Personnel Review: Article Information

Personnel Review
Psychosocial effects of proactivity: The interplay between proactive and

collaborative behavior
Brenda E. Ghitulescu,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Brenda E. Ghitulescu, (2018) "Psychosocial effects of proactivity: The interplay between proactive
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 23:00 15 March 2018 (PT)
and collaborative behavior", Personnel Review, Vol. 47 Issue: 2, pp.294-318, https://doi.org/10.1108/

PR-08-2016-0209
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2016-0209
Downloaded on: 15 March 2018, At: 23:00 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 125 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 75 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2018),"Individual, group and organizational efficacies in predicting performance", Personnel Review,
Vol. 47 Iss 2 pp. 535-554 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2016-0212">https://doi.org/10.1108/
PR-08-2016-0212</a>
(2018),"Effort-reward imbalance at work: the role of job satisfaction", Personnel Review, Vol. 47
Iss 2 pp. 319-333 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2016-0218">https://doi.org/10.1108/
PR-08-2016-0218</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:543661 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
PR
47,2 Psychosocial effects of proactivity
The interplay between proactive and
collaborative behavior
294 Brenda E. Ghitulescu
School of Business, Department of Management,
Received 16 August 2016 The College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey, USA
Revised 1 April 2017
16 June 2017
Accepted 25 June 2017 Abstract

Purpose – Although proactivity is thought to have positive effects in the workplace, researchers still need to
learn more about the contingent aspects of these effects. Proactivity, a challenging form of promotive behavior
that is generally desired by organizations, can lead to unexpected consequences such as role overload, job strain,
and conflict with coworkers, which may undermine future proactivity. The purpose of this paper is to examine
the impact of proactive behavior on job satisfaction, affective commitment, and conflict with coworkers, in
the context of collaborative work. This study investigates the extent to which collaborative behavior, an
affiliative form of promotive behavior, can mitigate the impact of proactive behavior on conflict and promote
positive individual psychosocial outcomes, thus making proactive behavior more sustainable in the workplace.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a survey methodology, data were collected from a sample of
170 teachers engaged in collaborative work.
Findings – Results show that both proactivity and collaborative behavior positively impact affective
outcomes, but have opposite effects on conflict. Collaborative behavior complements proactive behavior in
that it enhances the effects of proactivity on satisfaction and reduces its impact on conflict.
Research limitations/implications – Creating the appropriate organizational conditions to support
employee proactivity is critical for enhancing proactive employees’ work experience and success, effectively
motivating and retaining them, and promoting future proactivity. The results indicate that collaboration
creates a context where the positive effects of proactivity are enhanced and its negative effects are weakened.
Originality/value – This research is one of the first studies to examine the interactive effects of proactivity
and collaboration. The study shows that collaborative behavior can play an important role in enhancing the
benefits of proactivity. Thus, the research advances a contingency perspective of proactivity and contributes
to a better understanding of its effects.
Keywords Quantitative, Proactive behaviour, Affective commitment, Job satisfaction, Conflict,
Collaborative behaviour
Paper type Research paper
Significant changes in the world of work in recent decades require workers to be more
proactive in addressing emergent demands and opportunities at work without the need
for close supervision (Griffin et al., 2007; Bindl and Parker, 2010). Employee proactivity
has emerged as a topic of interest among organizational scholars and practitioners
(Grant and Parker, 2009). Proactivity is anticipatory action that employees initiate to impact
themselves and their work environment, generally aimed at enacting work more effectively
(Grant and Ashford, 2008). Examples of proactive behavior include initiating improved work
procedures, seeking feedback, or actively adapting to new environments. Many organizations
view employee proactivity as critical for remaining relevant and competitive in a dynamic
environment (Ashford et al., 2003; Frese and Fay, 2001). Indeed, the ability to attract and retain
proactive workers represents an important source of competitive advantage for organizations
(Bolino et al., 2010).
Organizations also expect employee collaboration to achieve challenging organizational
Personnel Review
goals. Collaboration is increasingly important in a world that is more interdependent, and
Vol. 47 No. 2, 2018
pp. 294-318
© Emerald Publishing Limited This research was part of a larger study supported by the National Science Foundation
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-08-2016-0209 (Award No. 0228343).
teamwork has become a central part of work in organizations. Members of work groups are Psychosocial
expected to cooperate effectively and group leaders are judged by how well they deliver effects of
results in collaborative settings. Since proactivity and collaboration are increasingly proactivity
relevant in the world of work and often occur together, there is merit in studying how
collaborative behavior impacts the effects of proactivity. Indeed, scholars have argued that
there is an increased need to research new dimensions of performance relevant in today’s
world of work (Grant and Parker, 2009; Griffin et al., 2007; LePine and Van Dyne, 2001). 295
Following their call, this study considers collaborative and proactive behaviors as key
actions that contribute to organizational effectiveness in settings where workers need to
initiate changes and work together.
Specifically, this research examines the impact of proactivity on individual psychosocial
outcomes in a work setting that requires employees to collaborate. Our focus is on proactive
behavior as self-directed action to initiate change and shape the current boundaries of work
roles (similar to job crafting, Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001; Parker et al., 2006; Crant,
2000). Collaborative behavior captures the relational behavior that occurs between
individuals with different expertise, who see different aspects of a problem and work
together to find novel solutions (Gray, 1989). Proactivity and collaboration are promotive
behaviors, in that they promote, encourage, or cause things to happen (as opposed to
prohibitive behaviors, such as whistleblowing, which are protective and preventative)
(Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Proactive behavior is a challenging form of promotive
behavior because it is change oriented, challenges the status quo, and can damage
relationships; in contrast, collaborative behavior is affiliative because it is interpersonal,
cooperative, and can strengthen relationships. Our study extends existing research and
contributes to our knowledge of what happens when organizations expect employees to
engage in these two forms of promotive behavior with such different orientations.
To date most proactivity research has focused on the positive organizationally oriented
outcomes of proactive behavior. The literature provides a strong theoretical foundation and
empirical evidence for the organizational benefits of proactivity. For example, meta-analytic
evidence supports the positive impact of proactivity on desired organizational outcomes
such as job performance and innovation (Thomas et al., 2010; Tornau and Frese, 2013).
However, there is limited understanding of the potential downsides of proactivity. When
organizations expect proactive behavior, such expectations could also lead to undesirable
consequences for employees because proactivity has risks (Bolino et al., 2010; Grant et al.,
2011; Cooper-Thomas and Burke, 2012; Glaser et al., 2016; Strauss et al., 2017; Fay and
Hűttges, 2017). Proactive individuals may use methods that are inappropriate, or take
actions that are poorly timed or do not create value. Importantly, being proactive may lead
to job strain because it consumes time, mental energy, and depletes individuals’ resources;
proactive employees may also experience a sense of pressure or face resistance from
coworkers, thus undermining the sustainability of proactivity over time. Specifically,
proactivity can lead to increased conflict with coworkers over different ideas and task
strategies. Although task-related conflict can encourage task innovation, much research has
found that it can also impair the viability of collaborative work (De Dreu and Weingart,
2003; Lau and Murnighan, 2005) and thus undermine collaborative performance that is
critical to organizations (Amabile et al., 2001).
This paper argues that collaborative behavior can mitigate the negative effect of
proactivity by reducing conflict with coworkers, while enhancing proactive individuals’
work attitudes. The study examines the impact of proactivity and collaboration on job
satisfaction, affective commitment, and task-related conflict. Our choice of outcomes was
guided by the literature. Building on conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and
research on sustaining proactivity (Strauss et al., 2015), we focus on resources that enable
proactive individuals to sustain proactivity over time. Job satisfaction, a key indicator of
PR individual adjustment to organizational change (Rafferty and Griffin, 2006), is associated
47,2 with positive affective states that allow individuals to continue their proactive efforts even
after setbacks and maintain proactivity over time (Strauss et al., 2015). In addition, affective
commitment can influence subsequent performance, absenteeism, and turnover. Similarly,
task conflict, if differences remain unresolved or escalate, may create interpersonal hostility
(Yang and Mossholder, 2004) and decrease an individual’s work motivation. These
296 outcomes are consequential for ensuring proactive employees working collaboratively are
motivated to take initiative in the future and continue collaborative efforts. If proactivity is
beneficial for performance-related outcomes but potentially leads to negative individual
outcomes or damages work relationships, then it may not be sustainable in the long term.
Finally, our choice of outcome variables has practical relevance, because the organization
investigated was undergoing a major change that required collaborative behavior,

emphasized proactivity as key to job effectiveness, and expected sustained proactivity over
time. The outcomes selected reflect key outcomes of interest that help our understanding of
how organizations can effectively motivate and retain proactive workers and implement
collaborative practices. Thus, this study has the potential to contribute significantly to the
literature on two key aspects. First, it will add to our understanding of the interplay between
proactivity and the relational context of work; and second, it will provide answers to the
question of contingent effects of proactivity, by exploring the contexts that shape the
positive or negative outcomes of proactivity for individuals.
Proactive behavior and individual outcomes

