Beyond being proactive:what (else) matters for careerself-management behaviors?

Dan S. ChiaburuWashington, DC, USA

Vicki L. BakerPennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA, and

Adrian H. PitariuUniversity of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA

Abstract

Purpose – This study aims to investigate the relationship between proactive personality and careerself-management behaviors (job mobility preparedness and developmental feedback-seekingbehaviors), providing evidence for one mediator (career resilience) and one moderator (publicself-consciousness) on this relationship.

Design/methodology/approach – Data from 127 employees in one work organization, analyzedusing regression analysis.

Findings – Proactive personality is positively related to career self-management behaviors. Careerresilience mediates this relationship. In addition, proactive personality and public self-consciousnesshave an interactive effect, with developmental feedback-seeking behaviors as the outcome.

Research limitations/implications – Despite the cross-sectional nature of the study, the findingsuncover mechanisms through which proactive personality is related to career self-managementbehaviors. According to the findings, this relationship is subject to important intervening (careerresilience) and boundary (public self-consciousness) conditions.

Practical implications – The findings serve as a resource for practitioners interested ininterventions. Specifically, practitioners in organizations where the results generalize can designinterventions directed at enhancing the direct effect of proactive personality on careerself-management. These interventions can be directed to managing employees’ career resilience andcognitively restructuring their public self-consciousness perceptions.

Originality/value – This study adds to the literatures on career self-management behaviors andproactive personality and explicates important intervening mechanisms in this relationship.

Keywords Career development, Job mobility, Personality

Paper type Research paper

Career self-management is defined by scholars as the degree to which employeesregularly gather information and plan for career problem-solving and decision-making(Kossek et al., 1998). Research on self-directed career behaviors and on careerself-management has grown substantially in prominence over the past decade (Briscoe

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

A previous version of the manuscript was presented at the Southern Academy of ManagementConference, Charleston, South Carolina, November 9-12, 2005. We would like to thank Holly Slayand Jim Detert, who provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Beyond beingproactive

619

Received March 2006Revised August 2006

Accepted August 2006

Career Development InternationalVol. 11 No. 7, 2006

pp. 619-632q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1362-0436DOI 10.1108/13620430610713481

et al., 2006; King, 2004). Although Baruch (2006) noted that organizational influence isnot to be underestimated in the career landscape, individual initiative (i.e. careerself-management) continues to hold primary theoretical and practical interest in thestudy of careers due to the ever-changing nature of the field. One key to broadening ourunderstanding of career self-management is through the examination of the individualfactors that are likely to influence it (King, 2004).

In the present paper, we relate an important individual factor, proactive personality,to career self-management behaviors, and we explore two mechanisms that are thoughtto influence this relationship. Although researchers proposed that proactivepersonality should have a positive effect on career-related outcomes (Crant, 2000),and a number of studies demonstrated that this is the case (Briscoe et al., 2006; Brownet al., 2006; Seibert et al., 1999; Seibert et al., 2001), the theoretical mechanismsunderpinning this relationship remain elusive. Given the absence of researchconnecting proactive personality with career self-management behaviors, we firstexplore this relationship. We then turn to possible intervening mechanisms.Specifically, we attempt to uncover the extent to which career resilience intervenesin this relationship. Finally, based on research indicating that changes in career andprofessional identity are potentially threatening for one’s perception of the self(Roberts, 2005), we propose that public self-consciousness moderates the effect ofproactive personality on one aspect of career self-management behaviors,developmental feedback-seeking. Our study responds to calls for research on themechanisms connecting proactive personality with career outcomes. For example,Seibert et al. (1999, p. 425) state that “it would be fruitful to examine the behaviors thatmediate the relationship between proactive personality and career success”, addingthat “possible mediating behaviors may include [a]ctive career planning, and initiatingnew projects”. Our study also extends recent research efforts that examine the ways inwhich proactive personality influences career – or development-related outcomes, suchas job search (Brown et al., 2006) and development activities (Major et al., 2006).

