A Multilevel Examination of Proactive Work Behaviors: Contextual and Individual Differences as Antecedents

In this study, the process through which individual differences (i.e., proactive personality, psychological empowerment, and servant leader characteristics at level-1) and contextual differences (i.e., servant leadership characteristics at level-2) are antecedents to proactive work behaviors (i.e., problem prevention, individual innovation, voice, and taking charge) was tested. Results indicated that psychological empowerment partially mediated the relationship between proactive personality and individual innovation. Psychological empowerment fully mediated the relationship between proactive personality and taking charge. Proactive personality was indirectly related to problem prevention, via psychological empowerment. Psychological empowerment was directly related to voice. In addition, servant leader characteristics at level-1 were positively related to psychological empowerment and each of the four proactive work behaviors. Psychological empowerment partially mediated the relationship between servant leader characteristics at level-1, problem prevention, and taking charge. It fully mediated the relationship between servant leader characteristics at level-1 and individual innovation. Servant leader characteristics at level-1 were indirectly related to voice, via psychological empowerment. Relationships were not found between servant leader characteristics at level-2, and psychological empowerment, or proactive work behaviors. 107 A MULTILEVEL EXAMINATION OF PROACTIVE WORK BEHAVIORS: CONTEXTUAL AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AS ANTECEDENTS Practitioners and scholars have advocated viewing individuals as active agents, who are able to engage in proactive work behaviors that facilitate positive changes in themselves and their work environment (Ashford & Cummings, 1985; Bateman & Crant, 1993; Covey, 1989; Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Individuals are not merely passive puppets of their work environment; rather they can make conscious decisions to succeed in adverse and uncertain conditions (Bandura, 1997; Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Cameron & Lavine, 2006; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Proactive work behaviors are those self-initiated, change oriented, future-directed behaviors that enable positive change within the internal organization (Parker & Collins, 2010). As uncertainty and interdependence in the workforce increases at an exponential rate, employers are looking for employees that can strategically engage in proactive work behaviors to enhance work role effectiveness (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007; Kotter, 1985; Parker & Collins, 2010). Proactive behaviors have been reported as having a positive relationship with individual job satisfaction (Ashford & Black, 1996), and individual job performance (Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Researchers have proposed that both individual differences and contextual differences are antecedents to proactive work behaviors (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). Individual differences such as, desire for control (Ashford & Black, 1996), proactive personality (Parker & Collins, 2010), general selfefficacy and felt responsibility (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Parker, 2000) have all been reported as antecedents to proactive behaviors. Scholars have also reported that flexible 108 role orientation and role breadth self-efficacy are two cognitive motivational states that mediate the relationship between individual differences, work environment differences, and proactive work behaviors (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Work environment variables such as job autonomy, co-worker trust (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006) and leader vision (Griffin, Parker, & Mason, 2010) also impact employees’ proactive behaviors. This study seeks to simultaneously examine individual differences and contextual differences as antecedents of proactive work behaviors. First, this study will seek to answer the call for additional cognitive motivational states that may explain the process through which employee traits are related to proactive work behaviors (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006) by proposing psychological empowerment as a mediating variable. Second, this study will seek to examine leader characteristics that may facilitate proactive work behaviors (Griffin, Parker, & Mason, 2010; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). It is anticipated that as scholars understand the antecedents of proactive work behavior they may be able to facilitate its development in the workplace. If employee cognitive motivational states, such as psychological empowerment are essential, employers can facilitate the development of employees’ cognitive motivational states through training interventions or work role restructuring. If supervisors’ leadership style is related to employee proactive work behaviors, organizations may choose to help their supervisors develop a particular leadership style that is conducive to the development of employee proactive work behaviors. Employers may also choose to promote those individuals that possess a specific leadership style that will enhance their ability to facilitate proactive work behavior in their direct reports. 109 Proposed Cross-level Model of the Antecedents of Proactive Work Behaviors The proposed model takes into consideration that phenomenon within organizations generally occurs at different levels. Scholars have advocated the importance of using multilevel modeling because it allows researchers to predict variance that is due to individual differences, and variance that is due to contextual factors (Bliese & Hanges, 2004; Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998a; 1998b; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Rousseau, 1985). The proposed model illustrates individual and contextual antecedents of proactive work behaviors by proposing a cross-level model (House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Researchers have advocated the importance of explicitly recognizing the multilevel nature of organization in theory/conceptual modeling, measurement, analysis, and inference (Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008). Interestingly, only 9% of the articles published in top leadership journals have taken an appropriate approach to the multilevel dilemma, most tend to focus on multilevel issues only in the analysis section or not at all (Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005). The proposed model seeks to explicitly recognize the inherent multilevel nature of organizational behavior at the conceptual stage through a multilevel conceptual model. The proposed model (see Figure 1) will examine proactive work behaviors at the individual level. Proactive work behavior at the group/team or organizational levels will not be examined. Psychological empowerment is proposed as a cognitive motivational antecedent to each of the four proactive work behaviors. Scholars have reported that role breadth self-efficacy and flexible role orientation are cognitive motivational states that 110 are positively related to proactive work behavior (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). However, scholars have not examined the impact of psychological empowerment on proactive work behaviors. In addition, previous research has shown a positive relationship between proactive personality and proactive work behaviors (Parker & Collins, 2010). This study seeks to expand the research by examining the process by which this relationship occurs. Specifically, it is proposed that psychological empowerment will act as a cognitive motivation state that will mediate the relationship between proactive personality and each of the four proactive work behaviors. The mediating impact of psychological empowerment has not been considered in previous research. -------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 About Here --------------------------------------------------This model relies on the assumption that leaders may portray an average leadership style (ALS) and individualized leadership (IL) (Rousseau, 1985; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008). Individualized leadership is the one-to-one impact leaders have on their direct reports, and focuses on how the individual perceives their supervisor, regardless of how others in the group perceive them (Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008). Individualized leadership is measured at the individual level, and is shown in Figure 1 by proposing servant leader characteristic at level-1 as an antecedent to both psychological empowerment and proactive work behaviors. This is the perception that direct reports have of their supervisor displaying servant leader characteristics to them individually. 111 A leader may also portray an average leadership style by exhibiting similar traits, characteristics, or behaviors to all of their direct reports (Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008). ALS relies on the assumption that group constructs may originate from the shared properties (i.e., homogenous attitudes or perceptions) of group members (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). As leaders treat their direct reports in a similar manner, direct reports will also have similar perceptions of their leader (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). After examining the degree of consensus of group members; individual level data is aggregated to the group level by taking the group mean. This represents servant leader characteristics at level-2 or the degree to, which the supervisor displays servant leader characteristics in a similar and consistent manner to all of their direct reports. In this model, servant leader characteristics are proposed as an antecedent to both psychological empowerment and the four proactive work behaviors. It is anticipated that servant leader characteristics at level-2 will explain additional variance above and beyond that of servant leader characteristics at level-1. Scholars have not examined servant leader characteristics and psychological empower