Proactivity is often triggered by work-related problems requiring adaptation and flexibility,
and thus can help individuals adapt effectively to shifting job demands and initiate change
to improve task performance. Generally, proactive employees achieve superior performance
because they “select and create situations that enhance the likelihood of high levels of
performance” (Seibert et al., 1999, p. 417). Proactive behavior has been linked to positive
outcomes such as higher job performance, innovation, entrepreneurial success, and
organizational effectiveness (Belschak and Den Hartog, 2010; Grant et al., 2009; Tornau and
Frese, 2013; Fay and Frese, 2001; Frese and Fay, 2001; Baer and Frese, 2003). As a result,
proactive employees will experience higher job satisfaction because they can remove
obstacles preventing satisfaction (Seibert et al., 2001; Erdogan and Bauer, 2005).
Work adjustment and person-job fit theories suggest that proactivity can enhance job
satisfaction. According to work adjustment theory, proactive individuals can achieve higher
person-environment fit and thus experience increased satisfaction (Dawis et al., 1964).
Person-job fit theory suggests that proactivity directed at customizing one’s work
environment can lead to an enhanced sense of person-job fit and higher satisfaction
(Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). In addition, proactive individuals are more likely to experience
an increased sense of ownership over work and higher task significance. As a result, they
will enhance their ability to see how their efforts contribute meaningfully to the achievement
of organizational goals, and thus experience higher satisfaction (Hackman and Oldham,
1980a). Further, by actively developing skills needed for future situations (Parker et al., 2013;
Cangiano and Parker, 2015; Strauss and Parker, 2014), proactive behavior can create
opportunities for personal growth and the experience of competence, and thus can enhance
feelings of satisfaction. Empirical evidence from several studies supports a link between
proactive behavior and employee work attitudes, in particular job satisfaction (LePine and
Van Dyne, 1998; Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Further, a recent meta-analysis on
proactivity supports a positive link between proactive behavior and job satisfaction
(Thomas et al., 2010).
Proactive employees are also likely to be more affectively committed. Affective
commitment reflects individuals’ sense of organizational involvement and organizational
identification (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al., 1979). Proactivity literature Psychosocial
supports a link between proactivity and affective commitment, but interestingly most effects of
research has focused on commitment as an antecedent of proactivity (Belschak and proactivity
Den Hartog, 2010; Den Hartog and Belschak, 2007). Indeed, commitment can facilitate
proactivity because affectively committed employees’ sense of personal involvement in
the organization may inspire initiative-based goal striving. However, to date most studies
have been correlational and, thus, could not draw a clear conclusion about causality 297
(Belschak and Den Hartog, 2010).
In their recent proactivity meta-analysis of 103 independent samples, Thomas et al. (2010)
found conclusive evidence of the proactivity-affective commitment relationship, and argued
that proactivity can lead to increased commitment. Proactivity and affective commitment
share a unifying sense of being actively involved in the creation and development of
surrounding environments (Bateman and Crant, 1993; Den Hartog and Belschak, 2007).
As such, proactive individuals will recognize their own influential efforts in the workplace,
which will likely enhance their sense of identification with and feelings of involvement in their
organizational environments (Thomas et al., 2010). This is likely to occur via enhanced feelings
of empowerment, an increased task motivation manifested in key cognitions – competence,
impact, meaning, and self-determination (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995).
Empowerment is a central mechanisms to build commitment to the organization, because
employees who feel more empowered are more likely to reciprocate by being more committed
(Eisenberger et al., 1990; Kraimer et al., 1999).
Further, drawing on self-perception theory (Bem, 1972), which postulates that
individuals come to know their own attitudes and feelings partially by inferring them
from observations of their own behaviors, it is likely that proactive behavior aimed at
initiating change and thus facilitating organizational success will enhance an individual’s
affective commitment (Belschak and Den Hartog, 2010). Because proactive employees take
actions to anticipate future demands and thus more effectively do their jobs, they can
experience higher task self-efficacy (Bandura, 2002). Since efficacy beliefs are related to
subsequent goal setting, they can facilitate increased commitment, since commitment is
largely defined in reference to acceptance of and willingness to work for organizational
goals (Locke et al., 1984; Riggs and Knight, 1994; Saks, 1995). Lastly, due to its self-initiated
nature, proactive behavior reflects acting with a sense of volition and free-choice; thus, it
should facilitate autonomous motivation (Gagné and Deci, 2005; Ryan and Deci, 2000),
which has been related to affective commitment in previous research (Gagné et al., 2004):
H1. Employees who are more proactive at work will report higher levels of (a) job
satisfaction and (b) affective commitment.
While most research has examined the positive effects of proactive behavior, only recently
have scholars acknowledged that proactivity may also have drawbacks (Bolino et al., 2010;
Grant and Ashford, 2008). Too much proactive behavior may be problematic and
proactivity may be harmful if it is misguided (Bateman and Crant, 1993; Bolino et al., 2004).
For instance, proactive employees with low situational judgment effectiveness, an
individual characteristic that captures a general ability to make effective judgments or
responses to situational demands, are likely to act in a counterproductive manner as they
enact changes in the environment or challenge the status quo (Chan, 2006). Proactivity can
also come at a personal cost for proactive employees. Poorly performing employees who
seek feedback may harm their image by doing so (Ashford et al., 2003); frequent feedback
seeking may lead to negative evaluations by feedback givers (Ashford and Northcraft,
1992); and proactive employees who voice many concerns at work are less likely to be
promoted later, compared to their less proactive colleagues (Seibert et al., 2001). Others have
found that employees who are particularly proactive in their jobs can experience increased
PR job strain (Strauss et al., 2017) and may experience high levels of stress, role overload, and
47,2 work-family conflict due to inefficient coping mechanisms (Frese and Fay, 2001; Bolino and
Turnley, 2005).
As a challenging form of promotive behavior, proactivity involves challenging the status
quo and creating change, which entails considerable psychological risks for individuals
(Parker et al., 2010). Employees adopting a more proactive approach at work may challenge
298 elements of the established frameworks of work methods, task relationships, informal
norms, and expectations that employees have of one another. These behaviors may not
always be appreciated by coworkers as they are seen as “rocking the boat” and leading to
change that may not be welcome by others (Morrison and Phelps, 1999; Frese et al., 2007;
Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Thus, challenging the status quo can lead to coworker
resistance. Further, proactive employees may get more resources and recognition (such as
being seen as more loyal employees, getting promotions, and achieving prestige), leading to
increased competition with coworkers for these resources (Bolino et al., 2010; Van Dyne and
Ellis, 2004). Proactivity may also be seen by coworkers as self-serving, image-enhancing
behavior (Fiske and Taylor, 1991), potentially causing disagreements with coworkers ( Jehn,
1997; Jehn et al., 1999). Since our focus is on proactivity as changes initiated to shape the
boundaries of work roles, these disagreements are generally related to task content, goals,
and strategies.
It should be noted that coworkers do not always obstruct proactive employees. In
particular, in contexts where proactivity is useful for adapting to changing work demands
or emerging problems, coworkers might welcome novel and useful ideas that may be more
appropriate in the new situations. However, even novel ideas initially welcomed by
coworkers might lead to disagreements in the stages of implementing those ideas
( Janssen et al., 2004). Since proactivity includes behaviors enacted to initiate changes in
tasks, the potential for conflicts exists even though proactivity is intended to solve emerging
work demands. When proactive behavior is enacted, new ideas have to be worked out into
changes in tasks, role relationships, and working methods (Kanter, 1988). Therefore,
proactive behavior is likely to uncover divergent personal preferences of coworkers and lead
to increased conflict ( Jehn et al., 1999):
H2. Employees who are more proactive at work will report higher levels of task-related
conflict.
Previous research has suggested that task-related conflict has the potential to benefit
collaborative performance via a better understanding of the task, more critical evaluation of
each other’s ideas, and task innovation. However, recent research shows that even
functional forms of conflict (i.e. task-related) can impair group viability (the ability of a team
to retain its members through their satisfaction and willingness to continue working
together) and performance. Self-verification theory (Swann et al., 2004) suggests that
individuals become dissatisfied when they interpret challenges to their viewpoint as a
negative assessment of their competence. Further, information-processing perspective
(Carnevale and Probst, 1998) suggests that task conflicts are a distraction and require
resources that cannot be directly invested in task performance. All forms of conflict
have been found to negatively impact trust, respect, and cohesion in groups and thus impair
the viability of collaborative work ( Jehn et al., 2008). Finally, the potential benefits of task
conflict for group outcomes have also been challenged by recent meta-analytic evidence,
which shows a negative impact of task conflict on group viability, and a negative or no
relationship to performance (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; De Wit et al., 2012). All types of
conflict tend to be more negatively related to proximal outcomes such as satisfaction and
cohesion, than to distal outcomes such as performance. Interestingly, research evidence also
suggests that task conflict can undermine group viability and performance under certain
contingencies, such as when individuals involved in task disagreements cannot prevent Psychosocial
them from turning into relationship conflict (Yang and Mossholder, 2004). These intriguing effects of
findings suggest that conflict can have detrimental effects on the viability of collaborative proactivity
work, and thus may impair performance in collaborative tasks. Next we examine whether
collaborative behavior may moderate the effect of proactivity on satisfaction, commitment,
and conflict.
299
Collaborative behavior and individual outcomes
Collaboration has become a key factor for successful knowledge sharing, creativity, and
innovation. The increased use of collaborative work as a way to ensure the success of tasks
and projects is well documented in the literature (Pinto et al., 1993; Mohrman et al., 1995).
Collaboration is a process through which parties with different expertise, who see different
aspects of a problem, can constructively explore differences and find novel solutions to
problems that would have been more difficult to solve without the other’s perspective
(Gray, 1989). Collaboration has been discussed in the conflict resolution research as a
problem solving approach that is needed in situations where two parties have common
interests and stakes are high; in these situations, collaborative solutions provide maximum
satisfaction to both parties’ concerns (Thomas, 1976).
Drawing on this perspective on collaboration, as well as past research adopting a
behavioral view of collaboration, our focus is on collaborative behavior – an interaction that
occurs between individuals with different expertise who work together to find novel
solutions to problems by combining their expertise ( Jassawalla and Sashittal, 1998; Chen
et al., 1998). It should be noted that collaborative behavior does not necessarily occur within
traditional team contexts since possibilities for organizing collaboration have changed in
recent years (Wageman et al., 2012). Indeed, individuals can collaborate across different
groups, projects, organizations, cultures, and nationalities. In contrast to collaboration,
teamwork is a broader concept that encapsulates a larger set of behavioral processes such
as communication, use of others’ expertise, and coordination, and affective, cognitive and
motivation states, such as mutual respect and psychological safety (Ilgen et al., 2005).
Our focus here is on understanding the behaviors that make collaborative work effective in
a setting where individuals with different areas of expertise need to collaborate and combine
their knowledge to address emergent problems in their task environment. Following
suggestions in the teamwork literature, our approach reflects a substantive difference from
broader teamwork research and is driven by the purpose of this research (Valentine et al.,
2012; Edmondson, 1999). In particular, our purpose is to develop theory about a specific
behavioral process that can occur in organizational contexts where individuals need to work
together. Others have followed a similar approach in the past and investigated other
team-like concepts focused on key behaviors required in specific contexts (i.e. relational
coordination, Gittell, 2002; team learning behavior, Edmondson, 1999). For instance, Gittell
(2002) has examined relational coordination, a more spontaneous form of coordination that
focuses on the frequent, timely, accurate, and problem-solving communication required in
certain contexts such as patient care and flight departure.
Empirical evidence regarding the influence of collaborative behavior on the success of
work that requires proactivity and initiative is limited (Hoegl and Gemuenden, 2001). Our
interest is on the potential interaction between proactive and collaborative behavior because
proactivity, as a challenging behavior, may lead to conflict with coworkers and undermine
collaborative efforts. Thus, an interesting question is how can proactivity be sustained in
collaborative contexts? To be sustainable, both proactivity and collaboration must
contribute not only to better task performance, but also to the personal success of
individuals engaged in collaborative work, by increasing their motivation and ability to
engage in future collaboration (Hackman, 1987). Effective collaboration requires that
PR individuals work closely together to achieve their goals (Kohn, 1992), and is achieved when
47,2 individuals are willing and able to pool their knowledge and capabilities and align their
behaviors, or maximize their “cooperative capacity” (Milton, 2009). Thus, effective
collaborative behavior occurs when individuals employ this cooperative capacity by sharing
information and integrating their actions with those of others. Effective collaboration
provides opportunities for employees to acquire new knowledge and skills and validate their
300 novel ideas and initiatives. In turn, this can enable feelings of increased job satisfaction for
the collaborative workers. Indeed, empirical evidence suggests a strong relationship
between collaboration and individuals’ satisfaction with their work (Pinto et al., 1993;
Campion et al., 1993, 1996).
The link between collaborative behavior and affective commitment is less clear (Mathieu
and Zajac, 1990), with some scholars finding a negative relationship between teamwork and
commitment (Howell and Dorfman, 1981). However, there is evidence that collaborative
interaction strengthens affective commitment to the organization via enhanced feelings of
empowerment (Daily and Bishop, 2003; Tjosvold and Tsao, 1989; Welsch and LaVan, 1981).
As they work collaboratively, employees explore new ideas and can perform more
effectively, especially on complex tasks that benefit from sharing information. Working
collaboratively binds employees to each other and to the organization, and provides
increased opportunities for employees to share knowledge. In turn, this will facilitate new
skill learning and higher task self-efficacy, and promote personal growth. Thus, employees
will develop an understanding that they have gained something valuable from the
organization (O’Reilly, 1983; Tjosvold et al., 1983), and be more likely to reciprocate through
higher affective commitment (Saks, 1995; Riggs and Knight, 1994):
H3. Employees who engage in more collaborative behavior will report higher levels of (a)
job satisfaction and (b) affective commitment.
Engaging in collaborative behavior should facilitate opportunities for knowledge sharing
and the development of a common understanding of how work should be done. These
knowledge sharing opportunities can help proactive individuals overcome any potential
work disagreements or differences of opinion with coworkers. Since collaborative behavior
is an affiliative form of promotive behavior, it tends to be agreement oriented (Van Dyne and
LePine, 1998). As such, it is likely to reflect an individual’s willingness to make trade-offs
and compromises with coworkers, and should reduce tensions and conflict:
H4. Employees who engage in more collaborative behavior will report lower levels of
task-related conflict.
Combined effects of proactivity and collaboration

Although proactive and collaborative behaviors have been linked to positive affective
outcomes such as job satisfaction and affective commitment, their underlying nature is very
different. Proactivity, a challenging behavior, is change oriented and, therefore, risky. It
reflects an individual’s willingness to experience uncertainty when promoting change and
thus may be received negatively by coworkers (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). On the other
hand, collaboration, an affiliative behavior, is agreement oriented because it reflects an
individual’s willingness to experience trade-offs and compromises with coworkers to
achieve the desired work outcomes. The hypothesized opposite effects on conflict with
coworkers are a direct effect of these different orientations of proactivity and collaboration.
The combined emphasis on proactive and collaborative behavior presents individuals
and organizations with a dilemma. On the one hand, it is beneficial for organizations when
employees engage in both proactive and collaborative behavior, because organizations will
reap the benefits of novel ideas, improved work approaches, and the exchange of diverse
perspectives. On the other hand, although proactivity is more likely to increase individual Psychosocial
satisfaction, it can also facilitate the experience of conflict. Conflict is not always detrimental effects of
to group outcomes. Task-related conflicts can facilitate innovative, superior decision proactivity
making by preventing premature consensus and facilitating more critical thinking
( Jehn, 1997; Pelled et al., 1999). However, as discussed earlier, recent meta-analysis research
has revealed intriguing results, in that task conflict can negatively impact satisfaction and
cohesion, undermining the viability of collaborative effort, and can have a negative or no 301
effect on performance (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; De Wit et al., 2012).
In light of these findings, we argue that collaborative work will enhance the satisfaction
and affective commitment of proactive employees, and lower perceived conflict. Workplaces
where empowered employees are encouraged to be proactive and collaborate with coworkers
should be well positioned to reap the benefits of both proactivity and collaboration. When
proactive employees actively collaborate with coworkers, they can discuss the benefits and
costs of various ideas and develop a shared understanding of work. As a result, they can make
trade-offs regarding appropriate task strategies to be used and methods to implement these
ideas. Therefore, it is expected that engaging in collaborative behavior will lower the effect of
individual proactivity on task-related conflict with coworkers.
Further, collaborative behavior should also enhance the positive effects of individual
proactivity on satisfaction and affective commitment. Proactive employees who engage in
collaborative behavior with coworkers are more likely to see their initiatives and ideas
tested by coworkers and ultimately improved and adopted with a higher likelihood of
successful task performance. Collaborative behavior allows individuals to see that potential
conflicts are about actual outcome and process improvements and not about others trying to
obstruct them, and thus enables them to solve any task-related disagreements. This, in turn,
should increase proactive employees’ satisfaction with work and their collaborating
colleagues, and result in higher organizational attachment. Therefore, the positive effects of
proactivity on individual affective outcomes will be most pronounced when occurring in
concert with high collaborative behavior. Figure 1 depicts our hypothesized model:
H5. Collaborative behavior moderates the relationship between proactive behavior and
task-related conflict: the positive effect of proactivity on conflict becomes weaker as
collaborative behavior increases.
Job satisfaction
H1a
H3a
H6a
H1b
Proactive behavior Affective commitment
H6b
H2 H3b
H5
Conflict
H4
Figure 1.
Collaborative behavior
Hypothesized model
PR H6. Collaborative behavior moderates the relationship between proactive behavior and
47,2 (a) job satisfaction and (b) affective commitment: the positive effect of proactivity
becomes stronger as collaborative behavior increases.
Methods
302 Research setting and procedures
This research was conducted with a sample of special education teachers in a large public
school district in the USA, as part of a larger study on district reform and social capital.
The research context was compelling for several reasons. The school district was undergoing a
major organizational change focused on two initiatives – the implementation of a new
mathematics curriculum and the adoption of collaborative classroom practice in special

education. At the time of data collection, the district had partially adopted collaborative
instruction for special education, with some special and regular education teachers being paired
together for dyad classroom instruction. The district was in the process of implementing the
new curriculum, thus teachers’ work required more proactive efforts to anticipate new
problems and shifting demands. Generally, special education teaching requires extensive
initiative on a daily basis to cope with complex demands, anticipate new issues, and adapt to
changing conditions. In the context of new curriculum implementation, these behaviors were
even more critical to teachers’ effectiveness since the district relied on teachers to improve and
refine teaching of the new curriculum. Although many special education teachers in the district
were still teaching in stand-alone classrooms, the teachers included in this study were those in
collaborative classrooms, because our goal was to understand the interplay between
collaborative work and proactivity. Collaborative behavior in teacher dyads reflected task
interaction efforts between two professional workers with different areas of expertise, with the
expectation that they successfully balanced their contributions to classroom instruction.
For the school district, the goal of the collaborative approach was to “mainstream” children
with special needs (i.e. minimize the differences between special education and other students).
Therefore, special education teachers needed to engage in effective collaboration with their
regular education counterparts in the classroom, and be proactive in their teaching.
Examining the concurrent effects of proactive and collaborative behaviors on
satisfaction, commitment, and conflict is an important endeavor in understanding how to
motivate and retain these workers. Retention of special education teachers is a critical issue,
since the nature of special education work poses several challenges for teachers. Their work
is very taxing, particularly in terms of stress and burnout (Cooley, 1995). Turnover is more
frequent among special education teachers than regular education teachers and more costly
to the school given the specialized training and certification required by the job. Indeed,
of the 170 teachers in our study, 33 left before the end of the next academic year for an
overall turnover rate of 19.4 percent. Proactive behavior can be instrumental in motivating
and retaining these teachers. In addition, understanding the impact of collaborative
behavior in this context can provide useful knowledge for improving work practices to
motivate and retain proactive teachers.
Of the 204 elementary schools in the district, 86 schools adopted collaborative work
arrangements for special education at the time of data collection and were included in this
study. All special education teachers in collaborative classrooms in these schools were
invited to participate. Surveys were distributed by a teacher representative and completed
by teachers during paid after-school time. Teachers received a $10 gift card for their
participation. Of the 229 collaborative special education teachers surveyed, 170 returned
usable surveys that were included in this study for a response rate of 74 percent. To ensure
confidentiality, the surveys were mailed to a third party for data entry. Archival information
from the district on demographics of the school population was also collected.
Most participating teachers were females (90 percent). In total, 44 percent of teachers Psychosocial
were between 25 and 34 years old, with the youngest participating teachers being under effects of
25 years old and the oldest ones between 55 and 64 years old. Experience in the teaching proactivity
profession varied between less than 1 year and more than 16 years, with an average of
5 years. All participating teachers had bachelor’s degrees, 76 percent of teachers had
master’s degrees, and 1 teacher had a doctorate degree. On average, there were 2.6
collaborative special education teachers per school. 303
Measures
To ground our measures in the work context being studied, we involved seven special
education experts in the district in designing survey items, making it more likely that we
capture proactive and collaborative behavior specific to special education teachers’ work
in collaborative classrooms. While we relied on survey data to test our hypotheses, we also
conducted five classroom observations of teachers at work in three different schools, and
conducted open-ended interviews with six teachers and three supervisors. Our observations
and interviews revealed that teachers frequently engaged in proactive behavior to cope with
the emerging demands in their work environment resulting from curriculum change.
Observations and interviews also revealed that it was critical for teachers to engage in
collaborative behavior with their regular education counterpart in the classroom and
balance their contributions to instruction. Based on this work, we developed contextualized
measures of proactive and collaborative behavior.
Proactive behavior. Following recommendations from the literature, we used context-
appropriate measures of proactive behavior (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). The rationale for
developing context-specific measures of proactivity stems from our theory. Identifying a
behavior as proactive depends in large part on the type of job being done (Parker et al., 2006;
Frese and Fay, 2001), and proactive behaviors vary depending on the situation (Frese et al.,
1996; Morrison and Phelps, 1999). There are also methodological reasons for developing
context-specific measures. Rather than using general statements such as “I make things
happen” that reflect proactivity-centered values, context-specific measures are “more likely
to result in a valid self-assessment because the socially desirable responses are less obvious”
(Parker et al., 2006, p. 642).
Based on our observations and interviews, a list of proactive behaviors was generated
and later used as input for a focus group with seven subject matter experts in the district.
These experts had considerable experience in special education teaching themselves and
coaching other teachers in the district, thus were knowledgeable about various teaching
issues that transcended a specific school. The purpose of the focus group was to refine the
sample of proactive behaviors identified that would be representative of teachers’
proactivity and show variance in the extent of use among teachers. This process resulted in
a set of ten refined items for the survey (α ¼ 0.81). The response format captured the
frequency of using proactive behaviors in the classroom and was informed by the focus
group ( five point scale; 1 ¼ “never”; 5 ¼ “for all class sessions”). Sample items included
“Use your own math games for students,” “Use math materials you purchased with your
own money,” and “Use songs you wrote to help students recall facts.”
Collaborative behavior. Our observations and interviews revealed that collaborative
behavior was key in achieving successful “mainstreaming” of special education students.
The subject matter experts indicated that, given the differences in expertise between the
special education and general education teachers, the essence of effective collaborative
behavior in the classroom entailed close interaction in classroom teaching, in making
changes to adopt the new curriculum, and balanced teacher contributions to classroom
instruction. According to our experts, the measure of collaborative behavior developed
PR captured meaningful differences in the extent to which teachers engaged in collaborative
47,2 efforts with their regular education counterpart in the classroom. Since our focus was on
special education teachers’ experiences and outcomes, the resulting three-item measure of
collaborative behavior captured special education teachers’ perception of collaborative
efforts with their regular education counterpart in the classroom ( five point scale;
1 ¼ “strongly disagree”; 5 ¼ “strongly agree”). A sample item was “We work closely with
304 each other when we teach our classes” (α ¼ 0.89).
Our approach to developing proactive and collaborative behavior measures was
guided by recommendations in the literature to ensure adequate content validity.
To increase content validity, scholars have recommended the use of a combination of
methodologies to study the same phenomenon, or triangulation (Denzin, 1978).
By combining and comparing data obtained via observation, open interviews, and
expert review of survey items, our approach minimizes the risk that survey measures
capture a priori assumptions about what is important in the construct rather than its true
meaning (Edmondson and McManus, 2007).
Conflict. A three-item measure of task-related conflict was adapted from Jehn (1997).
The measure was focused on disagreements about the content of tasks and procedures to
perform these tasks ( Jehn, 1997) and used a five-point response format (1 ¼ “strongly
disagree”; 5 ¼ “strongly disagree”). A sample item was “There is considerable conflict of
ideas regarding teaching our classes” (α ¼ 0.95). Job satisfaction was measured with three
items adapted from Hackman and Oldham (1980b), using feedback from our expert focus
group on the key job aspects that are relevant for teachers’ job satisfaction in this context.
Teachers were asked to report on their satisfaction with the job overall, with the level of
personal gratification they felt from doing their jobs, and with their immediate coworkers
(α ¼ 0.74; five point scale, 1 ¼ “very dissatisfied”; 5 ¼ “very satisfied”). Affective
commitment was measured using a four-item scale developed by Bryk and Schneider
(2002) specifically for use with teachers and schools. A sample item was “I feel loyal to this
school” (α ¼ 0.87; five point scale, 1 ¼ “strongly disagree; 5 ¼ “strongly agree”).
Control variables. Reasoning that more experienced teachers may be more attached to
their organizations, teacher experience on the job was included as control variable and
measured by asking teachers to report on the number of years they spent in the teaching
profession. Job complexity was also included as control variable, reasoning that more
complex work environments might influence task conflict with coworkers. Job complexity
was measured as the range of special education needs among students in each teacher’s
classroom. The interviews and focus group suggested that the more disability conditions
teachers encounter in their classroom, the more complex their jobs become. Finally, school
socio-economic status (SES) was included as control variable because schools whose student
bodies are comprised of children of lower socio-economic status are generally viewed as
more challenging work environments, and thus can affect teachers’ attitudes and
attachment. Following convention in the education literature, SES was measured by the
percentage of the student body eligible for government-subsidized lunches.
Because some of the measures we used were gathered from the same source, we followed
suggestions in the literature to investigate whether common method approach biased the
data (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Podsakoff et al., 2003; Conway and Lance, 2010).
Self-reports are clearly appropriate for some of the measures, such as job satisfaction and
affective commitment. Self-assessments of proactive behavior are appropriate because
individuals have easier access to and more readily available examples of their own
behaviors and can potentially detect behavior differences to a greater extent than their
supervisors or coworkers. Using self-assessments of proactive behavior also avoids a
potential halo effect of external raters who are more likely to base assessments on overall
impressions or observe behaviors designed to impress (Parker and Collins, 2010; Janssen, Psychosocial
2000). A similar argument can be made for self-reports of collaborative behavior. With effects of
regard to task-related conflict, we focused on perceived conflict (i.e. as experienced by the proactivity
employee), making self-reports the theoretically most relevant measurement model. Further,
several measures were taken to minimize common method bias in the design of the study.
Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), we intermixed the items of different constructs in the
questionnaire and used different response formats for the dependent and independent 305
variables. Participants were also informed that all data would be treated as confidential and
that they could withdraw from the study at any time.
Results
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess discriminant validity among
the survey-based measures – proactive behavior, collaborative behavior, task conflict, job
satisfaction, and affective commitment. The CFA for the five-factor model (with all items in the
survey-based constructs loading on their expected factors) achieved acceptable fit with a
comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.94 and a root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) of
0.057. Both the CFI and the RMSEA satisfied the cutoff criteria suggested in the literature
(Bentler, 1992). To test whether respondents distinguished between proactive and
collaborative behavior, the five-factor model (all items in the survey-based constructs
including separate measures of proactive and collaborative behavior) was compared to a
four-item model (where proactive and collaborative behavior items were specified as loading
on the same factor). Results demonstrated that the five-factor model yielded better fit than the
four-factor model. Finally, an unconstrained model (where the correlation coefficient between
proactive and collaborative behavior was freely estimated) was compared to a constrained
model (with the correlation coefficient between proactive and collaborative behavior restricted
to 1.0; Bagozzi et al., 1991). The unconstrained model displayed superior fit to the data.
Table I shows the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of the study
variables. To test the hypothesized direct and interaction effects of proactive and
collaborative behavior, ordinary hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed.
Following the moderated regression procedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991),
predictor variables were standardized before they were multiplied to create interaction
terms. A three-stage regression analysis was conducted for each dependent variable.
Table II shows the results of the ordinary hierarchical linear regressions for job satisfaction,
affective commitment, and conflict as dependent variables.
Model 1 shows the relationships between the predictor variables and job satisfaction. We
found that proactive behavior had no significant effect on job satisfaction ( β ¼ 0.07, ns), thus
H1a was not supported. However, as predicted, collaborative behavior had a significant
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(1) Experienceb
– –
(2) Complexity 3.1 1.34 0.06
(3) SESc 69.83 22.96 −0.04 −0.23**
(4) Proactive behavior 3.12 0.52 −0.01 0.08 −0.06
(5) Collaborative behavior 3.79 0.79 0.20* −0.03 −0.09 −0.14
(6) Conflict 1.78 0.90 −0.03 0.02 0.11 0.19* −0.59**
Table I.
(7) Job satisfaction 3.93 0.68 −0.01 0.05 −0.07 0.04 0.19* −0.37** Means, standard
(8) Commitment 3.63 0.86 0.19* 0.09 −0.27** 0.04 0.11 −0.13 0.45** deviations, and
Notes: an ¼ 170; bcategorical variable (average experience was five years); ccoded as % of students eligible zero-order
for free or subsidized lunches. *p o0.05; **p o 0.01 correlationsa
PR Job satisfaction Affective commitment Conflict
47,2 Independent variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Step 1: control variables

Experience −0.01 0.28* 0.04
Job complexity 0.06 −0.05 −0.02
SESb −0.05 −0.09 0.08
306 R2 0.01 0.07 0.02
Step 2: main effects
Proactive behavior (PB) 0.07 0.26* 0.12*
Collaborative behavior (CB) 0.19* 0.04 −0.61***
Change in R2 0.16 0.18 0.37

Step 3: interaction effects
PB × CB 0.10* 0.09 −0.14*
Change in R2 0.03 0.01 0.04
Overall adjusted R2 0.15 0.22 0.38
Table II. F-value 3.72* 4.68** 45.79***
Results of hierarchical Notes: an ¼ 170; bcoded as % of students eligible for free or subsidized lunches. *po 0.05; **po0.01;
regression analysesa ***p o0.001
positive effect on job satisfaction ( β ¼ 0.19, po0.05), indicating support for H3a. We tested the
moderating effect of collaborative behavior (H6a) in the third stage of the regression analysis.
The interaction term yielded values that supported the hypothesis ( β ¼ 0.10, po0.05),
indicating a significant moderating effect of collaborative behavior. Thus, H6a was supported.
Model 2 shows the relationships between the predictor variables and affective
commitment. As expected, proactive behavior had a significant positive effect ( β ¼ 0.26,
p o0.05) on affective commitment, but collaborative behavior did not ( β ¼ 0.04, ns). Thus,
H1b was supported, but H3b was not supported. We tested the moderating effect of
collaborative behavior (H6b) in the third stage of the regression analysis. The interaction
term yielded values that did not support H6b ( β ¼ 0.09, ns). Thus, the moderating effect of
collaborative behavior was not supported in this case.
Model 3 shows the relationships between the predictor variables and conflict. As
expected, proactive behavior had a significant positive effect ( β ¼ 0.12, p o0.05) and
collaborative behavior had a significant negative effect ( β ¼ −0.61, p o 0.001) on
task-related conflict. Thus, both H2 and H4 received support. We tested the moderating
effect of collaborative behavior (H5) in the third stage of the regression analysis. The
interaction term yielded values that supported the hypothesis ( β ¼ −0.14, p o0.05),
indicating a significant moderating effect of collaborative behavior. Thus, the positive
relationship between proactive behavior and conflict was weaker for higher collaborative
behavior than for lower collaborative behavior, indicating support for H5. A depiction of our
results can be seen in Figure 2.
To examine the nature of the significant interactions found, we first plotted simple
regression lines representing the relationship between proactive behavior and job
satisfaction and conflict, respectively, separately for low (one standard deviation below the
mean) and high (one standard deviation above the mean) levels of collaborative behavior
(Figures 3 and 4). We analyzed the interactions following the approach suggested by
Preacher et al. (2006). Overall, the results show that the interaction between proactive
and collaborative behavior adds significant incremental variance for two dependent
variables – task conflict and job satisfaction (3 percent). This variance is consistent with the
typical amount of incremental variance explained by interactions reported in most field
studies (i.e. 1-3 percent) (McClelland and Judd, 1993).
Psychosocial
Job satisfaction effects of
0.07
proactivity
0.19*
0.10*
Proactive behavior
0.26*
Affective commitment
307
0.9
0.12* 0.04
– 0.14*
Conflict
– 0.61***
Collaborative behavior
Figure 2.
Model results
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
Job satisfaction
4.1
4
3.9
3.8 Low collaborative Figure 3.
behavior Moderating effect of
3.7 collaborative behavior
High collaborative on the relationship
3.6 behavior between proactive
behavior and job
3.5 satisfaction
Low proactive behavior High proactive behavior
Discussion
Most proactivity research has conceptualized and viewed proactivity as a desirable workplace
behavior that leads to better task performance and organizational functioning. Only recently
have scholars acknowledged that proactivity may also come at a cost. Our research extends
this work by examining the contingent effect of proactive behavior on critical attitudinal
outcomes and conflict with coworkers. We examine these relationships in the context of
collaborative work, where proactive employees need to have their ideas and initiatives
validated by their coworkers in order to successfully implement them. Interestingly, a
collaborative context may seem to create a potential for increased conflict between proactive
employees and their coworkers, because coworkers may resists proactive employees’
initiatives. However, our findings show that effective collaborative behavior helps proactive
employees and their coworkers work out their differences and reduce conflict. Our results
PR 3
47,2
2.5
2
Conflict
308
1.5
Low collaborative
Figure 4. behavior
Moderating effect of 1
collaborative behavior High collaborative
on the relationship behavior
between proactive
behavior and conflict 0.5
Low proactive behavior High proactive behavior
point to a number of interesting and important findings that advance theory and inform
practice. In this research, we argued that the context in which proactive behavior is enacted
can impact its effects. We examined proactivity in the context of collaborative work and their
joint impact on outcomes that are important in understanding how organizations can attract,
motivate, and retain proactive employees.
Broadly, our findings indicate that proactive and collaborative behavior complement each
other. More specifically, we found that proactive behavior enhanced affective commitment,
but negatively affected interactions with coworkers, by increasing levels of task-related
conflict. In contrast, collaborative behavior increased job satisfaction and lowered conflict.
Thus, organizations face an interesting dilemma in that they need to both foster individual
proactivity as a driver of more effective performance, innovation, and change, and at the same
time minimize the potential negative effects that proactivity may have. The interactive effects
of proactive and collaborative behavior provide an answer to this dilemma. When
organizations use practices that emphasize both individual proactivity and collaboration, our
findings indicate that proactive and collaborative behavior interact to influence several
individual outcomes of interest. Specifically, proactive individuals achieve higher levels of job
satisfaction when they also engage in higher collaborative behavior. Furthermore, proactive
individuals experience less task-related conflict with their coworkers when they also engage in
higher collaborative behavior. Perhaps effective collaborative behavior helps individuals work
out their differences and allows for a better understanding of the task. Thus, our findings
suggest that collaborative work practices complement individual proactivity by reducing the
task conflict experienced by proactive employees and boosting their job satisfaction. Our
findings imply that the combination of high proactive and collaborative behavior creates the
conditions for proactivity to be sustainable in the long term, because collaborative behavior
can buffer the negative implications of proactivity.
Our study makes important contributions to the literature on two key aspects. First, it
advances our understanding of the interplay between proactivity and the social context of
work. Given the relational and interactive nature of today’s organizations, it is surprising that
little is known about the moderating effects of relational facets of work environments on
proactivity outcomes. Second, our research advances a contingency perspective of proactivity,
by exploring the contexts that shape the positive or negative outcomes of proactivity for
individuals. While proactivity scholars have recently made some inroads into these questions,
there is still a limited understanding in the field of these contingent effects in general, and in
particular of the interplay between the social context of work and proactivity.
Thus, a key insight of this study relates to the distinct effects of different types of Psychosocial
promotive behaviors on important individual outcomes that impact organizational effects of
performance. Although promotive behaviors are generally desired by organizations and feel proactivity
good to the individuals who engage in them, some forms of promotive behavior may have
negative consequences for the individuals involved. In particular, proactive behavior
(a challenging behavior) can increase task-related conflict. On the other hand, collaborative
behavior (an affiliative behavior) has the opposite effect and can reduce conflict. When 309
individuals engage in collaborative behavior, the impact of proactivity on conflict is
weakened while its positive effect on satisfaction is enhanced, suggesting that effective
collaborative behavior complements proactivity by creating a context where proactivity’s
positive effects are enhanced and its negative effects are weakened. Therefore, our findings
support the idea that the extent to which individuals benefit from being proactive on the job
depends on the context in which proactive behavior is enacted (Bindl and Parker, 2010) and
advance understanding of the types of contexts that can enhance the value of proactivity.
Our findings contribute to recent research investigating the potential risks of proactivity
(Strauss et al., 2017; Grant et al., 2011; Glaser et al., 2016) and advance efforts aimed at
understanding when proactivity has positive consequences. Our results show that the
relational context in which proactivity is enacted is an important moderator of proactivity
outcomes. We highlight an interesting effect of collaborative work: although collaborative
settings might seem to create a barrier to individual proactivity because proactive
employees need to promote their ideas and may run into coworker resistance, these settings
have the potential to lead to a better collective understanding of the task by smoothing
conflicts, and increase proactive employees’ job satisfaction.
This study also contributes to the literature on collaborative work. Considerable
attention in this area has been given to the positive tension that results from combining
cognitively diverse perspectives, consistent with Jehn’s (1997) conflict theory. Employees
working collaboratively can achieve higher performance and innovation when they
experience task-related conflicts stemming from their different perspectives on a problem.
However, these differences, if not resolved effectively through collaborative efforts, can also
cause more damaging interpersonal hostility. Although scholars have suggested that
conflict resolution processes may be an integral part of successful collaborative work, little
attention has been paid to this issue (Amabile et al., 2001). Our work provides evidence that
potential conflicts stemming from proactivity can be resolved effectively via collaborative
behavior, where proactive employees work out their differences and get a better
understanding of the task.
However, we do not suggest that task-related conflicts should always be avoided because
of their detrimental effects on group viability and performance. Instead, we consider the
possibility that task-related conflict can have negative consequences for group viability and
performance under certain circumstances (De Wit et al., 2012). For example, task-related
conflict can negatively influence group performance when conflict levels are too intense
(De Wit et al., 2012), because conflict interferes with information processing capacity
(De Dreu and Weingart, 2003). Further, task-related conflict is often associated with
relationship conflict in part because it can be misinterpreted as personal attacks (DeChurch
et al., 2007; Simons and Peterson, 2000; Yang and Mossholder, 2004). Thus, it can distract
members from the task at hand ( Jehn and Bendersky, 2003), escalate further (Greer et al.,
2008), and lead to lower group member satisfaction and cohesion (De Wit et al., 2012).
Task-related conflict may also be detrimental when individuals see it as a challenge to their
competence (Swann et al., 2004) and when they cannot resolve it effectively (Greer et al.,
2008). We show that a collaborative context can mitigate the effect of proactivity on conflict
and can help individuals solve their disagreements effectively. Our findings suggest that a
collaborative context may facilitate better conflict resolution and thus make conflict less
PR likely to propagate over time (Behfar et al., 2008; Greer et al., 2008). Clearly, more research is
47,2 needed to test the effects of proactivity on different types of conflict and performance to
better understand these relationships.
Interestingly, we did not find support for the moderating effect of collaborative behavior
on affective commitment. Because collaborative behavior reflects a more proximal facet of
an individual’s work context, it is possible that it may have a stronger influence on more
310 proximal outcomes such as job satisfaction and conflict than on commitment, which is a
more distal evaluation of one’s work context. Clearly more work is needed in this area and
future research should investigate other potential moderators that reflect the broader
relational context of one’s work and relationship with the organization, such as LMX and
organizational justice climate.
Our results highlight a new dimension to the existing knowledge concerning proactive
behavior and collaborative work. Our findings suggest that proactive employees can reap
the most benefits from their proactivity at work in a relational context characterized by high
collaborative behavior with coworkers. The positive impact of a supportive social context
has been emphasized as an important driver of proactive behavior in the past (Strauss et al.,
2009; Den Hartog and Belschak, 2012), but prior research has not addressed the moderating
impact of this context on proactive individuals. Our research suggests that collaborative
environments enhance proactive employees’ work attitudes, and thus create a context where
proactivity is sustainable in the future.
Limitations and future research directions

