Making Things Happen : Reciprocal Relationships between Work Characteristics and Personal Initiative ( PI ) in a Four-Wave Longitudinal Structural Equation Model

We used the frameworks of reciprocal determinism and occupational socialization to study the effects of work characteristics (consisting of control and complexity of work) on personal initiative (PI) -mediated by control orientation (a second-order factor consisting of control aspiration, perceived opportunity for control, and self-efficacy) and the reciprocal effects of PI on changes in work characteristics. We applied structural equation modeling to a longitudinal study with four measurement waves (N=268) in a transitional economy – East Germany. Results confirm the model plus one additional non-hypothesized effect. Work characteristics had a synchronous effect on PI via control orientation (full mediation). There were also effects of control orientation and of PI on later changes of work characteristics: As predicted, PI functions as partial mediator, changing work characteristics in the long term (reciprocal effect); unexpectedly, there was a second reciprocal effect of an additional lagged partial mediation of control orientation on later work characteristics. Personal Initiative 3 Making Things Happen: Reciprocal Relationships between Work Characteristics and Personal Initiative (PI) in a Four-Wave Longitudinal Structural Equation Model An important question in philosophy and the social sciences has been whether people are determined by their work (Marxism) or whether people can actively shape their environment (cf. A. Schopenhauer’s, 1819/1998, “primacy of the will”). We use two concepts – personal initiative and reciprocal determinism – to understand and empirically look at this issue. A great deal of theory and research within organizational behavior and industrial and organizational psychology suggest that work characteristics influence individual attitudes and behaviors. Within this literature, work characteristics are conceptualized and studied as exogenous variables, determining in turn individuals’ adjustment to their work. People’s motivation is affected by work characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), they are socialized by the work characteristics (occupational socialization; Frese, 1982) and by management (organizational socialization; Van Maanen, 1976), and they are trained to do the job tasks (Latham, 1989). Thus, work characteristics are conceptualized to be outside the employees’ influence. Countering this conceptualization is a growing literature examining the active side of people’s behaviors at work. For example, Morrison (1993, p. 173) argues that ". socialization is a process affected not only by organizational initiatives, but also by newcomer initiatives. " Ashford and Tsui (1991) and Morrison (1993) have studied concepts such as active feedback seeking. Further, Hacker (1973), Ilgen and Hollenbeck (1991), as well as Staw and Boettger (1990) have been concerned with employees’ task revisions. In addition, Organ (1988) has developed the concept of organizational citizenship behavior. We think that this more active conceptualization of employees is beneficial and appropriate, but that it has not gone far enough. Theorists and research have by and large not systematically examined the ways in which employees may actively change their work characteristics (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Thus, work characteristics are often conceptualized as extraneous variables, even in the studies and theories highlighted above. For example, active feedback seeking implies that feedback is sought to understand the work characteristics and the organization better but not how to change the work characteristics and the organization. By further developing the concept of personal initiative, we would like to contribute to understanding how people can actively affect their work characteristics. People show personal initiative (PI) when they engage in self-starting and proactive behaviors that overcome barriers on Personal Initiative 4 the way toward a goal (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996). Given the nature of work in the 21 century, PI is likely to become increasingly important (Frese & Fay, 2001) because (a) companies are moving from stable structures to change oriented organizations (Lawler, 1992); (b) these changes bring new responsibilities to rank and file workers (Wall, Cordery, & Clegg, 2002); (c) people who just react to obvious situational cues or who only follow orders will be unable to actively carry changes forward (Frese & Fay, 2001), and (d) organizations are placing more responsibility on the individual for career management, including training and development (Hall, 1996; London & Mone, 1999). Theoretically, the PI concept is needed to understand how people can change the situation in which they work and how they determine changes in work, in processes, in products, and in society. Even though we emphasize people’s active approaches as drivers of changes, we do not ignore that these active approaches are themselves driven by other factors. Reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1997), which argues that “people are both producers and products of social systems. ” (p.6), integrates both lines of thought. Despite its theoretical influence, to our knowledge, there exists little systematic or longitudinal examination of this concept in work settings (Vancouver, 1997). Thus, based on a longitudinal field study, we attempt to further develop the concept of reciprocal determinism and to provide a more complete picture of the development of PI as a result of work characteristics. Our design is based on a six-wave longitudinal study in East Germany; four of these waves are used to test our ideas. Thus, our article attempts to contribute to the literature by testing reciprocal determinism in the field and by introducing PI into this model. To examine alternative models, we tested our hypotheses with data from a longitudinal study with four measurement points. The study on PI was carried out in East Germany because a high amount of change in workplaces occurred there after reunification and this makes it easier to look at reciprocal effects. In the following we introduce the concept of PI and then develop the theoretical model underlying our study in more detail. CORE CONCEPTS AND THEORETICAL MODEL Figure 1 displays our theoretical model. We assume that (1) work characteristics change control orientation and that (2) there is a reciprocal path from personal initiative to changes in work characteristics. This implies two mediation effects: Work characteristics should change PI via the mediator control orientation and control orientation leads to changes in work characteristics via the mediator PI. This also means that the process is energized by three “drivers” – the work characteristics, control orientation, and personal initiative (cf. Figure 1). Personal Initiative 5 The Concept of Personal Initiative (PI) Personal initiative refers to behaviors mainly directed toward work and organizational issues that are characterized by the following aspects (Frese & Fay, 2001): self-starting, proactive, and persistent in overcoming barriers. The opposite of personal initiative is a reactive approach in which one is told what to do, in which the here and now determines the actions (no proactivity), and in which a person gives up when barriers and difficulties arise (Hacker, 1992). Self-starting implies that the behavior is regulated by goals developed without external pressure, role requirements, instruction, or doing an “obvious” action. Thus, PI is the pursuit of selfset goals in contrast to assigned goals. An example is a blue-collar worker who attempts to fix a broken machine even though this is not part of his or her job description. Frequently, initiative deals with sub-problems of an assigned task or with issues that are not obviously related to the task. Bluecollar workers may perform additional checks on the quality of material or of prior work. For example, in one study, we observed that the task of drilling a hole in an automobile could damage cables located below the drilling surface. In such a case, the worker may think of the danger of drilling too deeply and tell others about it. PI sometimes implies that a person takes charge of an idea that has been around for a while but that has not led to action before. A secretary who buys bottled water for a guest speaker shows initiative in this sense, even if this is a small matter. Managers are often required to show initiative. However, in this case, we can still speak of self-starting, if a manager does not just follow the example of many other managers and uses “obvious” initiatives that have been suggested by several others in his area of interest but self-starts an action that is not an obvious choice. Proactivity means to have a longterm focus and not to wait until one must respond to a demand. A longterm focus at work enables the individual to consider things to come (new demands, new or reoccurring problems, and emerging opportunities) and to do something about them now. Thus, problems and opportunities are anticipated, and the person prepares to deal with the problems and to take advantage of opportunities. An example is a secretary in a university department who books travel tickets for her boss. Her formal task is to phone the travel agency the university uses. Perhaps she or he is not satisfied with the service and finds the discount unattractive and, therefore, decides to find out whether one can get better deals somewhere else. In this case, the secretary acts in a proactive manner because she or he anticipates having to take care of travel arrangements in the future. This example also illustrates that PI can lead to changes in the environment. Personal Initiative 6 Persistence is frequently necessary to reach one's goal; PI usually implies that a process, a procedure, or a task is added or modified and these changes often involve setbacks and difficulties. For example, people affected by the changes may not like having to adapt to something n