GCOE Discussion Paper Series
Global COE Program

Human Behavior and Socioeconomic Dynamics
Discussion Paper No.126

Career Development of College Students through Part-Time Work:The Role of Leader-Member Exchange and Taking Charge Behavior

Tomoki Sekiguchi

March 2010

GCOE Secretariat
Graduate School of Economics

OSAKA UNIVERSITY

1-7 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka, 560-0043, Japan

Career Development of College Students through Part-Time Work: The Role of
Leader-Member Exchange and Taking Charge Behavior *Tomoki Sekiguchi †Abstract
This study examines the potential benefit of college students' part-time work on theircareer development by focusing on leader–member exchange (LMX) and taking charge
behavior in the workplace. Using a sample of Japanese college students, results from thisstudy indicate that taking charge behavior in part-time work mediates the relationshipbetween LMX quality with supervisors and career development (focus of career exploration,
self-efficacy toward postcollege employment and proactive career behavior). The results also
indicate that proactive personality and conscientiousness moderate the relationship between
LMX quality and taking charge behavior, and that job autonomy and skill variety moderate
the relationship between taking charge behaviors and career development. Implications fortheory and practice are discussed.

JEL Classification: J24, J40, M12
Keywords: part-time work, leader-member exchange, taking charge behavior, careerdevelopment, college student*

I thank Donghao Li for his help with data collection.
Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University 1-7 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka
560-0043 Japan.
†

Email: tomoki@econ.osaka-u.ac.jp

Part-time work during school years is now common in many countries. For example,
about 80% of students in the United States are employed at some point before they graduate
from high school (Davies, 2000; Derous & Ryan, 2008). In Japan, over 90% of college
students engage in part-time work before graduation (Intelligence, 2006). While one body ofresearch suggests that part-time work during adolescence is associated with negative
outcomes such as lower school attendance and lower academic performance (e.g., Bachman& Schulenberg, 1993; Paschall, Ringwalt, & Flewelling, 2002; Steinberg & Dornbush, 1991),
other research points to positive outcomes such as developing occupational skills, learning
about the world of work and gaining competitive advantage in the labor market (Creed,
Doherty, & O'Callaghan, 2008; Curtis & Lewis, 2001; Lucas & Lammont, 1998).
In order to advance our understanding of the potential benefit of part-time work inschool years, this study focuses on part-time work as an opportunity for career developmentof college students. In general, part-time work, especially by students, consists of relatively
simplified and standardized tasks. In addition, training opportunities for part-time employees
are minimal and participation in decision making is highly limited. Thus, as long as students
who are employed in part-time jobs engage passively in traditional routine tasks,
opportunities for learning new skills and obtaining useful information about the world ofwork are limited. This limits the effect of part-time work on college students' careerdevelopment. On the other hand, students may be able to learn new skills and prepare for
their future career via part-time work if they perform proactively beyond the passive
execution of tasks (e.g., making constructive suggestions, improving the way work is
executed). In short, the quality of part-time work experience could influence the degree towhich students can develop and prepare for their career in postcollege employment.
This study focuses on leader–member exchange (LMX) and taking charge behavior
in the part-time work setting as factors that influence the quality of students' part-time work1

experience, which would in turn influence their career development. LMX is defined as thequality of the relationship between an employee and his or her supervisor (Dienesch & Liden,1986). In this study, it means the relationship between students working part-time and their
immediate supervisor in the workplace. Taking charge behavior is defined as constructive
efforts by employees to effect functional change in how work is executed (Morrison & Phelps,
1999). It can be considered one form of proactive work behavior (Crant, 2000). Researchers
have begun to pay more attention to this type of behavior because of the increasing needs for
employees to use their initiative, be self-starting and challenge the status quo to bring about
constructive change (Campbell, 2000; Frese & Fay, 2001; Frohman, 1997; Morrison &Phelps, 1999). Using these constructs, this study investigates whether the quality of LMX
indirectly influences career development of college students through proactive behavior inpart-time work.
As indicators of career development of college students, this study looks at attitudes,
self-efficacy and behavior toward job search for postcollege employment and subsequent
career. Attitudes to postcollege employment include employment commitment (i.e., theimportance placed on obtaining one's preferred career) and focus of career exploration (i.e.,
how sure one feels in his or her preference for a particular occupation, job and organization)(Stumpf, Colarelli, & Hartman, 1983). These two factors are considered important for acollege student's career development because these factors determine the degree ofmotivation and direction toward career exploration and subsequent job search for postcollege
employment. Self-efficacy in this study includes job search efficacy (i.e., an individual's
confidence in his or her ability to successfully perform a variety of job search activities)(Wanberg, Kanfer, & Rotundo, 1999) and self-efficacy for executing in-role tasks andworking as a member of the team and organization (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007) in the
future postcollege employment. Self-efficacy plays an important role in career development2such that it is a significant antecedent of job search behavior, job search effort, and job searchoutcomes (Eden & Aviram, 1993; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Saks & Ashforth, 1999, 2000).
Proactive career behavior is also examined in this study. Proactive career behavior includes
such activities as career planning, skill development, consultation and networking, which cangenerate a range of employment options, developmental opportunities and job searchcompetencies (Claes & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1998). Proactive career behavior is becoming more
important as dynamic continuous environmental change has created new employment settings
that are characterized as “boundaryless,” and employees need to be more actively involved in
the management of their own career (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Kossek, Roberts, Fisher, &Demarr).
As factors that would influence the relationship between LMX, taking charge
behavior and career development, this study also examines the moderating roles of
personality characteristics (proactive personality and conscientiousness) and job
characteristics (job autonomy and skill variety). Personality characteristics would influence
the degree to which students working part-time react to the quality of LMX and engage intaking charge behavior in the workplace. The characteristics of part-time jobs would
influence the degree to which students could learn and develop their career through theirtaking charge behavior in the workplace.
This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, this study adds to theliterature on part-time work for young people and to the literature on adolescent careerdevelopment by demonstrating the potential benefit of part-time work for students' careerdevelopment. In doing so, this study identifies the conditions under which part-time work
provides opportunities for learning and development of college students for future careers.
Second, contrary to most previous research on LMX and taking charge behavior,
which tends to focus on their effects on employee performance, this study takes a look at the3roles of LMX and taking charge behavior as potential contributors to career development.
This study demonstrates that high-quality LMX and taking charge behavior would be
beneficial not only for the workplace through individual job performance but also forindividuals, especially for adolescents, because of the effects on their career development.
Third, this study identifies boundary conditions that influence the quality ofpart-time work experience of students and its effects on their career development. Specifically,
this study describes how individual difference factors (i.e., proactive personality andconscientiousness) and job characteristics (i.e., job autonomy and skill variety) interact with
LMX and taking charge behavior in influencing career development, suggesting that students’personalities and job characteristics also matter in understanding the role of part-time work inadolescent career development.
Theory and Hypotheses
LMX in Part-Time WorkLMX theory contends that leaders develop a different relationship with each of theirsubordinates through a series of work-related exchanges (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen &Scandura, 1987). High-quality LMX relationships tend to be characterized by mutual respect,
liking and trust (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Numerous studies have demonstrated thata high quality of LMX will result in higher employee performance (e.g., task performanceand citizenship behaviors) (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Illies et al., 2007).
Most LMX research appears to focus on the supervisor–subordinate relationshipamong full-time employees and its effects on employee attitudes and performance. However,LMX in terms of the relationship between part-time employees and their supervisors may
also be of importance although almost no research has exclusively looked at LMX from thispoint of view. For employers, a high quality of LMX even for part-time employees would
promote positive attitudes and behaviors toward their jobs, which increases workplace4performance. For students in part-time work, a good relationship with supervisors in theworkplace would improve the quality of the part-time work experience and, if they can makethe most of such a good relationship, it would have a positive impact on their own careerdevelopment. As discussed below, LMX would influence career development via taking
charge behavior.
LMX and Taking Charge Behavior
Taking charge behavior involves challenging the status quo rather than passively
adapting to present conditions (Crant, 2000). Thus, taking charge behavior has potential risks
such as a damaged reputation if the initiative fails or disapproval if it is seen as inappropriate
or threatening (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Additionally, it can be difficult for supervisors to
support taking charge behavior for their employees because it can be threatening, such as
when employees question supervisors' decisions and challenge accepted practices (Frese &Fay, 2001; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Usually, part-time workers may not be
expected to engage in taking charge behavior because usually they are supposed to conduct
relatively simple and standardized tasks. Therefore, part-time employees may not actively
engage in taking charge behavior unless certain conditions are met.
High-quality LMX would be one of the conditions that promote taking charge
behavior of part-time employees. According to social exchange theory, when quality of LMX
is high, employees will feel a sense of obligation to reciprocate in order to maintain abalanced or equitable social exchange and hence will be motivated to help their supervisors
and organizations (Erdogan & Enders, 2007; Tangirala et al., 2007). In addition, employeeswith high-quality LMX are provided with more authority to make decisions, are given special
information to help them complete tasks, are consulted prior to decisions and are given
special mentoring opportunities (Graen, 1989; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Schriesheim, Neider,& Scandura, 1998; Yukl & Fu, 1999). Employees in such a supportive situation tend to5

engage in taking charge behavior. Furthermore, employees with high-quality LMX tend tohave a trust-based relationship with their supervisors (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In thisrelationship, employees would believe that their supervisors are more likely to accept
mistakes as learning experiences, which encourages individuals to try things beyond coretasks. They would also believe that their supervisors would support their suggestions andinitiatives for change, even if it might be threatening for supervisors. Thus, high-quality LMX
may encourage employees to take more risks and engage in taking charge behavior.
In short, in order to maintain a balanced or equitable social exchange, to make themost of the high-quality environment and resources provided by supervisors, and based on
the trust developed with supervisors, employees with a high-quality LMX would be
motivated to engage in taking charge behavior that goes beyond simple execution of theircore tasks. Consistent with the these arguments on social exchange, available resources andtrust, previous research has demonstrated that distributive and procedural justice, trust
between coworkers, top management openness to taking charge, and felt obligation to
constructive change were positively related to proactive or taking charge behavior (Moon,
Kamdar, Mayer, & Takeuchi, 2008; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Parker, Williams, & Turner,
2006).
Hypothesis 1: Students who have high-quality LMX relationships with their supervisors in
part-time work will exhibit more taking charge behaviors in their jobs than those
who have low-quality LMX relationships.
Taking Charge Behavior and Career Development
As discussed earlier, part-time work in general consists of relatively simple andstandardized tasks. Thus, the passive execution of routine tasks may not contribute much tocareer development of college students. However, if part-time employees go beyond theirsimple tasks and engage in taking charge behavior, they will have more opportunities to learn
new knowledge and skills, explore their own career, and develop self-efficacy through6self-starting, attempting innovative and challenging activities in their jobs.
Taking charge behavior, as innovative and challenging behavior, requires adiscretionary attempt to initiate and enact positive change and an intention to benefit theworkplace (McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban, 2007). Thus, employees who engage intaking charge behavior are more likely to encounter difficult and challenging situations. To
overcome such barriers, they would actively search for learning opportunities and engage inlearning activities (Frese et al., 1996; London & Mone, 1999). In addition, part-time
employees who engage in taking charge behavior may have more opportunities to interact
with full-time employees in the process of making suggestions and initiating positive change.
Therefore, through taking charge behavior, students who work in part-time jobs can obtain
more information about the world of work and develop positive attitudes toward their own
career exploration. As a result, they may become more committed to obtaining preferred
positions in postcollege employment, and they may be more likely to focus on what
occupations, jobs or organizations they will pursue for their future career.
Students who engage in taking charge behavior in part-time work would also
develop stronger self-efficacy for future job search and a subsequent career after graduation.
Social cognitive theory suggests that self-efficacy is enhanced through enactive mastery (i.e.,past performance accomplishments and successful mastery experiences) and vicarious
experience (i.e., making observations of others who are successful in their jobs), among
others (Bandura, 1977). Enactive mastery can be obtained if taking charge behavior
successfully brings about meaningful improvement in the workplace. Even if the attempt was
not very successful, students could learn new knowledge and skills that contribute to anothermastery experience. Vicarious experience can also be obtained if students engaging in taking
charge behavior interact with successful full-time employees in the workplace, who can berole models for the students. Thus, students who engage in taking charge behavior in7

part-time work will be more likely to develop self-efficacy in conducting core tasks (i.e.,
in-role behavior) and self-effectively as a member of the team and organization (i.e., teamand organization member proficiency) in their anticipated postcollege employment. They will
also develop job search efficacy because they may become confident about demonstrating
their knowledge and skills obtained through taking charge behavior in the workplace.
Finally, taking charge behavior is related to proactive career behavior such as skill
development, consultation (i.e., seeking advice from others) and networking. Students who
become proactive in their part-time work (i.e., engage in taking charge behavior) may also
become proactive in their own future career, indicating the behavioral learning of proactivity.
That is, proactivity such as self-starting, taking the initiative and being innovative would betransferred from the part-time work activity to career management activity.
Hypothesis 2: Students who exhibit more taking charge behavior in their part-time work will
have higher employment commitment, higher focus of career exploration, higher
self-efficacy for postcollege employment and show more proactive career behavior
than students who exhibit less taking charge behavior.
Mediating Role of Taking Charge Behavior
On the basis of Hypotheses 1 and 2, it is predicted that taking charge behavior will
mediate the relationship between LMX quality and career development. That is, the effect of
LMX between college students working in part-time work and their supervisors on theircareer development are largely indirect, mediated by taking charge behavior that is the more
proximal cause of the attitudes, efficacy beliefs and behaviors leading to career development.
Hypothesis 3: Taking charge behavior in part-time work will mediate the relationshipbetween LMX quality and career development (employment commitment, focus ofcareer exploration, self-efficacy for postcollege employment and proactive career
behavior).
The Role of Personality Characteristics
Although it is predicted that LMX in the students' part-time work will influence theirtaking charge behavior in the workplace, individuals may differ in the degree to which they8

will react to high-quality LMX to engage in taking charge behavior. This study examines two
personality variables, namely, proactive personality and conscientiousness, as sources ofindividual difference that moderates the relationship between LMX quality and taking charge
behavior.
Individual differences exist in the extent to which people take action to influence
their environments. Researchers have labeled this dispositional construct as proactive
personality (Beteman & Crant, 1993). Proactive personality is considered a stable disposition
to take personal initiative in a broad range of activities and situations (Seibert, Kraimer, &Crant, 2001). Proactive people identify opportunities and act on them, show initiative, takeaction and persevere until meaningful change occurs. In contrast, less proactive people fail to
identify, let alone seize, opportunities to change. They are passive and reactive, preferring toadapt to circumstances rather than change them (Crant, 2000).
It is predicted that the proactive personality will moderate the effect of LMX on
taking charge behavior. That is, individuals with a high proactive personality will be more
likely to take advantage of high-quality LMX with their supervisors (e.g., more resources
available, a higher level of trust and more support) and engage in taking charge behavior
whereas individuals with a low proactive personality will miss these opportunities or be lessmotivated to engage in taking charge behavior even in high-quality LMX with theirsupervisors.
Hypothesis 4a: Proactive personality will moderate the relationship between LMX quality
and taking charge behavior in part-time work such that the relationship is stronger
for students with a high proactive rather than a low proactive personality.
Another individual difference factor that may moderate the relationship between
LMX and taking charge behavior is conscientiousness, one of the Big Five personality
dimensions (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991).
Conscientiousness refers to the extent to which someone is dependable, persevering,9

hardworking, disciplined, deliberate and achievement oriented (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Highly conscientious individuals tend to adhere to the norms of reciprocity and feel
obligation within the high-quality social exchange relationship (e.g., Eisenberger, Armeli,
Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). Thus, it is predicted that highly conscientious
individuals who experience high LMX quality are more likely to reciprocate to help theirsupervisors and the workplace by engaging in taking charge behavior. Consistent with thesearguments, Moon et al. (2008) found that one narrow facet of conscientiousness, sense ofduty, was related to taking charge behavior. Thus, high-quality LMX would increase the senseof duty for highly conscientious individuals, which promotes their taking charge behavior. In
addition, highly conscientious individuals, once having decided to improve the workplace inreturn for the high-quality LMX, are more likely to be responsible, motivated andhardworking, which also promotes their taking charge behavior.
Hypothesis 4b: Conscientiousness will moderate the relationship between LMX quality andtaking charge behavior in part-time work such that the relationship is stronger for
students with a high level rather than a low level of conscientiousness.
The Role of Job Characteristics
The relationship between taking charge behavior in students' part-time work andtheir career development may also be moderated by several factors. Among these factors, thisstudy examines two types of job characteristics: job autonomy and skill variety.
Job autonomy refers to the extent to which the job provides substantial freedom,
independence and discretion to the individual in carrying out his/her work (Hackman &Oldham, 1976). It is predicted that the effect of engaging in taking charge behavior inpart-time work on students' career development will be higher when job autonomy is highrather than low. In the high job autonomy situation, employees who engage in taking charge
behavior have more freedom to seek learning opportunities, interact with other employees
and develop strategy to initiate positive change in the workplace. This increases the amount10

of information they will obtain about the world of work, which will promote the explorationof their own career, develops self-efficacy through successful experience and observation ofother successful employees and enhances proactive behavior for their own career. On theother hand, in the low job autonomy situation, those who engage in taking charge behavior
may not have enough flexibility and freedom to take initiative, interact with people anddevelop strategy, which would reduce the chance of successful improvement of their tasks
and workplace. It will also inhibit opportunities to obtain information on the world of work,
develop self-efficacy and promote proactive behavior for their own career.
Hypothesis 5a: Job autonomy will moderate the relationship between taking charge behavior
in part-time work and students' career development (employment commitment,
focus of career exploration, self-efficacy for postcollege employment and proactive
career behavior) such that the relationship is stronger when job autonomy is highrather than low.
Skill variety refers to the extent to which a job requires an individual to use a variety
of different skills to complete the work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). It is predicted that theeffect of taking charge behavior on career development would be stronger when skill variety
is low rather than high. When skill variety is low in part-time work, students have less
opportunity to learn new skills and the job itself may be monotonous; the amount of
information students can obtain about the world of work is also small. Thus, students
employed in this type of job will be more likely to benefit from engaging in taking charge
behavior that creates more opportunities to learn new skills, obtain information, develop
self-efficacy and learn how to be proactive. On the other hand, when skill variety is high inpart-time work, the chance of obtaining new skills is higher simply from conducting dailytasks. Students may also be able to obtain more information and develop self-efficacy in how
to use many different skills in executing jobs. Thus, in such a situation, the effect of taking
charge behavior on students' career development might relatively be weak because the effectwould overlap with the effect of high skill variety.

11Hypothesis 5b: Skill variety will moderate the relationship between taking charge behavior inpart-time work and students' career development (employment commitment, focus
of career exploration, self-efficacy for postcollege employment and proactive
career behavior) such that the relationship is stronger when skill variety is low
rather than high.

MethodSample and Procedure
Participants were recruited from undergraduate management classes in two national
universities in Japan. They were offered extra credit in return for participation in the study. In
regular class hours, surveys were distributed to the students who attended the classes and they
were told that participation in this study was voluntary and anonymous. Over 90% of thestudents who registered for these classes agreed to participate in this study and returned thesurveys. In one university, surveys were administered in two different time periods.
Personality variables, self-efficacy and proactive career behavior were measured in the firstsurvey and the remaining variables were measured in the second survey. These data werematched using the unique identifier codes generated by participants (Fedor, Davis, Maslyn, &Mathieson, 2001). Because of the nature of this study, students who had no part-time work
experience and who were already in their job search process were excluded from the sample,
resulting in the total sample size of 123. A majority of participants were college juniors(97.2%), and included 67.0% males and 33.0% females with an average age of 21.1 years(SD = 2.2). Most participants (94.3%) had worked in part-time for one-month or more. On
average, they had worked for 20.3 months (SD = 14.6) and worked 12.5 hours (SD = 8.6) per
week. Participants were employed in various types of workplace including restaurants(34.1%), retail (15.4%), teaching (13.8%), services (7.3%), physical labor (2.4%),
administrative assistance (1.6%) and others.
Because data were collected from two universities, it was explored whether
significant differences existed in the mean levels of variables central to the study's hypotheses.

12Independent sample t-tests for each variable revealed no significant differences between thetwo samples except for proactive career behavior (t = –2.62, p < .05). Thus, two samples
were combined into one, prior to testing the hypotheses.
Measures
All items, originally written in English, were translated into Japanese, and somewordings were adjusted to the research context. They were back-translated to ensure that themeaning had been retained (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973). All items were 7-point
scale (e.g., 1 = strongly disagree; 7 =strongly agree).
LMX. The quality of the relationship between participants and their immediate
supervisors in part-time work was measured using Graen and Uhl-Bien's (1995) 7-item
LMX7 scale. Sample items are “My supervisor understand my job problems and needs,” and“I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would defend and justify his/her decision
if he/she were not present to do so.” Cronback's alpha was .90.
Taking charge behavior. Participants' taking charge behavior in their part-time work
was measured using 10 items adapted from Morrison and Phelps's (1999) Taking Charge
scale. Some wordings were modified to fit with the context of part-time work. Sample items
were “I often try to change how my job is executed in order to be more effective,” and “Ioften make constructive suggestions for improving how things operate within the workplace”.
Cronback's alpha was .82.
Employment commitment. The 5-item Importance of Obtaining Preferred Position
scale from the Career Exploration Survey (CES) (Stumpf, Colarelli, & Hartmen, 1983) wasused to assess the degree of importance placed on obtaining one’s career preference in the
postcollege employment. A sample items was “It is important to me to work in the occupation
I prefer”. Cronback's alpha was .85.
Focus of career exploration. The 5-item Focus scale from the Career Exploration

13

Survey (CES) (Stumpf, Colarelli, & Hartmen, 1983) was used to assess how sure one feels in
his/her preference for a particular occupation, job, and organization in the postcollege
employment. A sample items was “I am sure that I know the type of job that is best for me”.
Cronback's alpha was .84.
Self-efficacy toward postcollege employment. Self-efficacy toward postcollege
employment was measured using three self-efficacy scales: job search efficacy, in-role
behavior efficacy, and efficacy on team- and organization-member proficiency. Job searchefficacy was measured with 6 items adapted from Vinokure, Price and Caplan (1991). Somewordings were modified to fit with the job search context for Japanese college students. A
sample item was “I feel confident about making the best impression in interview.” Cronback's
alpha was.81. In-role behavior efficacy in postcollege jobs was measured using the 5-item
scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). Participants were asked the degree towhich they were confident to carry out the behaviors described in the items in their future
postcollege jobs. A sample item was “adequately completes assigned duties”. Cronback's
alpha was .90. Efficacy on team- and organization-member proficiency was measured withthe 6-item scale that combined Griffin, Neal, and Parker’s (2007) 3-item team member
proficiency scale and 3-item organizational member proficiency scale. This scale assesses
self-efficacy regarding the behaviors that reflect the role as a member of the team andorganization in postcollege jobs. Participants were asked the degree to which they wereconfident to carry out the behaviors described in the items in their future postcollege jobs.
Sample items were “Coordinate my work with coworkers,” and “Defend the organization ofothers criticize it. Cronback's alpha was .83.
Proactive career behavior. Proactive career behavior was measured with 9 items
adapted from Claes and Ruiz-Quintanilla (1998). This scale was used to assess the degree towhich participants have been engaged in such behaviors as career planning, skill

14

development, consultation and networking behaviors. Some wordings were modified to fit
with the situation of college students. Sample items were “I have developed skills which may
be needed in future positions” and ”I have built a network of contacts or friendship withclassmates or other people to provide me with help or advice that will further my work
chances”. Cronback's alpha was .89.
Proactive personality. Proactive personality was measured using Bateman and
Crant's (1993) 10-item scale. A sample items was “Wherever I have been, I have been apowerful force for constructive change.” Cronback's alpha was .82.
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was measured using the 10-item
Conscientiousness scale from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1999). A
sample item was “I am always prepared”. Cronback's alpha was .80.
Job autonomy. Job autonomy was measured using the 3-item scale developed by
Hackman and Oldham (1980) and revised by Idasak and Drasgow (1987). A sample item was“I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job”. Cronback's alpha was .82.
Skill variety. Skill variety was measured using the 4-item scale developed byMorgeson and Humphrey (2006). A sample item was “The job requires a variety of skills”.
Cronback's alpha was .89.
Control variables. As control variables that might influence the quality of LMX,
taking charge behavior and career development variables, gender (female = 0; male = 1),
part-time work experience (number of months) and number of work hours per week were
included in the analysis.

Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables used in this study arepresented in Table 1.

15

------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here.
------------------------------Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 predicted that taking charge behavior would serve as amediator between LMX and career development variables. To test these hypotheses, mediatedregression analysis was performed. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), four conditions
are necessary to establish mediation: (1) the independent and mediating variables must be
significantly related; (2) the independent and dependent variables must be significantly
related; (3) the mediator and dependent variable must be significantly related; and (4) the
relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable should benonsignificant or weaker when the mediator is added. The regression results are reported inTable 2.
------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here.
------------------------------Model 1 in Table 2 shows that, after controlling for gender, part-time work
experience and working hours per week, LMX was positively related to taking charge
behavior (β = .28, p < .01), which supports Hypothesis 1 and condition 1. Models 2, 4, 7, 10,
12, 15 in Table 2 show that, after control variables were taken into account, LMX waspositively related to employment commitment (β = .25, p < .05), focus of career exploration(β = .32, p < .01), job-search efficacy (β = .24, p < .05), efficacy on team- andorganization-member proficiency (β = .29, p < .01) and proactive career behavior (β = .23, p< .05) but not to in-role behavior efficacy. Thus, condition 2 was supported except for in-role
behavior efficacy. Models 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16 in Table 2 show that, after control variables weretaken into account, taking charge behavior was positively related to focus of career
exploration (β = .28, p < .01), job-search efficacy (β = .31, p < .05), in-role behavior efficacy(β = .29, p < .01), efficacy on team- and organization-member proficiency (β = .32, p < .01)

16

and proactive career behavior (β = .32, p < .01) but not to employment commitment. Thus
condition 3 and Hypothesis 2 were supported except for employment commitment. Finally,
Models 6, 9, 11, 14, 17 show that, after control variables and taking charge behavior weretaking into account, LMX became nonsignificant for job-search efficacy and proactive career
behavior, which suggests full mediation. The effect of LMX became weaker, albeit still
significant, for the focus on career exploration (β = .25, p < .05) and efficacy on team- andorganization-member proficiency (β = .21, p < .05), which suggests partial mediation.
To further assess the significance of the mediation, Sobel's (1982) test was
performed (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). Results show that theintervening effect of taking charge behavior for focus of career exploration (Sobel’s z = 2,21,
p < .05), job search efficacy (Sobel’s z = 2.43, p < .05), efficacy for team- andorganization-member proficiency (Sobel’s z = 2.34, p < .05), and proactive career behavior(Sobel’s z = 2.45, p < .05) were all significant. Finally, although Baron and Kenny’s (1986)
condition 2 was not met for in-role behavior efficacy, recent researchers argue that condition
2 might no longer be essential in establishing mediation (Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger, 1998),
and Sobel’s test could be more appropriate. Thus, Sobel’s test was also performed for in-role
behavior efficacy using a boot strapping approach developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004)
as well as the formal significant test (Cole, Walter, & Bruch, 2008). Results shows that theintervening effect of taking charge behavior for in-role behavior efficacy was significant(Sobel’s z = 2.24, p < .05) and the bootstrap test confirmed the formal significant test (95%
confidence interval around the indirect effect did not contain zero [.01, .17]). Because
condition 2 (the direct relationship) was not significant, the results for in-role behavior
efficacy indicate full mediation. Taken together, Hypothesis 3 was supported except for
employment commitment.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that proactive personality and conscientiousness would

17

moderate the relationship between LMX and taking charge behavior, and Hypothesis 5
predicted that job autonomy and skill variety would moderate the relationship between taking
charge behavior and career development variables. To test these hypotheses, moderated
regression analysis was performed. To reduce multicollinearity when examining interactions,predictors were centered before entering into the regression (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen,1978). In the regression, control variables were entered in the first step, independent andmoderator variables were entered in the second step, and interaction terms were entered in thelast step. A significant interaction suggests the existence of a moderation effect. To avoid
possible problems of high multicollinearity among interaction terms and weak statisticalpower, the interaction terms were entered separately to the regression to allow the direct
testing of each of the moderation hypotheses. The regression results are reported in Table 3.
------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here.
------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure1 about here.
------------------------------As shown in Table 3, there were significant positive interactions between LMX andproactive personality (β = .20, p < .05) and between LMX and conscientiousness (β = .20, p< .05) in predicting taking charge behavior. Plots of the significant interactions using theapproach suggested by Aiken and West (1991) were shown in Figure 1. As expected,
individuals with a high proactive personality and/or a high level of consciousness were morereactive to high-quality LMX to exhibit taking charge behavior. Thus, Hypotheses 4a and 4b
were supported.
------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here.
------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here.
-------------------------------

18

Next, there ware significant positive interactions between taking charge behavior andjob autonomy in predicting employment commitment (β = .1.01, p < .05), focus of career
exploration (β = 1.15, p < .01), job search efficacy (β = 1.10, p < .05), in-role behavior
efficacy (β = 1.24, p < .01) and efficacy on team- and organization-member efficacy (β = 1.41,
p < .01). On the other hand, there were significant negative interactions between taking
charge behavior and skill variety in predicting job search efficacy (β = -1.24, p < .05) andproactive career behavior (β = -1.53, p < .01). Plots of significant interactions were shown in
Figures 2 and 3. The patterns of interactions were consistent with the predictions. Taken
together, Hypothesis 5a was supported except for proactive career behavior and Hypothesis
5b was supported for job search efficacy and proactive career behavior.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential benefit of part-time workon college students’ career development by focusing mainly on the role of LMX and taking
charge behavior. Results of this study generally support the major proposition developed inthis paper. The quality of LMX in college students’ part-time work was related to several
indicators of their career development, which was fully or partially mediated by their
engagement in taking charge behavior in the workplace. Additionally, college students’personality moderated the relationship between LMX and taking charge behavior, andcharacteristics of part-time jobs moderated the relationship between taking charge behavior
and career development.
With regard to the mediating role of taking charge behavior, the results involved full
mediation and partial mediation, depending on the types of career development. Taking
charge behavior fully mediated the relationship between LMX and job search efficacy, in-role
behavior efficacy and proactive career behavior. Among these variables, job search activity
and proactive career behavior (i.e., career planning, skill development, consultation, and19

networking) may require more self-starting, proactivity and self-management than otherdimensions of career development. Thus, it is suggested that taking charge behavior inpart-time work plays an especially important role as a mediator between the quality of LMX
and those “proactive” aspects of career development. It is also indicated that students canlearn proactivity through engaging in taking charge behavior in their part-time work.
On the other hand, the partial mediation results of taking charge behavior for thefocus career exploration and efficacy on team- and organization-member proficiency suggestthat the quality of LMX can not only indirectly but also directly influence career development,or that its effect may be mediated by other factors than taking charge behavior. The direct
effect of high-quality LMX on career development can be possible such that students obtain
useful advice or mentoring from their supervisors, or their supervisors become role models
for their future career, which may promote their career exploration and self-efficacy toward
postcollege employment. Students may also learn considerably through the passive executionof assigned tasks if the quality of LMX is high. In all, the findings on the direct and indirect
effect of LMX are valuable because it is demonstrated that high-quality LMX is not only
beneficial for job performance, as numerous studies have found, but also for careerdevelopment of adolescents working in part-time.
With regard to the moderating role of individual personality, the results support theimportance of proactive personality and conscientiousness that influence the relationshipbetween LMX and taking charge behavior in students’ part-time work. Students with a highproactive personality and/or conscientiousness were most likely to react to high-quality LMX
to engage in taking charge behavior. Thus, it appears that highly proactive and/or
conscientious students are the ones who will make the most of the supportive part-time work
environment (i.e., high-quality LMX) for their own career development by engaging in taking
charge behavior. This is consistent with previous research that emphasized the importance of20

these two personality variables in predicting future job performance and career success.
Previous studies have established the link between proactive personality and job searchbehavior, job search success, and long-term career success (Seibert et al., 2001; Claes & De
Witte, 2002; Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997). It is also well known from past
research that conscientiousness is related to job performance in almost all kind of jobs
(Barrick & Mount, 1991) and to job search outcomes (Kanfer, Wangerg, & Kantrowitz, 2001).
Thus, although this study emphasizes the importance of the quality of LMX for students’career development through taking charge behavior, individual differences can be criticalcontingency factors for this proposition.
With regards to the moderating role of job characteristics, this study has shed lighton the interesting contrast between job autonomy and skill variety, both of which are among
the core dimensions of the job characteristic model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). On the one
hand, the results suggest that a high level of job autonomy may be important, but may not be
the sufficient condition for career development. Students would benefit from high job
autonomy especially if they engage in taking charge behavior because such a behavior in theautonomous environment enables the students to effectively learn new skills, obtain
information about the world of work, and develop self-efficacy for future career. On the other
hand, the results suggest that high skill variety and taking charge behavior will work in acomplementary manner for some dimensions of career development. Under the part-time jobs
with high skill variety, students are required to learn and use different types of skills in
conducing assigned tasks, which would have a positive effect on their learning and careerdevelopment. Taking charge behavior may play a compensatory role such that its effect on
career development is stronger in part-time jobs with low skill variety because such abehavior creates opportunities for learning and development that otherwise cannot be
obtained through simple tasks. This finding is important as majority of part-time employees

21appear to engage in relatively simplified and standardized tasks.
Implications for Career Theory
This study has implications for career theory, especially theories on adolescentcareer development, school-to-work transition, and career self-management. This study
indicates that these theories should incorporate the quality of part-time work as importantfactors that contribute to effective career exploration, school-to-work transition, and careerself-management for adolescents. Part-time work is one of the important opportunities forstudents to learn about the world of work, acquire new skills, and prepare for their future
career. This study demonstrated that the quality of part-time work experience matters foradolescent career development, and it is influenced by the quality of LMX and taking charge
behavior in the workplace.
In addition, the results on the relationship between taking charge behavior and careerdevelopment has implications for self-directed learning of employees. As individual
responsibilities for learning and development is increasingly emphasized in recent years,
more research is needed to better understand the mechanism in which employees become
self-starting, proactive, and persistent in developing themselves for better career (e.g., Frese& Fay, 2001). This study indicates that engaging in taking charge behavior in the workplace
will enable employees to learn how to be proactive in managing their own career, suggesting
the learning effect of being proactive at work.
Implications for PracticeThis study has implications for managing part-time workers and students who workin part-time. Employees are not merely reacting passively to the working environment anddevelopment opportunities that are assigned and offered, but also seek out environment
opportunities and engage in proactive behaviors in order to expand their knowledge and skills
and help organizations (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). This proactive view of22

employee may also apply to part-time employees, who tend to be seen as peripheral andpassive recipient of the simplified and standardized tasks (e.g,, Kalleberg, 2000). In today’scomplex and uncertain world, organizational success and survival depend on proactivity.
Thus, employers can benefit from encouraging part-time employees, as well as full-time
employees, to be more proactive and engage in taking charge behavior by creating supportive
environment such as increasing the quality of LMX. At the same time, increasing job
autonomy in their part-time work would increase the effect of taking charge behavior on
employee career development. These efforts would result in the development of skilledworkforce, improvement of working methods and other constructive changes that lead tohigher business performance.
For students working in part-time, they will benefit from engaging in taking charge
behavior in their part-time jobs for their own career development especially when skill
variety is low and/or job autonomy is high in their part-time jobs. This may be especially true
for today’s business environment because a growing trend is to encourage employees tobecome actively involved in the management of their own careers (Kossek, Roberts, Fisher,& Demarr, 1998). As a first step to be more proactive, students who work in part-time could
pay more attention to developing a good relationship with their supervisors in the workplace.
It would lead to the supportive environment in which the students can take risks and engage
in taking charge behavior.
Limitations and Future Research
The results of this study should be viewed in light of their limitations. One potential
limitation is that data collection is this study was essentially cross-sectional. Therefore, ourdata provides only limited support for causal inferences. In addition, because all variables
were collected through self-report measures, common method bias may also be an issue.
However, in one university where data were collected, several variables were measured

23

separately in different point of time, which would have reduced common method biases(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Furthermore, for the findings on
significant interaction effects, common method bias may be less likely to be a matter ofconcern (Evans, 1985).
Future research could extend the findings of this study by using longitudinal research
design in which actual job search behavior, job search outcomes, and even posthire career
success are measured. This line of research could strengthen the validity of the findings ofthis study. Future research could also examine whether the findings of this study generalize
beyond college students working in part-time. For example, the relationship between LMX
and taking charge behavior could be applied not only to part-time employees, as
demonstrated in this study, but also to traditional, full-time employees. In addition, the effectof LMX and taking charge behavior on career development might also apply to the learningand development of full-time employees.
Other individual difference and situational variables that were not included in thisstudy could be further examined in future research. For example, self-esteem has beenfrequently studied in the job search and career literature (e.g., Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Kanfer etal., 2001; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Other dimensions in the Big Five personality
characteristics such as extraversion and neuroticism may also have some influences in thequality of part-time experience and career development. As for the situational variables,
future research could examine organizational justice, perceived organizational support (POS),
and/or team-member exchange (TMX) as social exchange variables that are comparable with
LMX, and would be other potential antecedents of taking charge behavior. Finally, future
research could further explore other types or dimensions of proactive behavior in theworkplace such as expressing voice, innovative behavior, feedback seeking and issue selling(Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008).

24

In conclusion, there is still lack of research that focuses on the role of part-time workin adolescent career development. In addition, research on various kinds of proactive
behaviors, including taking charge behavior in the workplace, has surged in recent years.
Therefore, there are many opportunities to further advance the understanding of the role ofpart-time work and proactive behavior in adolescent career development.

25

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). Introduction: The boundaryless career as a new
employment principle. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundarylesscareer (pp. 3-20). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. (1993). How part-time work intensity relates to drug use,
problem behavior, time use, and satisfaction among high school seniors: Are these
consequences or merely correlates? Developmental Psychology, 29, 220–235.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Barrik M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior:
A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods.
New York: J. Wiley.
Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy ofManagement Executive, 14, 52-66.
Claes, R, & De Witte, H. (2002). Determinants of graduates' preparatory job searchbehaviour: A competitive test of proactive personality and expectancy-value theory.
Psychologica Belgica, 42, 251-266.
Claes, R., & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. (1998). Influences of early career experiences,
occupational group, and national culture on proactive career behavior. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 52, 357-78.
Cohen, J. (1978). Partialed products are interactions; partialed vectors are curve components.
Psychological Bulletin, 85, 858-866.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F, & Bruch, H. (2008). The affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional
behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93, 945-958.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R. Professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

26

Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness andconscientiousness: A revision of the NEO. Personality Inventory. Personality andIndividual Differences, 12, 887-898.
Crant, M. J. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26,
435-462.
Creed, P. A., Doherty, F., & O'Callaghan, F. (2008). Job-seeking and job-acquisition in highschool students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 195-202
Curtis, S., & Lewis, R. (2001). A coincidence of needs? Employers and full-time students.
Employee Relations, 23, 38-54.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach toleadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role
making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Davies, L. (2000). Why kick the "L" out of "LEarning"? The development of students'
employability skills through part-time working. Education & Training, 42, 8, 436-444.
Derous, E. & Ryan, A. M. (2008). When earning is (not) beneficial for learning: Investigating
the relation of employment and leisure activities to academic outcomes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 73, 118-131.
,
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A
critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11: 618-634.
Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reemployment: helping people
to help themselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 352-360.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
42-51.
Ellis, R. A., & Taylor, S. M. (1983). Role of self-esteem within the job search process.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 632-640.
Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors' perceived organizational
support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance
relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 321-330.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance inmoderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 36, 305-323.
Fedor, D. B., Davis, W. D., Maslyn, J. M., & Mathieson, K. (2001). Performance
improvement efforts in response to negative feedback: The roles of source power andrecipient self esteem. Journal of Management, 27, 79-97.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in27

the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal
initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journalof Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 70, 139-161.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences
between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37-63.
Frohman, A. L. (1997). Igniting organizational change from below: The power of personal
initiative. Organizational Dynamics, 25 (3), 39-53.
Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring
the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De
Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28).
Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Graen, G. B. (1989). Unwritten rules for your career. New York: Wiley.
Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formalorganizations: A developmental approach. In J. Hunt & L. L. Larsen (Eds.),
Leadership Frontiers (pp. 143-165). Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G. B. & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L.L.
Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 9 (pp.
175-208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G. B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:
Applying a multi-level, multi domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance:
Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 327 - 347.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of atheory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Idasak, J. R., & Drasgow, W. F. (1987). A revision of the job diagnostic survey: Eliminationof measurement artifacts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69-74.
Illes, R., Nahrgang J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship28

behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-277.
Intelligence (2006). Survey on part-time work by students 2006. Tokyo: Intelligence, Ltd.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary andcontract work. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 341-365.
Kanfer, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Individual differences in successful job searches following
lay off. Personnel Psychology, 38, 835-848.
Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and employment: A
personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 837- 855.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, 4th ed.,Vol.. 1 (pp. 233–265). New York: McGraw–Hill.
Kossek, E. E., Roberts, K., Fisher, S., & Demarr, B. (1998). Career self-management: A
quasi-experimental assessment of the effects of a training intervention. Personnel
Psychology, 51, 935-962.
London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous learning. In D.R. Ilgen, & E. D. Pulakos(Eds), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation anddevelopment (pp. 119-53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lucas, R, & Lammont, N. (1998). Combining work and study: an empirical study of full-timestudents in school, college and university. Journal of Education and Work, 11, 41-56.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
McAllister, D. M., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role
perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality and efficacy
relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1200-1211.
Moon, H., Kamdar, D., Mayer, D. M., & Takeuchi, R. (2008). Me or we? The role ofpersonality and justice as other-centered antecedents to taking charge withinorganizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 84-94.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and thenature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339.
Morrison, E.W., & Phelps, C. (1999). Taking charge: Extra-role efforts to initiate. workplacechange. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive
behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636-652.

29

Paschall, M. J., Ringwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (2002). Explaining higher levels of
alcohol use among working adolescents: An analysis of potential explanatory
variables. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 169-178.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, andComputers, 36, 717–731.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common methodbiases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: making sense of the pastand present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234-79.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1999). Effects of individual differences and job searchbehaviors on the employment status of recent university graduates. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 54, 335-349.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). Change in job search behaviors and employmentoutcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 277-287.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader-member
exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy ofManagement Journal, 41, 298-318.
Seibert, S., Kraimer, M., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal.
model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54,
845-874.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models.
In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Steinberg, L., & Dornbush, S. M. (1991). Negative correlates of part-time employment duringadolescence: Replication and elaboration. Developmental Psychology, 27, 304– 313.
Stumpf, S. A., Colarelli, S. M., & Hartman, K. (1983). Development of the career exploration
survey (CES). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 191-226.
Tangirala, S., Green, S.G., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the boss’s boss: Effectsof supervisors’ upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 309-320.
Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H, & Caplan, R. B. (1991). From filed experiments to program
implementation: assessing the potential outcomes of an experimental intervention
program for unemployed persons. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19,543-652.

30

Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Rotundo, M. (1999). Unemployed individuals: Motivation, job
search competencies, and situational constraints as predictors of job-seeking andreemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 897-910.
Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment aspredictors of citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.
Yukl, G., & Fu, P. P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 219–232.

31

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations a
Variable
Mean s.d.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1. LMX
4.29 1.06 (.90)
2. Taking charge behavior
4.35 1.04 .31 ** (.82)
.08
(.85)
3. Employment commitment
5.18 0.89 .23 *4. Focus of career exploration
4.18 1.19 .32 ** .28 ** .41 ** (.84).65 ** (.81)
5. Job-search efficacy
4.02 1.00 .27 ** .34 ** .20 *6. In-role behavior efficacy
5.05 0.90 .10.29 ** .38 ** .38 ** .54 ** (.90).31 ** .37 ** .41 ** .52 ** .74 ** (.83)
7. Team and org. member efficacy
4.88 0.83 .24 *.32 ** .23 *.60 ** .63 ** .31 ** .37 ** (.89)
8. Proactive career behavior
4.11 1.09 .22 *.47 ** .61 ** .49 ** .50 ** .56 ** (.82)
9. Proactive personality
4.18 0.82 .30 ** .39 ** .16
10. Conscientiousness
4.24 0.85 -.02
.18
.18
.27 ** .32 ** .47 ** .32 ** .35 ** .27 ** (.80)
.02
-.02
.01
.00
.03
.11
-.06
(.82)
11. Job autonomy
4.41 1.30 .33 ** .34 ** .02.46 ** .40 ** .15.14.35 ** .35 ** .27 ** .10
12. Skill variety
4.12 1.27 .29 ** .35 ** .02.07-.05
13. Gender
0.67 0.47 .01
.05
-.06
.04
.10
.09
.05
-.08
.19 *
.04
.13
.16
.04
-.05
.06
.06
-.20 ** .12
14. Part-time work experience
20.29 14.58 .35 ** .14
15. Working hours per week
12.46 8.63 .18
.18
.02
-.01
.12
.04
.04
.13
.23
.00
.12

n = 123. Numbers in parentheses are Cronbach's alphas.
* p < .05** p < .01

a

32

12

13

(.89)
-.03
.31 ** -.01
.19
-.05

14

.38 **

Table 2
Results of Mediated Regression Analysis a

Variable
Control variables
LMX
Taking charge behavior

Taking charge
behavior
Model 1.28 **

Change in R2
Total R2

Variable
Control variables
LMX
Taking charge behavior
Change in R2
Total R2

.07 **
.11

.06 *
.06

In-role behavior
efficacy
Model 10Model 11.09
.29 **.01.02

Employment
commitment
Model 2 Model 3
.25 *
.08

.08 **
.09

.01
.01

Focus of career exploration
Model 4 Model 5 Model 6.32 **.25 *.28 **.21 *.09 **.11

Team- and organization-member
efficacy
Model 12 Model 13 Model 14.29 **.21 *.32 **.27 **.07 **.08.10 **.11a.14 **
.15

.08
.10

Job-search efficacy
Model 7 Model 8.24 *.31 **.12 **
.15

.05 *
.09

.10 **.14

Model 9.16
.28 **.12 **.16

Proactive career behavior
Model 15
.23 *

.05 *
.07

Model 16.32 **

Model 17.15
.28 **.10 **.12.11 **.14

In all analyses, LMX and/or taking charge behavior were entered after control variables were entered in the first step. Due to the space limitation, beta coefficients for control variables were
not reported here, but can be available from the author.
* p < .05** p < .01

33

Table 3
Results of Moderated Regression Analysis a
Taking charge behavior
Variable
Control variables
LMX
Proactive personality
Conscientiousness
LMX x Proactive personality
LMX x Conscientiousness
Change in R2
Total R2

Variable
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
.19
.23 *
.27 **.29 **.32 **.30 **
.19
.15
.20 *

.15 **
.20

.04 *
.24

.10 **
.15

.04 *
.18

Job-search efficacy

Change in R2
Total R2

Focus of career
exploration
Model 3 Model 4.32 **-.31-.11-.88 **
1.15 **.20 *Variable
Control variables
Taking charge behavior
Job autonomy
Skill variety
Taking charge behavior
x Job autonomy
Taking charge behavior
x Skill variety

Control variables
Taking charge behavior
Job autonomy
Taking charge behavior
x Job autonomy

Employment
commitment
Model 1 Model 2
.09
-.46
-.02
-.70 *
1.01 *

Model 5 Model 6 Model 7.38 **
-.19
.21 *
-.20
-.89 **.32 **
1.04 *

Model 8.81 **
1.18 **

Change in R2
Total R2

.01
.01

.05 *
.06

.09 *
.11

In-role behavior Team- and organization-member
Proactive career
efficacy
efficacy
behavior
Model 9 Model 10
Model 11 Model 12
Model 13 Model 14.32 **-.36.35 **-.42.22 *.97 **-.11-.93 **-.10-1.04 **
.27 **
1.34 **
1.24 **
1.41 **-1.24 *

.13 **
.17

.05 *
.22

.18
.22

.05
.27

.06 *
.17

-1.53 **

.09 *
.10

a

.07 **.17.11 **.12.09 **.21.16 **.18.07 **.25

In all analyses, independent and moderator variables and interaction terms were entered after control variables were entered in the first step. Due to the space limitation, beta coefficients forcontrol variables were not reported here, but can be available from the author.
* p < .05** p < .01

34

6

5.5

5.5

5
4.5

Low Proactive
personality

4

High Proactive
personality

3.5
3
2.5

Taking charge behavior

Taking charge behavior

6

5
4.5
Low Conscientousness

4

High Conscientousness

3.5
3
2.5

2

2
Low LMXHigh LMX

Low LMX

Figure 1. Interactions between LMX and Personality.

35

High LMX

66
Focus of career exploraration

Employment commitmen

5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
Low Job autonomy
High Job autonomy

5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2

5
4.5
Low Job autonomy
High Job autonomy

4
3.5
3
2.5
2

4
Low Taking charge
behavior

Low Taking charge
behavior

High Taking charge
behavior

6

6

5.5

5.5

In-role behavior efficacy

Job-search efficacy

5.5

5
4.5
Low Job autonomy

4

High Job autonomy

3.5
3
2.5

High Taking charge
behavior

5
Low Job autonomy

4.5

High Job autonomy

4
3.5
3

2
Low Taking charge
behavior

Low Taking charge
behavior

High Taking charge
behavior

High Taking charge
behavior

Figure 2. Interactions between Taking Charge Behavior and Job Autonomy.

36

Team- and organization-member proficienc

65.5
5Low Job autonomy
High Job autonomy

4.5
4
3.5
3
Low Taking charge
behavior

High Taking charge
behavior

Figure 2 (Continued).

37

6

5.5

5.5

5
4.5
Low Skill variety

4High Skill variety

3.5
3
2.5

Proactive career behavior

Job-search efficacy

6

5
4.5
Low Skill variety
High Skill variety

4
3.5
3
2.5

2

2

Low Taking charge
behavior

High Taking charge
behavior

Low Taking charge
behavior

High Taking charge
behavior

Figure 3. Interactions between Taking Charge Behavior and Skill Variety.

38