A methodological limitation of our study is the use of self-report measures of proactive and
collaborative behavior. It is possible that some of the observed relationships might have
been inflated due to common method bias, because both independent and dependent
variables were perceptual measures. However, some previous research has validated the use
of self-report measures of proactive behavior. Parker et al. (2006) found substantial
correlations between external ratings of proactive behavior and self-assessments. There are
several reasons why we used self-assessments of proactive and collaborative behavior.
Although it is preferable to have multiple sources of such measures, adding these would
have been difficult with our sample, because supervisors are not well positioned to make
accurate judgments about teachers’ work practices in their classrooms. This is true not only
for teachers, but for many other professional workers, who enjoy higher levels of freedom in
their work practices than other types of workers. Individuals have easier access and more
readily available examples of their own behaviors, and can potentially detect differences
among their behaviors to a greater extent than supervisors or coworkers. Using self-
assessments of proactive and collaborative behavior is also likely to produce more accurate
results by avoiding the potential halo effect of external raters who can base their
assessments on overall impressions, as well as observe behaviors designed to impress
supervisors. Further, supervisors may see proactive behavior as a threat (Frese and Fay,
2001) or may fail to acknowledge and reward it (Grant et al., 2009). Therefore, alternative
measures of individual proactive and collaborative behavior might not be better.
As discussed in the Methods section, several other measures were taken to further minimize
the potential for common method bias.
Second, because of the cross-sectional design, causal inferences cannot be made with
regard to the relationships in our study. Future research should adopt a longitudinal design
to disentangle the causal relationships between proactive and collaborative behavior, and
outcomes. Third, our study only focuses on the individual level of analysis. Future research
should investigate group-level assessments of collaboration and conflict and their interplay
with individual proactivity. Assessing collaboration and conflict at the teacher dyad level
was not possible in our study, since the data only focused on special education and not on
general education teachers. However, given that our research interest was in understanding Psychosocial
the impact of collaboration on proactive individuals’ outcomes, assessing focal individuals’ effects of
perceptions of collaborative efforts and conflict was appropriate. Fourth, the amount of proactivity
variance explained in the job satisfaction regressions is relatively small. There could be
other relevant work context variables that might influence proactive employees’ job
satisfaction, such as individual fairness perceptions regarding the rewards employees get
for their proactive efforts. Thus, future studies should examine a broader range of factors 311
that could influence proactive workers’ job satisfaction. Finally, we were not able to include
any performance outcomes in this study. Future research should consider both the
psychosocial and performance outcomes of individual proactivity and the potential
trade-offs between them. In addition, future research should look at multiple performance
dimensions, such as task and innovative performance, and the mechanisms through which
proactivity and collaboration contribute to each performance facet. This would contribute
further to our understanding of the extent to which collaboration shapes proactive
employees’ innovation and performance overall, as well as the role of task-related conflict in
this process.
An interesting question for future research is the extent to which the interplay between
proactive and collaborative behaviors might have different results in other settings.
Proactivity was both encouraged and needed in our setting, so individuals’ motivation to
resolve their differences while promoting their initiatives might have been particularly
high. It may well be that in other contexts where proactivity was neither needed nor
generally encouraged, employees working collaboratively might be more reluctant to
persist in promoting and implementing their initiatives if they expected or experienced
coworker resistance.
Despite these limitations, our research makes several important contributions to research
and practice. First, this research provides important insights on the complementary effects
of proactivity and collaboration in the workplace. We add a more nuanced picture to the
extant research on proactivity by examining the consequences of proactive behavior in a
collaborative context. This is an important endeavor given the increased focus on teamwork
and collaborative efforts in many organizations, and the increased expectation that
employees take initiative and become more engaged in change processes. Second, our study
design allowed a richer understanding of individual proactive and collaborative behavior in
the setting investigated. We developed measures that allowed a deeper understanding of the
nature of proactive and collaborative behaviors in the context of work. Given the calls for
more contextualized organizational research (Rousseau and Fried, 2001; Johns, 2001, 2006),
this is an important undertaking that deepens our understanding of work in organizations.
Third, our data were collected in a large number of organizations and thus the
generalizability of our findings across organizations is considerably increased.
Fourth, this research has important practical implications for organizational efforts to
motivate and retain proactive employees. Proactivity is a highly desirable behavior that
comes with risks for the proactive employees. Therefore, finding the appropriate
organizational conditions to support and encourage proactivity, as well as enhance
individuals’ work experience and increase the sustainability of proactive behavior is an
important endeavor. Our research suggests that a collaborative work context for proactive
employees can drive positive work attitudes, and thus is likely to promote well-being and
encourage future proactivity. Our findings complement recent research showing that
proactivity, under certain motivational conditions, can lead to active development of skills
needed for future situations, allowing individuals to accumulate resources and enhancing
their well-being (Strauss et al., 2017). We add to this research by providing evidence of the
positive effect of collaborative behavior on proactive employees’ outcomes such as higher
satisfaction and reduced tension with coworkers.
PR Our work informs organizational strategies to encourage proactivity. Recent research
47,2 has shown that feelings of pressure to engage in proactivity, while conducive to more
initiative, may be associated with initiative only higher in quantity but not in quality
(Grant et al., 2011). Our research shows that collaborative work environments may create
conditions that encourage future performance-enhancing proactivity. Thus, organizations
may want to provide increased opportunities for employees to establish collaborative
312 relationships in the workplace. Prior research has investigated the positive impact of social
context on proactive behavior (Ghitulescu, 2013), but has not explored the extent to which
such a context may moderate the impact of proactivity on important individual outcomes.
Further, we know that autonomy encourages proactivity (Parker et al., 2006; Griffin et al.,
2007; Ghitulescu, 2013) and that, compared to controlled motivation, autonomous
motivation lowers job strain and facilitates quality initiative (Grant et al., 2011; Strauss
et al., 2017). Therefore, an important strategy for organizations that wish to encourage
proactivity is work redesign that enhances autonomy, provides higher job control, and
allows employees to form collaborative relationships with coworkers.
In conclusion, this research highlights the importance of collaborative work environments
for proactive employees’ efforts to create change in organizations. Organizations increasingly
require proactivity and personal initiative in the workplace, yet doing so creates significant
risks and places high demands on the proactive employees. This research improves our
understanding of the contexts in which proactivity can be beneficial to individuals and
organizations. Our research adds nuance to our understanding of the consequences of
proactivity and highlights that the context in which proactivity is enacted has an important
role in shaping its consequences for individuals and organizations.
References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA and London.
Amabile, T., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P.W., Marsh, M. and Kramer, S.J. (2001),
“Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: a case of cross-profession
collaboration”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 418-431.
Ashford, S.J. and Northcraft, G.B. (1992), “Conveying more (or less) than we realize: the role of
impression-management in feedback-seeking”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 310-334.
Ashford, S.J., Blatt, R. and VandeWalle, D. (2003), “Reflections on the looking glass: a review of research
on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 769-799.
Baer, M. and Frese, M. (2003), “Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological
safety, process innovations, and firm performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 45-68.
Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L. (1991), “Assessing construct validity in organizational research”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-458.
Bandura, A. (2002), Self-Efficacy, The Exercise of Control, 2nd ed., Freeman and Company, New York, NY.
Bateman, T.S. and Crant, J.M. (1993), “The proactive component of organizational behavior”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 103-118.
Behfar, K., Peterson, R., Mannix, E.A. and Trochim, W. (2008), “The critical role of conflict resolution in
teams: a close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team
outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 170-180.
Belschak, F.D. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2010), “Pro‐self, prosocial, and pro‐organizational foci of proactive
behavior: differential antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 475-498.
Bem, D.J. (1972), “Self-perception theory”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychosocial
Psychology, Vol. 6, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-62. effects of
Bentler, P. (1992), “On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin”, Psychological proactivity
Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 3, pp. 400-404.
Bindl, U. and Parker, S. (2010), “Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action
in organizations”, in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 2, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 567-598. 313
Bolino, M., Valcea, S. and Harvey, J. (2010), “Employee, manage thyself: the potentially negative
implications of expecting employees to behave proactively”, Journal of Occupational and
Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2005), “The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the relationship
between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 740-748.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Niehoff, B.P. (2004), “The other side of the story: Reexamining
prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 229-246.
Bryk, A.S. and Schneider, B. (2002), Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement, Sage,
New York, NY.
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), “Relations between work group characteristics
and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 823-849.
Campion, M.A., Papper, G.J. and Medsker, G.J. (1996), “Relations between work team characteristics
and effectiveness: a replication and extension”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 429-452.
Cangiano, F. and Parker, S.K. (2015), “Proactivity for mental health and well-being”, The Wiley
Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Occupational Safety and Workplace Health, John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 228-250.
Carnevale, P.J. and Probst, T.M. (1998), “Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving
and categorization”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 1300-1309.
Chan, D. (2006), “Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on
work perceptions and work outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 475-481.
Chen, C.C., Chen, X.-P. and Meindl, J.R. (1998), “How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of
individualism-collectivism”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 285-304.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-482.
Conway, J.M. and Lance, C.E. (2010), “What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common
method bias in organizational research”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 325-334.
Cooley, E. (1995), “Developing and evaluating interventions aimed at increasing retention of special
education teachers (Teacher support and retention project)”, Final Report, WestEd,
San Francisco, CA.
Cooper-Thomas, H.D. and Burke, S.E. (2012), “Newcomer proactive behavior: can there be too much of a
good thing”, in Wanberg, C. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Socialization,
University Press, Oxford, pp. 56-77.
Crant, J.M. (2000), “Proactive behavior in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 435-462.
Daily, B.F. and Bishop, J.W. (2003), “TQM workforce factors and employee involvement: the pivotal
role of teamwork”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. XV No. 4, pp. 393-412.
Dawis, R.V., England, G.W. and Lofquist, L.H. (1964), “A theory of work adjustment”,
Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, Vol. 23, University of Minnesota Industrial
Relations Center, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 1-14.
PR DeChurch, L.A., Hamilton, K.L. and Haas, C. (2007), “Effects of conflict management strategies on
47,2 perceptions of intragroup conflict”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 66-78.
De Dreu, C.K. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), “Task versus relationship conflict, team effectiveness,
and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4,
pp. 741-749.
Den Hartog, D.N. and Belschak, F.D. (2007), “Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work”,
314 Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 601-622.
Den Hartog, D.N. and Belschak, F.D. (2012), “When does transformational leadership enhance
employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 194-202.
Denzin, N.K. (1978), The Research Act, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
De Wit, F.R., Greer, L.L. and Jehn, K.A. (2012), “The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 360-390.
Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-383.
Edmondson, A.C. and McManus, S.E. (2007), “Methodological fit in management field research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1155-1179.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1,
pp. 51-59.
Erdogan, B. and Bauer, T.N. (2005), “Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: the
role of fit with jobs and organizations”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 859-891.
Fay, D. and Frese, M. (2001), “The concept of personal initiative: an overview of validity studies”,
Human Performance, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 97-124.
Fay, D. and Hűttges, A. (2017), “Drawbacks of proactivity: Effects of daily proactivity on daily salivary
cortisol and subjective well-being”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 429-442.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991), Social Cognition, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Frese, M. and Fay, D. (2001), “Personal initiative: an active performance concept for work in the 21st
century”, in Staw, B. and Sutton, R. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32, Elsevier,
pp. 133-187.
Frese, M., Garst, H. and Fay, D. (2007), “Making things happen: reciprocal relationships between work
characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model”,
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A. and Zempel, J. (1996), “Personal initiative at work: differences between
East and West Germany”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 37-63.
Gagné, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005), “Self-determination theory and work motivation”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 331-362.
Gagné, M., Boies, K., Koestner, R. and Martens, M. (2004), “How work motivation is related to
organizational commitment: a series of organizational studies”, Manuscript, Concordia University,
unpublished.
Ghitulescu, B.E. (2013), “Making change happen: the impact of work context on adaptive and proactive
behaviors”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 206-245.
Gittell, J.H. (2002), “Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: relational coordination as a
mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator of performance effects”, Management Science,
Vol. 48 No. 11, pp. 1408-1426.
Glaser, L., Stam, W. and Takeuchi, R. (2016), “Managing the risks of proactivity: a multilevel study of
initiative and performance in the middle management context”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 1339-1360.
Grant, A. and Ashford, S. (2008), “The dynamics of proactivity at work”, in Brief, A. and Staw, B. (Eds), Psychosocial
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, Elsevier, pp. 3-34. effects of
Grant, A. and Parker, S. (2009), “Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and proactive proactivity
perspectives”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 317-375.
Grant, A., Nurmohamed, S., Ashford, S. and Dekas, K. (2011), “The performance implications of
ambivalent initiative: The interplay of autonomous and controlled motivations”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 116 No. 2, pp. 241-251. 315
Grant, A.M., Parker, S.K. and Collins, C.G. (2009), “Getting credit for proactive behavior: supervisor
reactions depend on what you value and how you feel”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 1,
pp. 31-55.
Gray, B. (1989), Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Greer, L.L., Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2008), “Conflict transformation: a longitudinal investigation of
the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of
conflict resolution”, Small Group Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 278-302.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Parker, S.K. (2007), “A new model of work role performance. Positive
behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50
No. 2, pp. 327-347.
Hackman, J.R. (1987), “The design of work teams”, in Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational
Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 67-102.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G. (1980a), “Work design in the organizational context”, in Staw, B. and
Sutton, R. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, Elsevier, pp. 247-278.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G. (1980b), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H.G. (2001), “Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects:
a theoretical concept and empirical evidence”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 435-449.
Howell, J.P. and Dorfman, P.W. (1981), “Substitutes for leadership: test of a construct”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 714-728.
Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. and Jundt, D. (2005), “Teams in organizations: from input-
process-output models to IMOI models”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 517-543.
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort – reward fairness and innovative work
behavior”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 287-302.
Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and West, M. (2004), “The bright and dark sides of individual innovation:
a special issue introduction”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 129-145.
Jassawalla, A.R. and Sashittal, H.C. (1998), “An examination of collaboration in high-technology
new product development processes”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 237-254.
Jehn, K.A. (1997), “A qualitative analysis of conflict type and dimensions in organizational groups”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 530-557.
Jehn, K.A. and Bendersky, C. (2003), “Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency perspective on
the conflict-outcome relationship”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 189-244.
Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), “Why differences make a difference: a field study of
diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44
No. 4, pp. 741-763.
Jehn, K.A., Greer, L., Levine, S. and Szulanski, G. (2008), “The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and
emergent states on group outcomes”, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 465-495.
Johns, G. (2001), “In praise of context”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 31-42.
PR Johns, G. (2006), “The essential impact of context on organizational behavior”, Academy of
47,2 Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 386-408.
Kanter, R.M. (1988), “When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for
innovation in organizations”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 162-211.
Kohn, A. (1992), No Contest: The Case Against Competition, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY.
316 Kraimer, M.L., Seibert, S.E. and Liden, R.C. (1999), “Psychological empowerment as a multi-dimensional
construct: a construct validity test”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 59 No. 1,
pp. 127-142.
Kristof‐Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals’ fit at
work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor

fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 281-342.
Lau, D. and Murnighan, J.K. (2005), “Interaction within teams and subgroups: the effect of demographic
faultlines”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 645-659.
LePine, J.A. and Van Dyne, L. (1998), “Predicting voice behavior in work groups”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 853-868.
LePine, J.A. and Van Dyne, L. (2001), “Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of
contextual performance: evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality
characteristics and cognitive ability”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 326-336.
Locke, E.A., Frederick, E., Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (1984), “Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies
on task performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 241-251.
McClelland, G. and Judd, C. (1993), “Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator
effects”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 376-390.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 171-194.
Milton, L.P. (2009), “Creating and sustaining cooperation in interdependent groups: Positive relational
identities, identity confirmation, and cooperative capacity”, in Roberts, L.M. and Dutton, J.E.
(Eds), Exploring Positive Identities and Organizations, Building a Theoretical and Research
Foundation, Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp. 289-317.
Mohrman, S.A., Cohen, S.G. and Mohrman, A.M. (1995), Designing Team-Based Organizations:
New Forms of Knowledge Work, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Morrison, E. and Phelps, C. (1999), “Taking charge at work: extra-role efforts to initiate workplace
change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 403-419.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 224-247.
O’Reilly, C. (1983), “Corporations, culture and organizational culture: lessons from Silicon valley firms”,
paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Dallas, TX.
Parker, S.K. and Collins, C. (2010), “Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple proactive
behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 633-662.
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K. and Strauss, K. (2010), “Making things happen: a model of proactive
motivation”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 827-856.
Parker, S.K., Williams, H. and Turner, N. (2006), “Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at
work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 636-652.
Parker, S.K., Johnson, A., Collins, C. and Nguyen, H. (2013), “Making the most of structural support:
Moderating influence of employees’ clarity and negative affect”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 867-892.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), “Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group
diversity, conflict and performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K. and Prescott, J.E. (1993), “Antecedents and consequences of project team cross- Psychosocial
functional cooperation”, Management Science, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 1281-1297. effects of
Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1986), “Self-report in organizational research: problems and prospects”, proactivity
Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. 317
Preacher, K., Curran, P. and Bauer, D. (2006), “Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple
linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis”, Journal of Educational and
Behavioral Statistics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 437-448.
Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2006), “Perceptions of organizational change: a stress and coping
perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1154-1162.