From a theoretical perspective, we strive to contribute to the existing literature onproactive personality (Seibert et al., 1999) and career self-management (King, 2004;Kossek et al., 1998) by uncovering important intervening mechanisms. The results ofthe study are likely to be of interest to managers and organizations interested indetermining which employees are more likely to engage in career self-managementbehaviors and under what conditions will such behaviors occur.

Individual differences and career self-managementPrior research has linked proactive personality to objective and subjective criteria ofcareer success (Erdogan and Bauer, 2005; Ng et al., 2005; Seibert et al., 1999) and withan agentic, self-directed orientation toward one’s career (Briscoe et al., 2006). Thequestion remains, however, whether proactive individuals engage in careerself-management and life-long learning efforts (Jackson et al., 1996). One’s proactivedisposition is likely to result in behaviors such as job mobility preparedness anddevelopmental feedback-seeking, which are crucial for creating career networks,coping with work stress and challenges, and adjusting to changes in the organizationand environment (Mirvis and Hall, 1994). While previous studies indicate thatinterventions related to enhancing career self-management behavior are not always

CDI11,7

620

successful (Kossek et al., 1998), an important question remains whether these agenticbehaviors are influenced by individual factors, and if so, which factors. In whatfollows, we elaborate on individual-level predictors and their relationship to careerself-management.

Proactive personality is a stable disposition (Bateman and Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000),characterizing “one who is relatively unconstrained by situational forces and whoeffects environmental change” (Crant, 1995, p. 532). Research has shown that proactiveindividuals engage in life-long learning and are therefore more likely to identify andcapitalize on opportunities that bring about meaningful change (Seibert et al., 1999).Individuals who do not exhibit proactive personality are much more reactive andcontent with maintaining status quo within a career context. Proactive personality isrelated to objective job performance (Crant, 1995) and influences one’s ability to adjustto ever-changing work conditions by taking responsibility for career progression andthe development of personal networks (Hall and Mirvis, 1995). Finally, researchers alsofound proactive personality to be positively related to career satisfaction and success(Erdogan and Bauer, 2005). Consequently, we examine the extent to which adisposition towards proactive behaviors, such as being aware of possibleopportunities, enjoying overcoming obstacles, and turning problems intoopportunities, influences career self-management behaviors.

What are the possible intervening mechanisms of this relationship? Prior researchindicated that, in order to obtain important career outcomes (e.g. promotion, salaryincrease, satisfaction), individuals with a proactive disposition will need to engage inspecific behaviors and cognitions such as career initiative and innovation (Seibert et al.,2001). We extend this logic by suggesting that proactive personality alone may beinsufficient for explaining why individuals engage in career self-managementbehaviors. Thus, we assert that career resilience might be an important interveningfactor. As noted by Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003), a resilience perspective provides insightinto organizational and individual adjustment and adaptation in an increasinglycomplex, ever-evolving, and hypercompetitive environment. Resilience thereforebecomes a necessary coping mechanism that will further support and enable aproactive individual’s career self-management efforts.

Importantly, some of the career self-management activities target preparation forand changes in skills and professional image (Roberts, 2005). As many of these actionsare either public or related to one’s public self, we focus on a second intervening factor,public self-consciousness. Public self-consciousness is defined as a tendency to seeoneself as a social object, which results in one being susceptible to negative feelingswhen observed in social situations (Marquis and Filiatrault, 2003; Fenigstein et al.,1975). Prior theoretical work shows that public self-consciousness is important forcareer management behaviors (London and Smither, 1999), and we argue that publicself-consciousness is likely to influence the proactive personality – careerself-management relationship, particularly during career transitions. Individualsengaged in career self-management expose themselves to public scrutiny, especially byindividuals who are in hierarchically superior positions and who are likely to havemore experience. In other words, individuals in career transition are “at the mercy” ofsuperiors who are called upon to critique the merits of the individuals in transition.Because public self-consciousness has been found to be related to public social costs,

Beyond beingproactive

621

London et al. (1999) suggested that individuals with high levels of this trait are likely tobe more responsive to others’ views.

Theory development and hypothesesAs we indicated earlier, extant career research has linked proactive personality tocareer outcomes (Erdogan and Bauer, 2005; Ng et al., 2005). Indeed, proactiveindividuals take on more responsibility at work by increasing their role breadth,self-efficacy and production ownership (Parker and Sprigg, 1999), and have increasedlevels of performance (McCarthy, 2002; Thompson, 2005). Additionally, proactiveindividuals are more adept in understanding organizational and environmentalnuances and, therefore, they are more proficient in anticipating changes than lessproactive individuals (Seibert et al., 1999). Crant (1995) found that proactive individualswere likely to select or create situations that supported high levels of job performance.In addition, such individuals are also more likely to seek out professional andorganizational information, and career support, which lead to higher salary,promotions and career satisfaction (Ng et al., 2005; Seibert et al., 1999).Improvements such as the ones just described (in both objective and subjectivecareer outcomes) are obtained mainly through intervening mechanisms such as voice,innovation, political knowledge and career initiative (Seibert et al., 2001).

Proactive personality along with other individual factors positively influence one’smotivation to learn, the extent to which employees engage in developmental activities,and their career management strategies (Guthrie et al., 1998; Major et al., 2006).However, little research to date has examined the relationship between proactivepersonality and career self-management behaviors. Proactive individuals describethemselves as always looking for better ways of completing tasks, as being excited byturning their ideas into reality, and believing that they are a force for constructivechange, including personal change. Thus, we argue that career self-management is alogical extension of these individuals’ proactive tendencies into a behavioral domainincluding career-specific behaviors (e.g. initiating feedback, preparing for a new job,and seeking development). We therefore expect that employees who are proactive alsoengage in career self-management behaviors, in order to enhance valued careeroutcomes.

H1. Proactive personality will be positively related to career self-managementbehaviors such as (a) job mobility preparedness, and (b) developmentalfeedback-seeking.

In addition to the direct effect of proactive personality on career self-managementbehaviors, as suggested by previous research (Seibert et al., 2001), we have to examinethe possibility of intervening factors or mediators. Specifically, we propose careerresilience, which consists of characteristics such as a belief in self, a willingness to takerisks, and need for achievement (King, 1997; London, 1983). Indeed, Sutcliffe andVogus’ (2003, p. 100) propose that as individuals gain control and mastery over keytask behaviors, which is common in proactive individuals, “they develop a sense ofefficacy and competence” which allows them to adapt more effectively in anever-changing environment. Prior research has established that career resilience isrelated to objective and subjective career success (Day and Allen, 2004; Wayne et al.,

CDI11,7

622

1999), and represents the ability to adapt to changing circumstances even when thecontext is disruptive or discouraging. Although proactive personality is a necessaryprecondition for career self-management, career resilience can act as a channel for thebroader types of actions of a proactive employee, thereby focusing them towardspecific career-related directions.

This is also consistent with studies indicating that proactive dispositions do notalways translate into proactive behaviors. For example, Indeed, Chan and Schmitt(2000) argue that a host of other conditions need to be present. Such necessaryconditions for career resilience can be provided in the form of support for skilldevelopment, use of reinforcement contingencies, and creation of opportunities(London and Bray, 1984). Along these lines, London and Mone (1987) theorized thatcareer resilience develops from reinforcement contingencies. In our case, we argue thatcareer resilience is an important component in focusing proactive behaviors, because itbrings together the necessary long-term commitment and persistence needed to engagein career self-management.

H2. Career resilience will mediate the relationship between proactive personalityand career self-management behaviors such as (a) job mobility preparednessbehaviors, and (b) developmental feedback-seeking behaviors.

Kossek et al. (1998) identified two main career self-management behaviors: job mobilitypreparedness and developmental feedback seeking. While both are potentially usefulin obtaining career outcomes, they entail different types of actions. For example, asopposed to developmental feedback seeking, job mobility preparedness is safer andinvolving activities that are either less public or less threatening to the public self. Suchbehaviors involve mainly exploration and information collection for subsequentplanning and change activities. Developmental feedback seeking, however, consists ofbehaviors that could expose one’s weaknesses because they involve engagement inlearning new skills, acquiring new knowledge, and improving performance. Thesebehaviors are situated in the public domain to a greater extent than job mobilitypreparedness. Because of these differences between the two types of careerself-management behaviors, we expect that the effect of proactive personality ondevelopmental feedback seeking depends on one’s level of public self-consciousness.

Recall that public self-consciousness emphasizes “the reactions of others to the self”(Fenigstein et al., 1975, p. 525) and “an awareness of the self as a social object – anawareness that others are aware of the self” (Fenigstein, 1984, p. 863). Publicself-consciousness indicates a dispositional attraction toward social aspects of the self,which other individuals can either observe or evaluate (e.g. physical appearance,behaviors, expressions). Individuals characterized by high public self-consciousnessare, therefore, mindful as to the impressions others form of them (Fenigstein, 1987).This disposition can therefore become material in situations when the individual seeksto transition to a new professional identity or career (Roberts, 2005). This publicawareness is more important for developmental feedback-seeking behaviors, given thepublic and somewhat threatening nature of such developmental activities. As a result,proactive employees with high levels of public self-consciousness will be less likely toengage in development seeking behaviors, compared to proactive employees withlower levels of public self-consciousness. Thus, the effect of one’s proactive personality

Beyond beingproactive

623

on developmental feedback-seeking behaviors should be moderated by one’s level ofpublic self-consciousness. The literature to date indicates that individuals high inpublic self-consciousness are more likely to see themselves as social objects and bemore sensitive about being observed in public situations (Levy et al., 1995). Asdemonstrated by prior empirical research, individuals who are high in publicself-consciousness will be less likely to seek feedback, especially if they are sociallyanxious (London and Smither, 1999).

H3. Proactive personality and public self-consciousness will have an interactiveeffect on development seeking behaviors. Specifically, the positive effect ofproactive personality will be accentuated for low levels of publicself-consciousness and attenuated for high levels of public self-consciousness.

MethodSetting and procedureThis study was conducted in an organization with approximately 3,500 employees,situated in a metropolitan area in the Eastern United States. We collected data in onefacility, from line employees engaged in jobs of a technical nature (e.g. machine operator,maintenance specialist, shipping clerk). The unit was responsible to support theorganization with inventory ordering, inventory maintenance, warehousing, andshipping of mechanical equipment and parts. This particular setting, and the fact thatthe career path for these employees was either to remain inside the unit, or to seek skilldevelopment and advancement to administrative positions outside the unit, ensuredsufficient variance in our outcome variable, career self-management behaviors. We alsoobtained evidence, based on discussions with upper-management, on the skillspecificity, and on the patterns of promotions and turnover, that these employees’ careerdevelopment efforts were more likely to be channeled toward obtaining positions insidethe organization (inside or outside the respective unit). We collected the data usingsurveys, distributed to the 245 employees working in the facility. A total of 127 usablesurveys were returned, for a response rate of 51.83 percent. Of the employees whoparticipated in the current study, 56.7 percent were male, 27.8 percent had a high schooleducation, 45.2 percent had some college education, 12.7 percent had an associate degree,and 14.5 percent had a college degree. Of the employees, 70 percent were 40 years orolder, and 57.5 percent had worked for the organization for nine or more years.

MeasuresUnless otherwise indicated, all measures were assessed using a five-point Likert-typescale anchored by 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ neither agree nor disagree,4 ¼ agree, and 5 ¼ strongly agree).

PredictorsFor proactive personality ða ¼ 0:91Þ; we used the ten-item scale from Bateman andCrant (1993). Sample items include: “I am constantly on the lookout for new ways toimprove my life,” “I am always looking at better way to do things,” and “If I believein an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen.” Career resilienceða ¼ 0:82Þ was measured with four items developed by London (1993). Sample itemsinclude: “I welcome job and organizational changes (e.g. new assignments),” and “I am

CDI11,7

624

able to adapt to changing circumstances“. We assessed public self-consciousnessða ¼ 0:75Þ with five items from the scale provided by Fenigstein et al. (1975) andvalidated in other studies examining career outcomes (London et al., 1999). Sampleitems include: “I care about what others think of me,” and “I am sensitive to others’view of my performance.”

OutcomesCareer self-management behaviors consist of developmental feedback-seeking and jobmobility preparedness behaviors (Kossek et al., 1998). Employees responded to specificquestions after reading the initial stream (“Over the past six months, to what extenthave you . . . ”). Developmental feedback-seeking ða ¼ 0:90; five items) includedquestions about behaviors such as [Initiated feedback about your . . .] “Service to yourcustomers,” “Career progress to date,” and “Training and development needs.” For jobmobility preparedness ða ¼ 0:87; seven items), employees were asked about the extentto which they “Reviewed internal job postings,” “Sought out any new personalconnections at work for the purpose of furthering your career,” and “Thought aboutwhat position you would like to have next” (Kossek et al., 1998).

ResultsTable I provides the means, standard deviations, zero-order correlations and Cronbachalphas for the variables in the study. We tested H1 using zero-order correlations. Weused Sobel’s test (1982) for H2, based on research indicating that it provides a morepowerful and precise test of mediation (MacKinnon et al., 2002). Multiple regressionswere used for H3.

As indicated in Table I, proactive personality is positively correlated with jobmobility preparedness ðr ¼ 0:40; p , 0:001Þ and developmental feedback-seekingðr ¼ 0:62; p , 0:001Þ; thus providing support for H1. Support for H2 is presented inTable II. The indirect paths from proactive personality to career resilience and then tothe two respective outcomes were both significant ðt ¼ 4:10; p , 0:001; fordevelopmental feedback-seeking behaviors, and t ¼ 2:59; p , 0:001; for job mobilitypreparedness).

Finally, according to H3, we proposed that proactive personality will interact withpublic self-consciousness and influence developmental feedback-seeking behaviors.We tested the hypothesis using hierarchical regression with standardized predictors inorder to minimize effects of multicollinearity (Cohen et al., 2003). After enteringproactive personality and public self-consciousness in the first step of the regression,

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Proactive personality 3.83 0.72 (0.91)2. Public self-consciousness 3.58 0.82 0.22 (0.75)3. Career resilience 4.03 0.70 0.51 0.35 (0.82)4. Developmental feedback seeking 3.80 0.94 0.62 0.27 0.59 (0.90)5. Job mobility preparedness 3.33 1.01 0.40 0.32 0.40 0.54 (0.90)

Notes: Correlations higher than 0.21 are significant at p , 0.05; Correlations higher than 0.26 aresignificant at p , 0.01. Reliability estimates are reported along the diagonal of the matrix

Table I.Means, standard

deviations, correlations,and reliabilities for

variables in the study

Beyond beingproactive

625

the interaction term introduced in the second step was significant ðB ¼ 20:28; p ,

0:05Þ; and explained an additional three percent of the total variance of developmentalfeedback-seeking behaviors. We plotted the relationship at high and low levels ofpublic self-consciousness (one standard deviation above and below the mean). Theinteraction is in the hypothesized direction (see Figure 1). More importantly, theinteraction effect size ðDR2 ¼ 0:03Þ is within the typical range of 0.01 to 0.03 found innon-experimental studies (Chaplin, 1991; Champoux and Peters, 1987). Specific valuesfor the direct and moderated models can be obtained from the first author uponrequest.

DiscussionThe main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between proactivepersonality and career self-management behaviors, and to explore intervening factorssuch as career resilience and public self-consciousness. Overall, we found support forour hypothesized relationships. As anticipated, proactive personality predicts career

Figure 1.Hypothesized model

Indirect relationshipsSobel test(t-value)

Coefficients forindirect paths

Proactive personality to developmentalfeedback-seeking (A *B)

4.10 * 0.27

Proactive personality to job mobility preparedness(A * B’)

2.59 * 0.19

Notes: * p , 0.01. A0 ¼ indirect path from proactive personality to career resilience; B andB0 ¼ indirect paths from career resilience to career self-management behaviors (developmentalfeedback-seeking and job mobility preparedness, respectively)

Table II.Career resilience asmediator of the proactivepersonality – careerself-managementbehaviors relationship

CDI11,7

626

self-management behaviors, and we found support for differential relationships – thepredictors interacted in influencing developmental feedback seeking. Specifically, wefound that employees with high levels of proactive personality and low publicself-consciousness engage more in developmental feedback-seeking behaviors thanemployees with high levels of proactive personality and high public self-consciousness(Figure 2). Furthermore, the relationship between proactive personality and careerself-management behaviors was mediated by career resilience. This indicates thatalthough proactive employees are more likely to engage in career self-managementbehaviors, career resilience is also an important factor. Given that career resilience canbe enhanced through contingent rewards (London, 1993), our study uncovered animportant mechanism that can enhance and direct the impact of proactive behaviors oncareer self-management initiatives.

The above findings should be regarded in light of the study’s limitations. First, thecross-sectional nature of the data restricts our ability to make causal inferences. We,therefore, recommend that future studies test these relationships in models designed tocapture cause and effect. Second, collecting data from a single source could result insingle-source bias. Such inflation is less likely, however, in the case of complexrelationships such as interactions (Evans, 1985). In addition, given the focus of thestudy on information related to individual-directed variables (proactive personalityand public self-consciousness) and career self-management behaviors that are mostaccurately reported by the focal employees (job mobility preparedness anddevelopmental feedback-seeking), these individuals were the most reliable source ofinformation, as in other similar studies (Kossek et al., 1998). More importantly, theresults of several studies suggest that common method effects are less of a threat thanresearchers think, or are a threat only in specific situations (Podsakoff and Organ,1986; Spector, 1994). Similarly, Crampton and Wagner’s (1994) meta-analysis indicated

Figure 2.Graphical representation

of the moderating effect ofpublic self-consciousness

on the relationshipbetween proactive

personality anddevelopmental feedback

seeking

Beyond beingproactive

627

that percept-percept inflation might be an exceptional occurrence rather than the norm.Finally, this study was conducted in one organization; therefore generalizability of thepresent findings should be treated with appropriate caution until confirmed by otherstudies based on data obtained in other settings. This study might also provide animpetus for future research, for which several directions are outlined as follows, alongwith theoretical and practical implications.

Theoretical implicationsThe present study contributes to the existing career management literature. Providedthat prior studies found that training programs had no effect in changingself-management career-related behaviors (Kossek et al., 1998), we found empiricalevidence of the existence of an alternative predictor, and demonstrated the importanceof employees’ proactive personality. Prior studies related proactive personality todistal career outcomes (e.g. promotion, salary increase, satisfaction, Seibert et al. (2001),and successful job search, Brown et al. (2006)). Proactive dispositions also predictagentic behaviors relevant to career development, such as motivation to learn andengagement in development (Major et al., 2006). We add to the existing theory byshowing that proactive personality is related to an important proximal career outcome,career self-management. More importantly, adding to conceptual studies that argue fora relationship between proactive behaviors and career outcomes (Crant, 2000), weuncover two important mechanisms intervening in the relationship between proactivepersonality and career self-management, career resilience and publicself-consciousness. Such theoretical extensions are important, especially in the lightof the evidence demonstrating that proactive dispositions do not always lead toproactive behaviors (Parker et al., 2006).

Implications for practiceThe above findings have implications for practitioners interested in career counselingor who otherwise make decisions related to the career self-management behaviors oftheir employees. Although proactive personality is positively related to careerself-management behaviors, this relationship is mediated by career resilience.Consequently, a number of interventions can be envisaged to increase career resilience,including support for skill development, positive rewards for performance, use ofreinforcement contingencies, and creation of opportunities for achievement (Londonand Bray, 1984). As London and Bray (1984) demonstrated empirically, careerresilience is greatly increased in a context that facilitates career development.Although this seems difficult to achieve, factors such as supervisor support,mentoring, and employee empowerment can increase career resilience (Day and Allen,2004; London, 1993). In addition, the relationship between proactive personality anddevelopmental feedback-seeking behavior is moderated by public self-consciousness.Practitioners involved in counseling employees who want to engage in developmentalfeedback-seeking can, for example, assess their employees’ existing levels of pubicself-consciousness and then engage in actions aimed at cognitive restructuring andgradual change of these employees’ perceptions of public self-consciousness.

CDI11,7

628

Future researchFuture research can provide additional information and extensions to these findings.For example, more information is needed on the mechanisms through which proactivepersonality translates into career self-management behaviors. In addition to careerresilience, researchers have identified other career motivation factors (e.g. careerinsight and career identity, (Day and Allen, 2004; London, 1993); career commitment,(Carson and Bedeian, 1994) which might be relevant for this relationship. We alsofocused mainly on the supervisor as the main source for employee feedback, guidance,and career development. However, as indicated in other studies (e.g. Dobrow andHiggins, 2005; Higgins and Kram, 2001), employees are sometimes influenced in theirdevelopmental decisions by individuals other than their supervisors. Relationshipswith individuals other than their supervisors (Higgins and Thomas, 2001) caninfluence employees’ decision to engage in career self-management behaviors, andfuture studies should capture their influence.

References

Baruch, Y. (2006), “Career development in organizations and beyond: balancing traditional andcontemporary viewpoints”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 125-38.

Bateman, T.S. and Crant, J.M. (1993), “The proactive component of organizational behavior:a measure and correlates”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 103-18.

Briscoe, J.P., Hall, D.T. and Frautschy DeMuth, R.L. (2006), “Protean and boundaryless careers:an empirical exploration”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 30-47.

Brown, D.J., Cober, R.T., Kane, K., Levy, P.E. and Shalhoop, J. (2006), “Proactive personality andthe successful job search: a field investigation with college graduates”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 717-29.

Carson, K.D. and Bedeian, G. (1994), “Career commitment: construction of a measure andexamination of its psychometric properties”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 44 No. 3,pp. 237-62.

Chan, D. and Schmitt, N. (2000), “Interindividual differences in intraindividual changes inproactivity during organizational entry: a latent growth modeling approach tounderstanding newcomer adaptation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 2,pp. 190-210.

Champoux, J. and Peters, W. (1987), “Form, effect size, and power in moderated regressionanalysis”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 243-55.

Chaplin, W.F. (1991), “The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology”,Journal of Personality, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 143-78.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/CorrelationAnalysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Crampton, S.M. and Wagner, J.A. (1994), “Percept-percept inflation in microorganizationalresearch: an investigation of prevalence and effect”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79No. 1, pp. 67-76.

Crant, J.M. (1995), “The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among realestate agents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 532-7.

Beyond beingproactive

629

Crant, J.M. (2000), “Proactive behavior in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,pp. 435-62.

Day, R. and Allen, T.D. (2004), “The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacywith protege career success”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 72-91.

Dobrow, S.R. and Higgins, M.C. (2005), “Developmental networks and professional identity:a longitudinal study”, Career Development International, Vol. 10, pp. 567-83.

Erdogan, B. and Bauer, T.N. (2005), “Enhancing the career benefits of proactive personality:the role of fit with jobs and organizations”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 859-91.

Evans, M.G. (1985), “A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance inmoderated multiple regression analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 305-23.

Fenigstein, A. (1984), “Self-consciousness and the over-perception of the self as a target”, Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 75-86.

Fenigstein, A. (1987), “On the nature of public and private self-consciousness: assessment andtheory”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 543-54.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F. and Buss, A.H. (1975), “Public and private self-consciousness:assessment and theory”, Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 4,pp. 522-7.

Guthrie, J.P., Coate, C.J. and Schwoerer, C.E. (1998), “Career management strategies: the role ofpersonality”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 13 Nos 5/6, pp. 371-86.

Hall, D.T. and Mirvis, P.H. (1995), “The new career contract: developing the whole person atmidlife and beyond”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 269-89.

Higgins, M.C. and Kram, K.E. (2001), “Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmentalnetwork perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 264-88.

Higgins, M.C. and Thomas, D.A. (2001), “Constellations and careers: toward understanding theeffects of multiple developmental relationships”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 223-48.

Jackson, V., Arnold, J., Nicholson, N. and Watts, A.G. (2000), Managing Careers in 2000 andBeyond, Report No 304, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.

King, A.S. (1997), “The crescendo effect in career motivation”, Career Development International,Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 293-301.

King, Z. (2004), “Career self-management: its nature, causes and consequences”, Journal ofVocational Behavior, Vol. 65, pp. 112-33.

Kossek, E.E., Roberts, K., Fisher, S. and DeMarr, B. (1998), “Career self-management:a quasi-experimental assessment of the effects of a training intervention”, PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 51, pp. 935-62.

Levy, P.E., Albright, M.D., Cawley, B.D. and Williams, J.R. (1995), “Situational and individualdeterminants of feedback seeking: a closer look at the process”, Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 23-37.

London, M. (1983), “Toward a theory of career motivation”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 620-30.

London, M. (1993), “Relationships between career motivation, empowerment and support forcareer development”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 1,pp. 55-69.

CDI11,7

630

London, M. and Bray, D.W. (1984), “Measuring and developing young managers’ careermotivation”, Journal of Management and Development, Vol. 3, pp. 3-25.

London, M. and Mone, E.M. (1987), Career Management and Survival in the Workplace,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

London, M. and Smither, J.W. (1999), “Career-related continuous learning: defining the constructand mapping the process”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and HumanResources Management, Vol. 17, JAI Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 81-121.

London, M., Larsen, H.H. and Thisted, L.N. (1999), “Relationships between feedback andself-development”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-27.

McCarthy, J.F. (2002), “Does having a proactive personality lead to career success?”, Academy ofManagement Executive, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 168-9.

MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. (2002),“A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects”,Psychological Methods, Vol. 7, pp. 83-104.

Major, D.A., Turner, J.E. and Fletcher, T.D. (2006), “Linking proactive personality and the BigFive to motivation to learn and development activity”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 927-35.

Marquis, M. and Filiatrault, P. (2003), “Public self-consciousness disposition effect on reactions towaiting in line”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 212-31.

Mirvis, P.H. and Hall, D.T. (1994), “Psychological success and the boundaryless career”, Journalof Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 365-80.

Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorensen, K.L. and Feldman, D.C. (2005), “Predictors of objective andsubjective career success: a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2,pp. 367-408.

Parker, S.K. and Sprigg, C.A. (1999), “Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: the role of jobdemands, job control”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 6, pp. 925-39.

Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. and Turner, N. (2006), “Modeling the antecedents of proactivebehavior at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 636-52.

Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems andprospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.

Roberts, L.M. (2005), “Changing faces: professional image construction in diverse organizationalsettings”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 685-711.

Seibert, S.E., Crant, J.M. and Kraimer, M.L. (1999), “Proactive personality and career success”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 416-27.

Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. and Crant, J.M. (2001), “What do proactive people do? A longitudinalmodel linking proactive personality and career success”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54No. 2, pp. 845-74.

Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equationmodels”, in Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,CA, pp. 290-312.

Spector, P.E. (1994), “Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use ofcontroversial method”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 385-92.

Sutcliffe, K.M. and Vogus, T.J. (2003), “Organizing for resilience”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E.and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Berrett-Koehler Publishers,San Francisco, CA, pp. 94-110.

Beyond beingproactive

631

Thompson, J.A. (2005), “Proactive personality and job-performance: a social capital perspective”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 1011-17.

Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C., Kraimer, M.L. and Graf, I.K. (1999), “The role of human capital,motivation and supervisor sponsorship in predicting career success”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 577-95.

About the authorsDan S. Chiaburu performs evaluation and human capital-related work in Washington DC. Hisresearch appeared in the International Journal of Training and Development, the Journal ofEuropean Industrial Training (2006 Emerald Award for Outstanding Paper), and the Journal ofSocial Psychology. Dan S. Chiaburu is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:chiaburu@globic.us

Vicki L. Baker is a doctoral student in Higher Education Administration with a minor focus inManagement and Organization at The Pennsylvania State University. Her research interestsinclude the doctoral student experience, preparation of future faculty, professional identity, andmentoring.

Adrian H. Pitariu is a doctoral student in the Department of Management at the University ofSouth Carolina. His research interests include intrateam trust and conflict, as well as teamprocesses and performance over time.

CDI11,7

632

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints