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

From Passive to Proactive Motivation:

The Importance of Flexible Role Orientations
and Role Breadth Self-efficacy
Sharon K. Parker*
Australian Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia

En deÂpit de la conviction largement reÂpandue qu'une force de travail proactive

est neÂcessaire pour faire face aÁ la concurrence, les recherches portant sur
l'eÂvaluation et la promotion de tels changements sont en nombre limiteÂ. Deux
deÂterminants virtuellement importants de la proactivite sont la disposition aÁ
la flexibilite de roÃle (FRO) et l'efficacite de l'ampleur du roÃle (RBSE). Ces
concepts beÂneÂficient d'une validite de construction et se diffeÂrencient de vari-
ables psychologiquement proches, mais leur validite discriminante en terme de
variables deÂpendantes n'a pas eÂte prouveÂe. Je montre dans cet article que la
FRO et la RBSE sont factoriellement distinctes des V.D. couramment utiliseÂes
en psychologie des organisations (satisfaction professionnelle, implication vis-
aÁ-vis de l'organisation, effort deÂployeÂ). Je montre aussi que la motivation
proactive et les classiques variables deÂpendantes ont comme preÂvu des relations
qui leur sont propres avec les diffeÂrent preÂdicteurs. J'en esquisse les impacts sur
la recherche et dresse un programme d'investigation plus vaste qui porterait
sur la motivation proactive.

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

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

of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia. Email: sharonp@agsm.edu.au
This research was part-funded by the Centre for Corporate Change, whose support is
gratefully acknowledged. Part of this paper was presented at the Work Motivation Conference:
Theory, Research and Practice for the New Millennium, June 22±25, 1999, Sydney, Australia.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers,

108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
448 PARKER

INTRODUCTION
It is widely agreed that a different type and level of contribution is expected
from employees within today's organisations (Mohrman & Cohen, 1995;
Lawler, 1992). To compete in a global market place, to satisfy demanding
customers, and to fully exploit the opportunities offered by flexible tech-
nologies, reliable performance of a fixed set of prescribed tasks is no longer
considered adequate. Instead it has been argued that a competitive advantage
will come from having flexible employees who are actively engaged in broad
open-ended and interdependent roles, for example, employees who pro-
actively use their knowledge and display personal initiative (Frese, Kring,
Soose, & Zempel, 1996), and who have interpersonal skills and work cooper-
atively (Parker, Mullarkey, & Jackson, 1994; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
In the words of one UK manager, employees are required who ``think on
their feet not with them'' (Tailby & Turnbull, 1987, p. 17).
One solution to the need for this type of workforce is to recruit employees
with the appropriate skills, attitudes, abilities, and personalities. However,
it is clear that many organisations do not have the opportunity to select
their workforce carefully from scratch, especially when there are pressures
for downsizing. An alternative strategy is to develop the existing workforce.
This principle of development is at the heart of the concept of the learn-
ing organisation (Handy, 1992), and is a core principle of practices such as
empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995) and high involvement (Lawler, 1992).
However, with a few exceptions (described later), there has been little
systematic research attention concerning how to promote proactive attitudes
and behaviours amongst the workforce. The concept of proactivity, for
example, has more often been considered as a stable personality trait (Bate-
man & Crant, 1993) than as an outcome. Most motivational research that
evaluates the effect of interventions such as learning programmes or work
redesign uses objective measures such as performance and absence or, even
more typically, attitudinal and affective reactions such as job satisfaction
and affective organisational commitment. For example, a BIDS search1 of
psychology and management articles over the last five years suggested that
there were 5,893 work or job-related articles on job satisfaction, organis-
ational commitment, and job strain. Not all of these articles can be assumed
to be studies in which these variables are treated as outcomes, but even if

________________
1
PSCYHlit records from 1995 to 2000 were searched. The first search was: [job satisfaction
or organiz(s)ational commitment or affective commitment or stress or job strain or mental
health] and [job or work]. The second search was: [proactivity or proactive behavior/our or
proactive motivation or flexible role orientation or role breadth self-efficacy or personal
initiative or taking charge behavior/our or spontaneous behavior/our] and [job or work].

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 449

this figure is halved, it still contrasts sharply with the 17 articles that con-
sidered proactivity-related concepts (of which there were approximately five
unpublished studies and six published articles that considered these vari-
ables as work outcomes). Many researchers clearly focus on outcomes such
as job strain, job satisfaction, and organisational commitment, and this
research remains important. However, there is value in including motiva-
tional variables that are explicitly designed to assess proactive and flexible
aspects.
One of the reasons for a lack of research attention to proactivity and
related concepts stems from the unavailability of appropriate measures that
are reliable, valid, easy to use, and responsive to change. Two questionnaire-
based indicators of proactive motivation have recently been developed:
flexible role orientations (FRO; Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997) and role
breadth self-efficacy (RBSE, Parker, 1998). These concepts have been shown
to be distinct from related personality variables, such as proactive person-
ality. However, there is no evidence that these concepts are distinguishable
from outcome measures traditionally used in organisational research. To
encourage researchers to consider the inclusion of more proactive concepts
in their research, it is important to establish whether these variables are
distinct from those that are most commonly used. My aim in this article is to
investigate the discriminant validity of the concepts by investigating whether
FRO and RBSE can be differentiated from attitudinal and affective reaction
variables frequently used in organisational research, that is, job satisfaction,
organisational commitment, and job strain. I go on to describe the concepts
of FRO and RBSE and why they differ from traditional outcome measures.
I then outline the approach used to investigate discriminant validity.

FLEXIBLE ROLE ORIENTATION AND ROLE BREADTH

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

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

450 PARKER

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

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

Within a production context, we operationalised the concept of FRO in

two ways. Rather than directly asking respondents whether they have a
broad view of their role, which is likely to be highly susceptible to social
desirability bias, both measures were designed be indirect. First, a measure
of ``production ownership'' assessed the extent to which employees felt owner-
ship of, or concern for, work issues beyond their immediate operational
tasks. Second, a measure of ``perceived importance of production knowl-
edge'' assessed the degree to which employees recognised the importance of
acquiring and using a range of skills and knowledge to enable them to
contribute at that broader level. For example, a narrow role orientation
is shown by someone who sees the most important requirement as doing
``what I am told'', whilst a more proactive role orientation is shown by
someone who recognises that key competencies of the role include being self-
directed, using initiative, and knowing about customers. This measure was
shown to discriminate amongst employees in the expected ways. In addition
to the validity data presented in the Parker et al. (1997) study, unpublished
studies have shown that FROs predict job performance amongst employees
working in self-managing teams (Parker, 1994) and predict independent
ratings of employees' personal initiative (Swinden, Parker, & Clegg, 1998).
A second prerequisite for employees behaving proactively and carrying
out a range of integrative and interpersonal tasks is that they must feel
capable of behaving in these types of ways, or possess what I have described
as ``role breadth self-efficacy'' (RBSE; Parker, 1998). Self-efficacy refers
to people's judgments about their capability to perform particular tasks
(Bandura, 1986), and it has been identified as a key motivational construct
within organisations (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). For example, research has
shown that employees who have self-efficacy for particular tasks will
perform them better (Barling & Beattie, 1983) and will persist at them when
problems arise (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1987). The concept of RBSE was
designed to relate to the flexible performance requirements within modern
organisations, and concerns the extent to which people feel capable of
carrying out a range of proactive interpersonal and integrative tasks beyond
prescribed technical requirements (for example, designing improved pro-
cedures, setting goals and targets, presenting information to management,
and meeting with customers or suppliers).
Conceptually, FRO and RBSE are considered as malleable states. It is
assumed that these states can change in response to situational change and

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 451

interventions. These concepts therefore differ from related dispositional

variables. For example, self-esteem is usually considered to be a stable trait
reflecting an individual's characteristic and affective evaluation of the self.
Self-efficacy, on the other hand, is a judgment about specific task capability
(Brockner, 1988) that has been shown to be amenable to change through
interventions such as training (Wood & Bandura, 1989). RBSE is a judg-
ment about capability across a particular set of tasks that is also amenable
to change. Parker (1998) showed that RBSE was distinct from both self-
esteem and proactive personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993). By the same
reasoning, the concept of FRO is related to, but distinct from, the dis-
positional concept of openness to experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Although this latter concept emphasises aspects that are clearly related to
proactive motivation, such as being receptive to new ideas, openness to
experience is considered to be stable over time.
Consistent with the argument that FRO and RBSE are malleable and can
be seen as outcome (or dependent) variables, longitudinal research has demon-
strated change in these variables. Parker et al. (1997) showed that FROs
increased in a situation where autonomous forms of working were intro-
duced, but not in a comparison group, and Parker (1998) showed enhanced
job autonomy and improved communication quality both predicted higher
RBSE. These findings concur with long-established arguments that sim-
plified low autonomy jobs engender passivity and learned helplessness (e.g.
Argyris, 1957; Kornhauser, 1965; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). The conclusions
are also consistent with the few longitudinal studies that have examined the
relationship between job design and proactive attitudes or behaviours; most
notably, the studies by Frese and colleagues showing that enhanced job
complexity is associated with the display of more personal initiative (Frese
et al., 1996) and that this association can be partly attributed to the devel-
opment of greater work-related self-efficacy (Speier & Frese, 1997).

DIFFERENTIATING FROS AND RBSE FROM TRADITIONAL

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

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

452 PARKER

employees expand the set of established tasks of a ``job'' and take on or

create the emergent tasks of a flexible ``role'' (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991;
see also Speier & Frese, 1997). Role orientation encapsulates proactivity by
assessing the scope of emergent problems that employees feel responsible
for, as well as the extent to which they see proactive skills and knowledge as
important for their performance. RBSE assesses employees' self-efficacy to
carry out a range of proactive, integrative, and interpersonal tasks that
make up an emergent role.
In contrast, most traditional outcome variables are not designed to tap
proactive elements. Job satisfaction is typically conceptualised as employees'
affective response to their overall job or various aspects of their job such as
pay, intrinsic job content, and coworkers. As Bruggeman, Groskurth, and
Ulich (1975) argued, employees can experience a sense of resigned satis-
faction in which, because they can't change the situation, they have lowered
their level of aspiration and become resigned to the job. Most job satisfac-
tion measures are not designed to separate this type of passive satisfaction
from a more proactive motivational state. Affective organisational commit-
ment refers to the degree of identification, involvement, and emotional
attachment to an employing organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Although
this concept is often operationalised in active terms (such as being willing to
put in extra effort for the organisation), the direction of this activity is not
assessed (e.g. putting in effort does not necessarily encompass behaving
proactively or engaging in integrative tasks).
Job strain (also called job-related mental health) refers to negative
affective reactions experienced at work, and is typically assessed by the
presence or absence of various stress symptoms, such as feelings of anxiety
or inability to sleep. As such, this variable does not have a proactive com-
ponent. Interestingly, however, there is a compelling argument to consider
mental health not just in terms of an absence of stress symptoms but in more
active terms, such as having feelings of competence, mastery, and aspiration
(Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Warr, 1994). As Warr (p. 86) commented: ``we
should reject a `passive contentment' view of mental health''. From this
perspective, the development of RBSE and FRO can be seen as indicating
``active'' mental health.
Although I focus on attitudinal and affective reaction outcomes in this
study, it should be noted that FRO and RBSE are distinct from behavioural
outcomes such as contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993)
and organisational citizenship behaviour (Organ, 1988). These latter con-
cepts are concerned with volitional nontechnical activities, but definitions or
operationalisations of them typically include behaviours that are quite
passive in their orientation, such as compliance with procedures, punctu-
ality, and attendance (George & Brief, 1992; Parker, 1998; Speier & Frese,
1997).

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 453

A second way in which the traditional outcome variables differ from

RBSE and FRO is that the former tap more affective elements, whereas the
latter are more cognitive in their emphasis. Mischel & Shoda (1998)
identified the following types of cognitive-affective units in the personality
mediating system: encodings (categories, or constructs, for the self, people,
events, and situations); expectancies and beliefs (about the social world,
about outcomes for behaviour in particular situations, about self-efficacy);
affect (feelings, emotions, and affective responses); goals and values (e.g.
desirable outcomes and affective states); and competencies and self-regulatory
plans. Using this typology, job satisfaction and job strain relate most
strongly to the affect unit. Organisational commitment is also focused on
affect, although it emphasises identification with the organisation and
therefore relates to goals and values. FRO relates to the encoding unit (i.e.
people's encoding for their role) and the expectancies and beliefs unit. Role
breadth self-efficacy relates most closely to expectancies and beliefs. The
proactive motivation concepts are therefore more cognitive in their emphasis
than job satisfaction, organisational commitment, or job strain.
Related to the above point, a third way that FRO and RBSE differ from
the affective reaction outcome variables is that change in proactive moti-
vation is likely to be a learning process to a greater extent than is the case for
change in satisfaction, strain, or commitment. One way to conceptualise the
learning that takes place is in terms of development. Argyris (1957, 1964)
suggested that adult development can be seen in terms of progression along
various dimensions, such as from passive, reactive individuals to active and
proactive ones; from dependent to independent individuals; and from indi-
viduals with few abilities to ones with many abilities. The proactive moti-
vation concepts relate to these dimensions, albeit within the specific domain
of work roles. For example, employees who see their role as performing a
single task and calling the supervisor to deal with all problems could be seen
as passive and dependent employees whose learning and development at
work has probably been restricted. Change in role orientations is therefore
likely to involve some degree of learning or development.

ASSESSING THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE OUTCOME

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

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

454 PARKER

(job autonomy) would be associated with all of the outcome variables, one
predictor (job security) would be associated particularly with the traditional
outcome variables, and that another predictor (change receptiveness) would
be associated most strongly with the proactive motivation variables.
Research has shown strong links between job autonomy (employees'
degree of discretion in their work) and all of the outcome variables; that is,
job satisfaction (Black & Gregersen, 1997; Parker & Wall, 1998) job strain
(e.g. Karasek & Theorell, 1990), organisational commitment (Mathieu &
Zajac, 1990), FROs (Parker et al., 1997) and RBSE (Parker, 1998). Job
security, an employee's sense of power to be able to maintain desired
continuity in a threatened job situation (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984),
has been shown to be a strong determinant of job mental health, job
satisfaction, and commitment (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989; Jacobson, 1991;
Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990). However, there is no reason to expect a
strong link between the proactive motivation concepts and job security.
Finally, it is reasonable to expect that change receptiveness, the degree to
which an individual welcomes and copes well with change within the work-
place, will be related to the proactive motivation concepts. Individuals who
feel comfortable with and open to change are also likely to have a more
proactive role orientation and higher RBSE. More satisfied and committed
employees are perhaps also expected to be more receptive to change,
although it is anticipated that these relationships will be weaker than the
associations between change receptiveness and the proactive motivation
variables.

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

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

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 455

the importance of gaining and using a wide range of knowledge in order to

perform effectively, referred to by Parker et al. (1997) as the ``perceived
importance of production knowledge'' (PIPK). I used a slightly different
measure to that developed originally. Employees were asked to indicate
whether they felt they needed to know various things to do their job well,
such as knowing what the end customer of the product wants and knowing
the strengths and weaknesses of competitors. Respondents indicated yes (1)
or no (0), and responses were summed and averaged across nine items
(a = 0.88).
Role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE ; a = 0.95) was assessed using the 10-item
scale developed and validated by Parker (1998). Employees were asked to
rate how confident they would feel on a scale from 1 (not at all confident)
to 5 (very confident) carrying out various tasks, such as ``making suggestions
to managers about improving the working of their area''.
Job satisfaction (a = 0.88) was assessed by the 14-item scale developed by
Warr, Cook, & Wall (1979). Items assess satisfaction with those aspects that
are intrinsic to the job (e.g. use of skills) and those aspects that are extrinsic
to the job (e.g. pay, management). Items are scored from 1 (extremely
dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied), and summed together to give an
overall job satisfaction score.
Organisational commitment (a = 0.77) was assessed using six items from
the Cook and Wall (1980) measure that has been extensively used in
occupational studies. Respondents indicated on a five-point scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) their responses to statements such as
``I feel myself to be part of this company''.
Job strain (a = 0.86) was assessed using the negatively worded items from
the two subscales (anxiety±contentment and depression±enthusiasm) of Warr's
(1990) measure of job-related affective well-being. I used only negatively
worded items because previous research has shown that the positive and
negative items tend to factor into separate dimensions (e.g. Warr, 1990).
Employees were asked to indicate how much of the time in the past month
their job had made them feel miserable, worried, tense, depressed, anxious,
or gloomy on a five-point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (all of the time).

Work Characteristic and Individual Difference Measures. I assessed job

autonomy (a= 0.90) using the measure of job control developed by Jackson,
Wall, Martin, & Davids (1993). Items assessed the extent of timing control
(control over work pace and scheduling) and method control (choice in how
to carry out work tasks). A five-point response scale was used from 1 (not at
all) to 5 (a great deal).
Job security (a= 0.85) was assessed using a four-item scale derived from
Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison, and Pinneau (1975) that has been
shown to correlate with other measures of job security (Ashford, Lee, &

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

456 PARKER

Bobko, 1989). Respondents indicated how certain they felt about aspects of
their future job and career (e.g. ``whether your job skills will be valued five
years from now?'') on a six-point response scale from 1 (very uncertain) to 6
(very certain).
Change receptiveness was assessed by four items (a = 0.71). Participants
indicated their extent of agreement with statements such as ``I am most
comfortable with a stable work environment in which things tend to stay the
same'' (reverse scored), and ``I like being in a work environment where there
is a lot of change occurring''.

Background Variables. Questions about age, tenure, gender (1 = male,

2 = female) and job type (dummy coded) were included in the survey. These
variables were used as controls in the analyses investigating links between
predictor variables and outcomes.

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

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 457
TABLE 1
Pattern Matrix Factor Loadings for Factor Analysis of Items Using Maximum Likelihood
Extraction and Oblimin Rotation

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

Team ownership (Would it be of concern if:)

different people in your area were not coordinating their .92
efforts?
some colleagues in your area were not pulling their weight? .83
there was a lack of well-trained people in your area? .56

Job Satisfaction (Satisfaction with:)

the opportunity to use your ability .82
the amount of responsibility you are given .78
the amount of variety in your work .74
the freedom to choose your own method of working .68
the attention paid to suggestions you make .60
relationships between different levels in the organisation .57
the recognition you get for good work .55
your immediate boss .48
your chance of promotion .47
the physical work conditions .38
your fellow colleagues .31

RBSE (How confident would you feel:)

representing your work area in meetings with senior .89
management
writing a proposal to spend money in your work area .86
analysing a long-term problem to find a solution .84
making suggestions to management about ways to improve .84
the working of your section
helping to set goals and targets in your area .84
designing new procedures for your work area .81
contacting people outside the company (e.g. suppliers, .81
customers) to discuss problems
presenting information to a group of colleagues .81
contributing to discussions about the company's strategy .77
visiting people from other departments to suggest doing .71
things differently

PIPK (Perceived importance of knowing:)

the strengths and weaknesses of (Company C's) .87
competitors
who will be a major competitor in the future .85
(Company C's) current market position .76
what makes a leading product .65
the ideas and plans (Company C) has for the next five years .54
what new orders are coming in, in addition to the .54
production schedule
the type of relationship Company C has with external .52
suppliers
what the end user of Company C's products (i.e. the .50
customer) wants
about production costs .46

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

458 PARKER

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

Job strain (Frequency of feeling:)

tense .75
anxious .74
worried .73
depressed .72
gloomy .67
miserable .63

Goal ownership (Would it be of concern if:)

the quality of output from your area was not as good as it .85
could be?
requests for output from your area were repeatedly not .78
being met on time?
your customers (internal or external) were dissatisfied with .67
what they receive?
the way some things are being done in your area means .58
work was done unnecessarily?
some essential equipment in your area was not being well .52
maintained?
costs in your area were higher than budget? .51

Organisational commitment (Degree of agreement that:)

I feel myself to be part of this company .67
Even if Company X was not doing well financially, I would .65
be reluctant to change to another employer
I am quite proud to be able to tell people who it is I work for .64
I sometimes feel like leaving this job for gooda .60
I'm not willing to put myself out just to help Company Xa .44
(Satisfaction with the way your firm is managed) .39 .40
The offer of a bit more money with another employer .37
would not seriously make me think of changing my joba
(Satisfaction with job security) .30 .32
(Satisfaction with salary)

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

TABLE 2
Pattern Matrix Factor Loadings for Second-order Factor Analysis of Scales Using
Maximum Likelihood Extraction and Oblimin Rotation

Factor 1 Factor 2

Flexible role orientation (goal ownership) .87

Flexible role orientation (team ownership) .75
Role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE) .49
Flexible role orientation (perceived importance of production .45
knowledge)
Organisational commitment .31 .74
Job satisfaction .74
Job strain 7.51

Loadings less than .3 are not shown.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
TABLE 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Major Variables (N = 650)
Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
(SD)

1. Age 39.11 1.00

(10.94)
2. Gender 1.07 70.10** 1.00
(.25)
3. Tenure 8.85 0.51** 70.05 1.00
(7.33)
4. Production .73 70.09* 70.30** 70.07 1.00
(.44)
5. Managers .005 0.05 70.01 0.14** 70.39** 1.00
(.22)

FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION

6. Administration .004 70.02 0.45** 0.04 70.36** 70.05 1.00
(.20)
7. Engineering & .008 0.05 0.03 70.04 70.51** 70.07 70.07 1.00
support (.27)
8. Other jobs .007 0.07 0.11** 0.02 70.48** 70.07 70.06 70.09 1.00
(.27)
9. Job autonomy 3.36 0.14** 0.13** 0.19** 70.40** 0.24** 0.15** 0.16** 0.17** 1.00
(.93)
10. Job security 2.62 0.15** 0.04 0.20** 70.13** 0.11** 0.00 0.02 0.11** 0.30** 1.00
(1.23)
11. Change 3.37 70.08 0.09* 70.15** 70.24** 0.18** 0.00 0.11** 0.13** 0.15** 0.09* 1.00
receptiveness (.62)
12. Job satisfaction 4.33 0.10* 0.07 0.04 70.14** 0.13** 0.03 70.02 0.13** 0.35** 0.47** 0.08* 1.00
(.97)
13. Organisational 3.50 0.16** 70.03 0.17** 70.01 0.13** 70.04 70.13** 0.09* 0.20** 0.40** 0.09* 0.54** 1.00
commitment (.71)
14. Job strain 2.00 70.07 0.06 0.07 70.16** 0.07 0.11** 0.06 0.05 70.09* 70.26** 70.10* 70.36** 70.35** 1.00
(.72)
15. Goal 3.43 0.21** 70.01 0.19** 70.28** 0.26** 0.02 0.05 0.16** 0.23** 0.10* 0.23** 0.12** 0.24** 0.03 1.00
ownership (.90)
16. Team 3.11 0.12** 70.02 0.18** 70.27** 0.27** 0.01 0.02 0.17** 0.25** 0.06 0.18** 0.08* 0.16** 0.13** 0.67** 1.00
ownership (1.05)
17. PIPK 0.61 0.16** 70.14** 0.15** 70.10** 0.17** 70.10* 70.03 0.13** 0.13** 0.13** 0.17** 0.19** 0.28** 0.03 0.38** 0.29** 1.00
(.34)
18. RBSE 3.02 0.16** 70.01 0.17** 70.40** 0.31** 0.05 0.14** 0.20** 0.40** 0.11** 0.42** 0.13** 0.16** 0.00 0.44** 0.35** .30**
(1.06)

459
**P5.01, * P5.01
460 PARKER

Results of the factor analysis of items show that the concepts of RBSE
and role orientation are distinct from each other and distinct from the other
outcome measures. A second-order factor analysis using the scales as
variables was then conducted to determine whether there was a higher order
structure. Two factors were extracted, accounting for 46% of scale variance
(see Table 2 for the loadings). The proactive motivation scales factored on a
single factor, and the other outcome variables factored on the second factor.
There was a small positive loading of organisational commitment on the
first factor suggesting some shared variance between this concept and the
proactive motivation outcomes. This second-order factor analysis supports
the idea that proactive motivation variables can be differentiated from those
outcomes traditionally used in organisational research.
Consistent with the second-order factor analysis, inspection of the cor-
relations between the scales derived from the factor analysis2 (see Table 3)
showed that proactive motivation variables had moderate to high inter-
correlations with each other, as did the traditional outcome variables, but
the correlations between the proactive motivation concepts and the tradi-
ional outcome variables were low to moderate. Job satisfaction had small
positive associations with perceived importance of production knowledge,
RBSE, goal ownership and team ownership; organisational commitment
had small positive associations with these variables; and job strain had a
small positive association with team ownership, but nonsignificant associ-
ations with the other proactive motivation variables.

Differential Associations Between Predictors and Outcomes. The next step

was to examine whether there were differential associations of the outcome
variables with work characteristics and individual differences as predicted.
The zero-order correlations shown in Table 3 do not take account of inter-
correlations among the variables. I therefore examined the hypothesised
links between predictors and outcomes using structural equation modelling.
This analysis provided information on the unique paths between constructs
and also corrects for unreliability of measures.
A model in which each of the predictors linked to outcomes in the
hypothesised way was tested using the LISREL VIII programme (Joreskog
& Sorbom, 1993). The measurement error in each variable was fixed to
[(1-reliability)6variance of the observed measure]. Internal consistency
reliability estimates were used to estimate the reliability of the measures. The

________________
2
These scales were the same as described in the method, except I created a separate scale for
team ownership (team ownership items) and goal ownership scale (goal and operational
ownership items), and I excluded the three items from the job satisfaction scale that loaded on
other factors.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 461

predictor variables were allowed to intercorrelate, as were the outcome

variables. Using multiple fit indices, and drawing on accepted principles for
evaluating these indices (e.g. Bentler, 1990), this model provided a very good
fit to the data: w2 (7) = 13.73, Goodness of Fit Index = 1.00 (adjusted
= 0.97), Standardised Root Mean Square Residual = 0.02, Normed Fit
Index = 0.99, Nonnormed Fit Index = 0.97, Comparative Fit Index = 1.00.
The hypothesised model was a significantly better fit than the null model,
w2diff (38) = 1617.68, P50.02, which was a very poor fit to the data, w2 (45)
= 1631.41.
In accordance with accepted practice for testing structural models, I tested
plausible alternative models. These alternative models tested whether the
model fit was significantly improved by specifying all possible additional
direct paths, or significantly impaired by deleting the hypothesised paths.
Support for the hypothesised model emerges if the models with additional
paths do not fit the data better than the hypothesised model, and if the
models with core paths deleted provide a poorer fit (Kelloway, 1996). This
was the case here. Including additional paths from job security to the four
proactive motivation outcomes did not significantly improve the fit, w2 diff
(4) = 8.86, nor did including additional paths from change receptiveness to
job satisfaction, commitment, and strain, w2 diff (3) = 4.85. Removing the
following hypothesised paths resulted in a significantly worse fit: between
job autonomy and the three affective reaction variables, w2 diff (3) = 39.77,
P50.01; between job autonomy and the four proactive motivation
outcomes, w2 diff (4) = 89.51, P50.01; between job security and the three
affective reaction outcomes, w2 diff (3) = 134.93, P5.01; and between change
receptiveness and the four proactive motivation outcomes, w2 diff (4) =
111.87, P50.01. These results support the hypothesised model. The next
step was therefore to examine each of the hypothesised pathways in more
detail.
Inspection of the standardised parameter estimates showed that most
hypothesised pathways were significant. Job autonomy predicted job satis-
faction (b = 0.25, P50.01), organisational commitment (b = 0.10, P50.05),
goal ownership (b = 0.19, P50.01), team ownership (b = 0.24, P50.01),
perceived importance of production knowledge (b = 0.11, P50.01), and
role breadth self-efficacy (b = 0.34, P50.01). Job security predicted job satis-
faction (b = 0.44, P50.01), organisational commitment (b = 0.43, P50.01),
and job strain (b =70.28, P50.01). Change receptiveness predicted goal
ownership (b = 0.23, P50.01), team ownership (b = 0.18, P50.01), perceived
importance of production knowledge (b = 0.19, P50.01), and role breadth
self-efficacy (b = 0.44, P50.001). The only hypothesised pathway that was
not significant was that between job autonomy and job strain (b =70.01).
The above analyses were repeated controlling for age, gender, tenure, and
job type. This was achieved by including pathways between these and all of

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

462 PARKER

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

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

This study shows that RBSE and FRO are factorially distinct from the
attitudinal and affective reaction variables most commonly used in
motivational research: job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and
job strain. The proactive motivation measures are also more similar to each
other than they are to the traditional outcome measures, as shown by
examining the correlations between scales and the structure obtained from
the second-order factor analysis. Comparing associations with various work
characteristics and individual difference factors further shows their
distinctiveness. As hypothesised, job autonomy predicted all outcomes
(except job strain), job security predicted only the traditional outcome
variables, and change receptiveness predicted only FRO and RBSE. The
latter finding is consistent with Parker and Sprigg (1999) who found a
positive association between proactive personality and both FRO and
RBSE, but no association between this individual difference variable and
job strain. Both of these findings support the argument that the RBSE and
FRO encapsulate more proactive elements than traditional outcomes.
Taking the results together with those from earlier studies, it is clear that
there is added value in including proactive motivation concepts as outcomes
in organisational research, especially given the increasing emphasis on
developing a flexible, self-directed, and interpersonally effective workforce.
Previous research has shown that it is possible for employees to develop on
these dimensions, and the current study has shown that this type of change
will be distinct from change on the most commonly investigated dimensions.
The proactive motivation concepts can be used for a multitude of purposes,
and the fact that they are questionnaire-based facilitates their wider use. For
example, they could be used as indicators of the employee propensity to
proactively and flexibly engage in a broader work role; as measures of
positive mental health over and above assessing the presence of sympto-
matology; as broad indicators of employees' learning and development
(Parker & Sprigg, 1999); as measures of the degree to which individuals'
orientations and self-efficacy are aligned with organisational goals. Which-
ever framework they are considered from, the key point is that the inclusion
of concepts like these in motivational research should help to close the
gap between the much talked about proactive workforce and the lack of
systematic inquiry on how to promote this type of employee.
To date, I have emphasised the distinctiveness of the proactive motivation
concepts, as that was the focus of this study. However, it is worth noting

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 463

that organisational commitment and job satisfaction had small positive

associations with these concepts, suggesting that employees with higher
proactive motivation are also more committed to their work and more
satisfied with their jobs. One explanation for this finding is that job satis-
faction and commitment lead employees to take on broader and more
proactive roles; another is that employees with a sense of self-efficacy or a
role orientation that is consistent with organisational goals might experience
a better fit with the organisation and therefore be more satisfied and
committed. The important conclusion is that aiming for a committed and
satisfied workforce is likely to be compatible with aiming to develop a more
proactive one.
This compatibility, however, might not extend to minimising job strain.
Parker and Sprigg (1999) found no association between RBSE and FRO
with job strain. There was also little evidence here that a workforce with
proactive motivation was also a less stressed one; indeed, one aspect of role
orientationÐteam ownershipÐwas associated with more job strain. On the
surface, these findings might be seen as contradicting the view that role
concepts can be conceived as positive mental health indicators. However,
the different components of mental health are not always related. As Warr
(1994, p. 86) stated, ``healthy people often experience strain or anxiety in
coping with their environment, and indeed they may create stressful situ-
ations as they identify and pursue difficult targets''. Warr (1994) suggested
that feelings of strain can be associated with an overall high level of mental
health, so long as the strain is neither excessive nor sustained over a long
period of time. Warr's perspective suggests the value of a broader definition
of mental health, and points to the inclusion of proactive motivation in
stress audits and mental health assessments.
It is also possible that the relationship between proactive motivation and
outcomes such as job strain and job satisfaction is more complex than the
direct links examined here. Jex and Bliese (1999) found that, compared to
those with low self-efficacy, army soldiers with high self-efficacy reacted less
negatively in terms of psychological and physical strain to long work hours
and work overload, and responded more positively in terms of job satis-
faction to tasks with high significance. One might predict the same buffering
consequences of RBSE, especially for those work stressors that relate to
carrying out a demanding and flexible work role, such as frequent exposure
to change.
A final comment on the study results concerns the production ownership
measure of FRO. This measure was designed to assess ownership of three
types of problems: goals, operational efficiencies, and team cohesion and
coordination. However, results of the factor analysis suggest that employees
do not necessarily distinguish between ownership of goals and ownership of
the operational mechanisms that support these goals, but they do differ-

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

464 PARKER

entiate both of these from ownership of problems relating to team cohesion

and coordination. One explanation for this is that employees might not see
a link between ``soft'' processes such as team coordination and the achieve-
ment of ``hard'' goals, and therefore they can feel ownership for one but not
the other aspect. In future studies, there could be value in distinguishing
between these types of ownership to examine whether they have different
antecedents and outcomes. For example, team ownership is likely to be
especially salient in team-working settings but less important when indi-
viduals work independently.

LIMITATIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY AND BROADER

DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH
There is room for further development of the proactive motivation concepts.
To date there is only one measure of RBSE and two measures of FRO.
Developing multiple operationalisations of each concept, and showing their
convergence, will enhance confidence in the construct validity of the con-
cepts. Moreover, to establish the predictive validity of the concepts, there
is a need to investigate the link between the proactive motivation concepts
and behavioural outcomes (ideally using nonself-report measures), such as
proactive behaviour, personal initiative, adaptability, and job performance.
Exploratory studies have shown a link between flexible work orientations
and the extent to which employees display proactive behaviours (Swinden,
Parker, & Clegg, 1998) and job performance (Parker, 1994), but these studies
are not published. There is also considerable general evidence that self-
efficacy is related to performance and choice of behaviour (Gist & Mitchell,
1992), and, more specifically, to the display of greater personal initiative
(Speier & Frese, 1997). It is therefore entirely plausible to expect that RBSE
will promote greater displays of proactive behaviours, and hence employee
performance, but this has not been tested. Neither has there been any con-
sideration of the moderators of these associations. I propose that RBSE and
role orientations will promote proactive and self-directed behaviours, but
that the ultimate effect of these behaviours on overall job performance will
depend on the context. It is likely that proactivity will be especially import-
ant for performance in highly uncertain and interdependent environments,
but that it will be less important or even unimportant in other situations
such as highly routinised and stable contexts. One could also investigate
whether there is an interactive effect of having both a FRO and RBSE. Thus,
perceiving it is one's job to take on proactive tasks as well as having the
confidence to carry out such tasks might be much more strongly related to
proactivity and job performance than the additive effects of these components.
Another issue concerns proactive motivation at the group level. Although
team issues are implicit in the concepts (RBSE assesses employees' self-efficacy

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 465

carrying out interpersonal skills central to team working), the concepts are
operationalised at the individual level. If team proactivity is the outcome of
interest (e.g. Tesluk & Mathieu, 1999), then it could make more sense to
compare teams' mean levels, and variations, on the proactive motivation
variables. For example, teams that have a moderate but homogenous level
of aggregated RBSE could differ from teams that have a moderate level of
aggregated RBSE but much heterogeneity.
A second way the concepts could be developed for teams is to assess
employees' perceptions of their team's RBSE and orientation. For example,
rather than asking employees how confident they feel about making
suggestions to management, employees could be asked how capable they
feel their team is in these respects. This approach would be similar to that
used to assess ``collective self-efficacy'' (e.g. Jex & Gudanowski, 1992), but
it would be a more specific approach. The latter concept usually focuses
on employees' perceptions about the general performance capability of the
team (e.g. ``The department I work for has above average ability'', Jex &
Gudanowski, 1992).
The proactive motivation concepts can also potentially be applied to
other domains. For example, the author and colleagues are currently
developing these variables in relation to safety (a proactive orientation
towards safety); and in today's increasingly uncertain world, one could also
see the value of developing a flexible career orientation.
A further research need relates to the question posed at the outset of
this paper concerning how flexible and proactive attitudes and behaviours
can be facilitated. Existing research has pointed to the importance of job
autonomy (e.g. Parker et al., 1997), job complexity (e.g. Speier & Frese,
1997) and, in the case of RBSE, high quality communication (Parker, 1998).
It is important to investigate these interventions further. For example, job
redesigns that enhance job autonomy also often involve other supporting
changes, such as participative goal setting, clearer feedback, a coaching style
of supervision, and skill-based payment systems. Job autonomy without
these supportive changes could be worse than no change in autonomy, or it
might be ineffective. Moreover, where employees have had long-term sim-
plified jobs, and hence are likely to have become passive as a result, preparatory
interventions that help employees to take advantage of the autonomy afforded
to them might be needed. In a recent study, we found that job autonomy
predicted RBSE for very proactive employees, but was a weaker predictor
for passive employees, especially in situations of high demand (Parker &
Sprigg, 1999). We concluded from this finding that employees who are
passive could be trained or coached to deal more effectively with common
job demands as a precursor to job design interventions.
A further potentially important facilitator of proactive motivation is
transformational leadership. Transformational leaders are leaders who

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

466 PARKER

transmit a sense of mission, stimulate learning experiences, and arouse new

ways of thinking in order to promote performance beyond ordinary
expectations (Hater & Bass, 1988). This style of leadership could directly
promote the development of more FROs and greater RBSE, or could
promote this change indirectly such as by increasing job autonomy and
improving communication quality. Finally, it might be possible to design
specific interventions to promote proactive motivation, such as programmes
that socialise employees into more flexible work roles (e.g. introducing a job
``induction'' process for employees already in their jobs) or interventions
that enhance employees' understanding of the wider organisation and context
(e.g. visiting schemes, increasing knowledge of customer needs).
The above recommendation for research focuses primarily on situational
determinants of proactive motivation. However, there is a need to consider
more explicitly how individual differences in personality, ability, skills, and
knowledge affect the development of role orientations and RBSE, and how
these factors interact with the situation. Some dispositional variables have
been considered in relation to proactive motivation (e.g. proactive person-
ality and change receptiveness), but there are likely to be other important
variables. Reviewing the potential personality determinants is beyond the
scope of this article, but there are several literatures to draw on, such as
research on self-efficacy (Gist & Mitchell, 1992) and on role making. For
example, Graen (1976; see also Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991) suggested ``role
readiness'' as an aspect that might ease an individual's assimilation of new
roles.

REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: HarperCollins.
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York:
Wiley.
Ashford, S., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and consequences of job
insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 803±829.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barling, J., & Beattie, R. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal
of Organizational Behavior Management, 5, 41±51.
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1±23.
Bateman, T.S., & Crant, J.M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational
behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103±118.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238±246.
Black, J.S., & Gregersen, H.B. (1997). Participative decision-making: An integration
of multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50, 859±878.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 467
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71±98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Bruggeman, A., Groskurth, P., & Ulich, E. (1975). Arbeitszufriedenheit. Bern:
Huber.
Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P. Jnr, Van Harrison, R.V., & Pinneau, S.R. Jr
(1975). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences.
Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Cook, J.D., & Wall, T.D. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organ-
isational commitment, and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 53, 39±52.
Davis, L.E., & Wacker, G.J. (1987). Job design. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of
human factors (pp. 431±445). New York: Wiley.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work:
Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal,
39, 37±63.
George, J.M., & Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeling goodÐdoing good: A conceptual
analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 112, 310±329.
Gist, M.E. & Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its
determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183±211.
Graen, G.B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M.D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201±
1245). Stokie, IL: Rand McNally.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity.
Academy of Management Review, 9, 438±448.
Handy, C. (1992). Managing the dream: The learning organization. London: Gemini
Consulting.
Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988). Supervisor's evaluations and subordinate's
perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 695±702.
Ilgen, D.R., & Hollenbeck, J.R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles.
In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiz-
ational psychology (2nd edn., pp. 165±207). California: Consulting Psychology Press.
Jackson, P.R., Wall, T.D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. (1993). New measures of job
control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 753±762.
Jacobson, D. (1991). A personological study of the job insecurity process. In J.F.
Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity:
Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 23±29). London: Sage Publications.
Jex, S.M., & Bliese, P.D. (1999) Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of
work-related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 349±361.
Jex, S.M. & Gudanowski, D.M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An
exploratory study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 509±517.
Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL VIII: User's reference and guide.
Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

468 PARKER

Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the
reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.
Kelloway, E.K. (1996). Common practice in structural equation modelling. In C.L.
Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organ-
izational Psychology (pp. 141±180). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Kornhauser, A. (1965). Mental health of the industrial worker. New York: Wiley.
Lawler, E.E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement
organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, K.C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretic-
ally derived variables in predicting career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy,
interest congruence, and consequence thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
34, 293±298.
Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171±194.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research,
and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality
dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229±258.
Mohrman, S., & Cohen, S.G. (1995). When people get out of the box: New
relationships, new systems. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work
(pp. 365±410). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Parker, S.K. (1994). Towards a new approach to job design research within modern
manufacturing: The investigation of employee work orientations. Unpublished
doctoral thesis. University of Sheffield.
Parker, S.K. (1998). Role breadth self-efficacy: Relationship with work enrichment
and other organizational practices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835±852.
Parker, S.K., Mullarkey, S., & Jackson, P.R. (1994). Dimensions of performance
effectiveness in high-involvement work organisations. Human Resource Manage-
ment Journal, 4, 1±21.
Parker, S.K., & Sprigg, C.A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The
role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 925±993.
Parker, S.K., & Wall, T.D. (1998). Job and work design: Organizing work to promote
well-being and effectiveness. London: Sage.
Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D., & Jackson, P.R. (1997). ``That's not my job'': Developing
flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899±929.
Roskies, E., & Louis-Guerin, C. (1990). Job insecurity in managers: Antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 345±359.
Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator
between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal
study in East Germany. Human Performance, 10, 171±192.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the work place: Dimensions,
measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442±1465.
Swinden, C.J., Parker, S.K., & Clegg, C.W. (1998) Personal initiative and the role of
work design: Definition, measurement developments, and validation in a specific

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

 FROM PASSIVE TO PROACTIVE MOTIVATION 469
work context. Proceedings of the First International Work Psychology Confer-
ence, Sheffield, UK 1±3 July: University of Sheffield.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd edn.). New
York: Harper & Row.
Tailby, S., & Turnbull, P. (1987). Learning to manage Just-in-time. Personnel
Management, January, 16±19.
Tesluk, P.E., & Mathieu, J.E. (1999). Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness:
Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of work group
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 200±217.
Warr, P.B. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental
health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129±148.
Warr, P.B. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health.
Work and Stress, 8, 84±97.
Warr, P., Cook, J.D., & Wall, T.D. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work
attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 52, 285±294.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory and organizational
management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361±384.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.