Riggs, M.L. and Knight, P.A. (1994), “The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational
beliefs and attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 5, pp. 755-766.
Rousseau, D.M. and Fried, Y. (2001), “Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational
research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Saks, A.M. (1995), “Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of
self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 211-225.
Seibert, S.E., Crant, J.M. and Kraimer, M.L. (1999), “Proactive personality and career success”,
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. and Crant, J.M. (2001), “What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model
linking proactive personality and career success”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4,
pp. 845-874.
Simons, T. and Peterson, R. (2000), “Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams:
the pivotal role of intragroup trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 102-111.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Strauss, K. and Parker, S.K. (2014), “Effective and sustained proactivity in the workplace: A
self-determination theory perspective”, in Gagné, M. (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement,
Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 50-71.
Strauss, K., Griffin, M. and Rafferty, A. (2009), “Proactivity directed toward the team and organization:
the role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self-efficacy”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 279-291.
Strauss, K., Parker, S.K. and O’Shea, D. (2017), “When does proactivity have a cost? motivation at work
moderates the effects of proactive work behavior on employee job strain”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 100, June, pp. 15-26.
Strauss, K., Griffin, M.A., Parker, S.K. and Mason, C.M. (2015), “Building and sustaining proactive
behaviors: the role of adaptivity and job satisfaction”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 63-72.
Swann, W.B. Jr, Polzer, J.T., Seyle, D.C. and Ko, S.J. (2004), “Finding value in diversity: Verification of
personal and social self-views in diverse groups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 9-27.
Thomas, J.P., Whitman, D.S. and Viswesvaran, C. (2010), “Employee proactivity in organizations: a
comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs”, Journal of Occupational and
Thomas, K. (1976), “Conflict and conflict management”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 889-935.
PR Tjosvold, D. and Tsao, Y. (1989), “Productive organizational collaboration: the role of values and
47,2 cooperation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 189-195.
Tjosvold, D., Andrews, I.R. and Jones, H. (1983), “Cooperative and competitive relationships between
superiors and subordinates”, Human Relations, Vol. 36 No. 12, pp. 1111-1124.
Tornau, K. and Frese, M. (2013), “Construct clean-up in proactivity research: a meta-analysis on the
nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities”,
Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 44-96.
318
Valentine, M.A., Nembhard, I.M. and Edmondson, A.C. (2012), “Measuring teamwork in health
care settings: a review of survey instruments”, working paper, Harvard Business School,
Boston, MA.
Van Dyne, L. and Ellis, J.B. (2004), “Job creep: a reactance theory perspective on organizational
citizenship behavior as overfulfillment of obligations”, in Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Shore, L.M.,

Taylor, M.S. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), The Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and
Contextual Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 181-205.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct
and predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 108-119.
Wageman, R., Gardner, H. and Mortensen, M. (2012), “The changing ecology of teams: new directions
for teams research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 301-315.
Wanberg, C.R. and Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2000), “Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the
socialization process”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 373-385.
Welsch, H. and LaVan, H. (1981), “Inter-relationships between organizational commitment and job
characteristics, job satisfaction, professional behavior, and organizational climate”,
Human Relations, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1079-1089.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J. (2001), “Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their
work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 179-220.
Yang, J. and Mossholder, K.W. (2004), “Decoupling task and relationship conflict: the role of intragroup
emotional processing”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 589-605.
About the author

Brenda E. Ghitulescu is an Associate Professor of Management in the School of Business at the College
of New Jersey. She received her PhD Degree in Organizational Behavior from the University of
Pittsburgh. Her research interests include employee proactivity and job crafting, constructing meaning
at work, creative occupations and meaningful work, and organizational change. Brenda E. Ghitulescu
can be contacted at: ghitules@tcnj.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Personnel Review: Article Information

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Personnel Review: Article Information

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Personnel Review

Psychosocial effects of proactivity: The interplay between proactive and

and collaborative behavior", Personnel Review, Vol. 47 Issue: 2, pp.294-318, https://doi.org/10.1108/

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Accepted 25 June 2017 Abstract

investigated was undergoing a major change that required collaborative behavior,

Proactive behavior and individual outcomes

Combined effects of proactivity and collaboration

mathematics curriculum and the adoption of collaborative classroom practice in special

Step 1: control variables

Change in R2 0.16 0.18 0.37

Limitations and future research directions

work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor

perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1154-1162.

citizenship behavior as overfulfillment of obligations”, in Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Shore, L.M.,

About the author

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen