Fritz

required in a given job (Parker, 2000), we recommend its use in future research. Intrinsic
work motivation (measured with the JDS or WPI) was not related to proactive
behaviour. Having work that is interesting, engaging or satisfying is apparently not
enough for an employee to engage in proactive behaviour. This result suggests that
proactive behaviour, operationalized here as personal initiative, is not the same as
intrinsic work motivation, despite claims to the contrary (cf. Gagne & Deci, 2005).
Research indicates that a suboptimal work environment characterized by high time
pressure or situational constraints calls for proactive behaviours at work (e.g.
Sonnentag, 2003). Thus, the work environment that elicits intrinsic motivation probably
differs from the one that enhances proactive behaviour. This argument is in line with
research showing that under some circumstances, negative mood or attitudes, rather
than intrinsic motivation, fosters creativity (e.g. George & Zhou, 2002). Future research
should test this argument, examining job dissatisfaction or negative mood. However,
before dismissing intrinsic motivation as predictor of proactive behaviour, the different
levels of autonomous motivation as discussed by Gagne and Deci may be examined.
Our results also revealed that our measure of role orientation was related to
proactive behaviour, but only when RBSE was not taken into account. Different result
might be obtained when using other measures of role orientation (e.g. Parker et al.,
1997). The divergent findings with regard to zero-order correlations and the regression
analysis suggest that role orientation is partly overlapping with role breadth self-efficacy.
Indeed, both were moderately correlated (Table 1), indicating that feeling responsible
for a broader range of tasks might foster the confidence to do them. Alternatively, one
might feel more confident for tasks that one has done before because one sees them as
part of one’s work-role. Owing to the cross-sectional nature of our study, we do not
know which one of these explanations is true. The nature of our study also prohibits any
causal inferences regarding the relationship between RBSE and proactive behaviour.
However, since we used co-worker ratings of proactive behaviour, some alternative
explanation for our results can be ruled out (common-source bias, consistency, self-
enhancement). Given that some forms of motivation were not significantly related to
co-worker ratings, it seems unlikely that co-worker ratings were inflated by the rater
liking a person who is highly motivated. Taken together, the present study suggests that
proactive motivation (RBSE and, to a lesser extent, role orientation) is predictive of
proactive behaviour. Since previous research has shown that RBSE can be enhanced
through training, involvement in extra-role tasks (improvement groups), and by granting
job control (Axtell & Parker, 2003; Parker et al., 2006), we suggest that through the same
means, proactive behaviour can be promoted.

Acknowledgements
This paper was presented at the 21st SIOP conference in Dallas, USA. We are grateful to Sabine
Sonnentag for the impetus to write this article, and to numerous research interns for their help
with the data collection.

References
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory:
Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 950–967.
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Motivation for proactive behaviour 629

Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Waterson, P. E. (2000). Shopfloor
innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 73, 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.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative:
Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139–161.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones
don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687–697.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.
Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 364–369.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate
workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other
organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852.
Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role
orientation and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49,
447–469.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). That’s not my job: Developing flexible employee
work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899–929.
Parker, S. K., Williams, E. S., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior
at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the
interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518–528.
Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between
control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field study in East
Germany. Human Performance, 10, 171–192.
Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Carter, A. (2005). Creative requirement: A neglected construct in
the study of employee creativity? Group and Organization Manangement, 30, 541–560.

Received 13 July 2006; revised version received 9 November 2006

You might also like