For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has

been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Luke 12:48

The world has three kinds of people: those who make things happen, those who watch what

happens, and those who wonder what happened. George Bernard Shaw

Is proactive behavior reciprocal? A study on

organizational support, affective commitment,

personality and proactive behavior.

Bachelor Thesis Organization & Strategy

Erik van de Kamp (anr: 403028)

Tilburg University (assessor: David Kroon)

June 2010

6320 words

2

Management summary

Being proactive means using initiative, taking charge, and making things happen. Examples

of proactive behavior on the work floor are:

• A management consultant who holds meetings to build relationships with knowledgeable

contacts outside his department.

• A nurse who prepares equipment and information, while waiting for the doctor to arrive,

thereby anticipating on the situation and enabling the doctor to do her job more

effectively.

• A gardener who, on his own initiative, comes up with a system of circulating equipment

by which equipment and machines are more effectively used and wear is reduced.

In the field of organizational behavior, the construct proactive behavior has drawed a lot of

attention in recent years. Over all however, a lot of research has to be done to come to a

complete framework of proactive behavior. In this thesis a gap in existing literature will be

filled by investigating the influence of (perceived) organizational support on proactive

behavior. Both a direct relationship and an indirect relationship, via affective commitment, are

investigated. The dispositional influence of personality is also taken into account, to include

both personal and work characteristic variables.

From literature review turned out organizational support has conflicting influences on

proactive behavior. Via the mediating variable affective commitment, perceived

organizational support is positively related to proactive behavior. The direct relationship

between organizational support and proactive behavior is more difficult to make clear. There

are postive effects if supervisors achieve employees are motivated to persevere, because they

feel supported by the organization. Negative effects may arise if supervisors discourage

employees to do it their own way by interfering in their bussiness. Personality of employees is

very important with regard to proactive behavior, because commitment of employees or

perfect work circumstances for proactive behavior don’t mean automatic that employees will

be proactive. For a large part this is influenced by personality traits of the employee.

3

Although this thesis is only the beginning of research to the influence of organizational

support on proactive behavior, it provides a better understanding of antecedents of proactive

behavior and recommends managers the following:

• Be aware of the influene of your behavior on the proactivity of employees. Support may

encourage employees to persevere in their proactivity, but employees may take a

comfortable attitude due to organizational support. Acting yourself proactively and being

a good example may have a greater impact on employees, besides a climate on the work

floor in which proactivity is encouraged instead of being hindered.

• For a large part proactivity can be achieved due to recruitment and selection, because

personality has a huge impact. Therefore, in certain jobs that demand flexibility and

initiative managers may add proactive personality to the desired profile of candidates.

4

Table of contents

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Problem background.................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Problem statement and research questions .................................................................. 7

1.3 Demarcation and definitions........................................................................................ 8

1.4 Academic and managerial relevance ........................................................................... 9

1.5 Research design and data collection.......................................................................... 10

1.6 Outline of the thesis ................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 2 Perceived organizational support............................................................................. 12

2.1 Perceived organizational support............................................................................... 12

2.2 Perceived organizational support and proactive behavior ......................................... 12

Chapter 3 Affective organizational commitment ..................................................................... 15

3.1 Affective organizational commitment ....................................................................... 15

3.2 Perceived organizational support and affective commitment.................................... 15

3.3 Affective organizational commitment and proactive behavior ................................. 16

Chapter 4 Personality ............................................................................................................... 19

4.1 Proactive personality ................................................................................................. 19

4.2 Proactive personality as a moderator......................................................................... 20

4.3 Proactive personality characteristics ......................................................................... 21

Chapter 5 Conclusion and discussion....................................................................................... 23

5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 23

5.2 Discussion.................................................................................................................. 24

5.3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 26

References ................................................................................................................................ 27

5

Chapter 1 Introduction

Organizations have shifted away from the use of hierarchical and bureaucratic structures to

more flexible, decentralized and ambiguous organizational structures. This has increased the

importance of initiative and proactivity on the work floor, as stated by Frese and Fay (2001).

According to the Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary proactivity is “acting in anticipation of

future problems, needs, or changes”.

Already in the 1990s two conceptualizations of organizational behavior were developed:

proactive behavior (Bateman & Crant, 1993) and personal initiative (Frese, Kring, Zoose &

Zempel, 1996). These concepts both emphasize the importance of employees who themselves

take the initiative to change their current environments. Because the present world is

characterized by very dynamic and uncertain economic environments, proactive behavior and

personal initiative are still much researched concepts (Crant, 2000).

1.1 Problem background

Since the 1990s there has been ongoing research of proactivity, but until recently research was

splintered and needed to be integrated (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker &

Collins, 2009). Proactive concepts that focus on specific situations that demand proactivity

were developed. Examples are expressing voice (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), taking charge

(Morrison & Phelps, 1999) and selling critical issues to management (Ashford, Rothbard,

Piderit & Dutton, 1998).

Although literature on different proactive concepts grew rapidly, they also grew isolated from

each other (Grant & Ashford, 2008). However, a general framework of these seperated

concepts remained absent and therefore Crant (2000) stated that proactive behavior did not

“emerged as an integrated research stream in the organizational behavior literature” (Crant,

2000:435). Since a few years, reviews of the research on proactive behavior have led to a

more general framework of proactive behaviors. Current literature on proactive behavior has

largely succeeded to integrate all organizational behaviors that are in nature proactive, so

proactivity is approached regardless of the (work) situation.

6

The current integrated state of research has largely been achieved by Parker and Collins

(2009), who integrated and differentiated multiple, across different research domains

investigated, concepts of proactive behaviors. Grant and Ashford (2008) contributed

furthermore by explaining “the general phenomenon of proactivity” (Grant & Ashford,

2008:5) and proposing a more extensive framework of proactive behavior by reviewing the

universal nature, antecedents, processes and consequences of proactive behavior. As a result

of these reviews a period has come in which isolated research can be transformed into

cumulative research. In order to come to a greater knowledge of proactivity, especially

research on the antecedents of proactive behavior is necessary. Grant and Ashford (2008),

who themselves focused on a sample of antecedents, stated that “considerable research is

needed to examine a broader range of situational influences on proactivity” (Grant & Ashford,

2008:22). In other words, further research should create a completer image of the influence of

situational antecedents on proactive behavior.

One direction of antecedents that has received less attention in the literature is the influence of

organizational support. The direct influence of support and leadership on proactive behavior is

researched by Strauss, Griffin and Rafferty (2009). According to their findings supportive

leadership might not promote proactive behavior, but instead transformational leadership

might encourage proactive work behaviors. On the other hand, there might be an indirect

relationship between organizational support and proactive behavior that is mediated by

affective commitment. Perceived organizational support is positively related to affective

commitment (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) and according to Den Hartog and Belschak

(2007) affective commitment is an important correlate and a potential antecedent of proactive

behavior. Opposite to Den Hertog and Belschak (2007), Parker, Turner and Williams (2006)

argue that organizational commitment is positively related to generalized compliance, but not

to proactive behavior.

So, besides that it has been less researched, literature is also contradictory in their opinion

about the relationship between organizational support and proactivity. This thesis wants to

contribute to an increased knowledge of the relationship between organizational support and

proactive behavior by investigating both the direct relationship between organizational

support and proactive behavior and the indirect relationship between organizational support

and proactive behavior which is mediated by affective organizational commitment (from now

on: affective commitment).

7

1.2 Problem statement and research questions

The problem as indicated above could be stated as in the following question:

What is the relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behavior,

taken into account the role of affective commitment and personality?

In order to answer the above main question, the following sub questions will first be

answered:

- How is perceived organizational support related to proactive behavior?

- What is the mediating role of affective commitment with regard to the relationship

between perceived organizational support and proactive behavior?

- What is the moderating role of personality with regard to the relationship between

affective commitment and proactive behavior?

These sub questions are conceptualized in the figure below (figure 1). Interest is in the

relationship between the antecedent perceived organizational support and the outcome

proactive behavior. The conceptual framework includes both a direct relationship and an

indirect relationship, via affective commitment..Proative personality is suggested to moderate

the relationship between affective commitment and proactive behavior.

Situational Psychological Dispositional Behavioral

antecedent mechanism moderator outcome

Fig. 1: Conceptual framework

Proactive behavior Perceived

organizational

support

Affective

organizational

commitment Proactive

personality

8

1.3 Demarcation and definitions

As mentioned beforie, it has taken a while before different concepts of proactive behavior

became integrated with each other. Nowadays we speak of proactive behavior in general,

because proactive behavior refers to what all specific concepts have in common: they are

“active performance concepts” (Frese & Fay, 2001:134). Proactive behaviors contrast with

traditional passive concepts which asssume people can not go beyond assigned tasks and

goals (Parker et al., 2006). Grant and Ashford (2008:8) define proactivity based on an

integrated conceptualization of Parker et al. (2006) as “anticipatory action that employees take

to impact themselves and/or their environments” and distinguish two rather general

characteristics of proactive behaviors: acting in advance and intended impact. This definition

of proactive behavior can be used as a general description for all different concepts of

proactive behavior (Parker & Collins, 2009).

This broad view on proactive behavior also includes that no distinction will be made between

in-role and extra-role behaviors. In-role behavior is behavior that takes place within the

boundaries of employees’ roles and tasks, extra-role behavior goes beyond this boundaries.

Some scholars, especially researchers of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB),

suggested proactive behavior is exclusively extra-role behavior (Morrison & Phelps, 1999).

They argue that because of in-role behaviors are prescribed by others, there is no space for

acting different than the applied task. However, recent literature agrees that proactive

behavior describes a process that implies all work activities (Crant, 2000; Frese & Fay, 2001;

Parker et al. 2006). Firstly, in-role tasks can be performed in a proactive way (Crant, 2001).

Secondly, due to more autonomous and complex jobs the distinction between in-role and

extra-role has become more unclear (Frese & Fay, 2001). Summed up, in this way proactivity

is viewed as a process, or like Grant and Ashford (2008:9): “proactivity is not a noun, but an

adverb: any behavior can be carried out reactively or proactively.”

As mentioned in the problem background, this study will focus on how commitment is related

to proactive behavior. The constructs perceived organizational support and affective

commitment will be used as descriptions of the commitment from the organization towards

employees and vice versa. Because personality is suggested to determine a huge part of

proactive behavior (Crant, 2000; Parker et al., 2006), the variable proactive personality will be

included to achieve completeness.

9

Perceived organizational support is a rather old concept which is based on the norm of

reciprocity. The main thought of the concept is that organizations that treat employees well

will be treatened well by employees. “Employees develop global beliefs concerning the extent

to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being”

(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986:501). Affective organizational

commitment “denotes an emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the

organization” (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky, 2002:21). The construct

proactive personality is developed by Bateman and Crant (1993), who describe the stereotype

proactive personality as “one who is relatively unconstrained by situational forces, and who

effects environmental change” (Bateman & Crant, 1993:105)

Scholars differ in their opinion about the relationship between these antecedents. Some

include personality as a cause of proactive behavior (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Parker et al.

2006), while some recent literature proposes personality as a moderator between situational

variables and proactive behavior (Fuller et al., 2006; Grant & Ashford, 2008). As Crant

(2000:457) already stated: “proactive behaviors are caused by both individual differences and

contextual factors. This is not, of course, a new idea—reciprocal causality between person,

behavior, and situation is the hallmark of interactional psychology”. In this study we will use

a more interactional model of the antecedents (see figure 1), and therefore we suggest

proactive personality moderates the relationship between affective commitment and proactive

behavior. Affective commitment is not suggested to be a situational antecedent, but is viewed

as a psychological or motivational mechanism which mediates the relationship between the

independent variable perceived organizational support and the dependent variable proactive

behavior (Parker et al., 2006; Grant & Ashford, 2008).

1.4 Academic and managerial relevance

This study will provide insight in the role of organizational support and affective commitment

in relation to proactive behavior. The relevance of investigating affective commitment is

pointed out by Grant and Ashford (2008) in their agenda for further research; they suggest

further studies pay attention to this role of affect. Clarifying the role of affective commitment

may solve existing contradictions in literature (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007; Parker et al.,

2006). It may also combine and integrate research on the antecedents of different specific

10

proactive behaviors. Integration because these specific proactive behaviors all share the same

direction or process, as suggested by Parker et al. (2006) and Grant & Ashford (2008).

It is important for managers to know to what extent different antecedents of proactive

behavior determine proactive behavior. When proactive behavior is especially a consequence

of personality, managers will have to focus on training and selection of employees. When

clear is how organizational support and affective commitment determine proactive behavior,

organizations may support and lead employees in a different way.

1.5 Research design and data collection

This study will be an exploratory research. Before descriptive research can be done, more

insight is needed into the antecedents of proactive behavior. So, this research can be best

defined as a literature review.

For this study only secondary sources will be used. In order to find literature different search

methods are used. Firstly, different search engines (as ABI/Inform and JSTOR) of the library

of Tilburg University are used to obtain a broad range of relevant literature on proactive

behavior, perceived organizational support and affective commitment. Keywords that are used

are proactive behavior, affective commitment and perceived organizational support.

Secondly, references of other relevant literature were found by reading articles. The website

of the Proactivity Research group (http://proactivity .group.shef.ac.uk) also provided a helpful

bibliography of research on proactive behavior. Literature about proactivity was screened in

order to select only literature related to the nature of proactive behavior and antecedents as

organizational support, leadership, affective commitment and proactive personality.

1.6 Outline of the thesis

The outline of this thesis has the same structure as my research questions. In the first chapter

it will be discussed what perceived organizational support is and how it is related to proactive

behavior and affective commitment. In the second chapter it will be discussed what affective

commitment is and how it is related to proactive behavior. In the third chapter will be

discussed how personality moderates the relationship between affective commitment and

11

proactive behavior. In the final chapter a conclusion on the research problem, a discussion

about the research and further recommendations will be given.

12

Chapter 2 Perceived organizational support

In this second chapter the meaning of perceived organizational support will be explained first.

Afterwards there will be examined what its relationship with proactive behavior is.

2.1 Perceived organizational support

Employees who perceive that the organization is committed to them, will be themselves more

committed to the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). This social exchange interpretation

of organizational commitment has been labeled perceived organizational support (POS) by

Eisenberger et al. (1986). The main meaning of perceived organizational support is that

“employees develop global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values

their contributions and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger et al., 1986:501). Based on

the norm of reciprocity perceived organizational support supposes a positive reciprocal

relationship between employees and organizations. When both employee and employer keep

the norm of reciprocity, both parties will repay favorable behavior with favorable behavior

(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Perceived organizational support is grounded on the idea that

employees personificate organizations, so they ascribe humanlike characteristics to the

organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). According to Rhoades & Eisenberger (2002)

perceived organizational support, or the perceived favorable treatment received from the

organization, is generally increased by three types of antecedents: fairness, supervisor support

and organizational rewards and job conditions.

2.2 Perceived organizational support and proactive behavior

Research on the relationship between (perceived) organizational support and proactive

behavior is, despite the recent growth of literature, limited and, maybe due to the fact that it

has been limited researched, rather contradictory. The only aspect of organizational support

that has been investigated in its relationship to proactive behavior is supervisor support.

In literature in which the point of view is taken that supervisor support has a negative

relationship with proactive behavior, it is argued that organization support ‘helps’ the

employee too much and therefore destimulates proactivity. Taking work off employees hands

13

may lower self-starting expectations and reduce employees’ motivations to realize change

themselves (Parker et al., 2006). In an other study Frese, Teng and Wijnen (1999) researched

among other things the relationship between supervisor support and (the specific construct of

proactive behavior) personal initiative. They suggested supervisors influence the climate that

hinders or supports creativeness and innovativeness, but they found instead that

organizational support and supportive supervisors did not influence creativity and initiative

processes. This opinion is also shared by Frese and Fay (2001), who found that supervisor

support does not have a major influence on personal initiative. Instead of supervisor support,

they propose environment and climate have a bigger influence on the willingness to be

proactive. Because of that they suppose environmental support has a greater influence on

personal initiative (Frese & Fay, 2001).

Literature that proposes the opposite opinion argue that a high perceived degree of

organizational support will stimulate proactive behavior, because it creates beliefs that the

realization of change will succeed (Crant, 2000). Empirical evidence is provided by Ashford

et al. (1998), who found perceived organizational support related to the willingness to sell

gender-equity issues. However, this is a very specific concept of proactive behavior in the

sense that it is about rather exceptional and relatively little appearing situations. Based on

these findings about the willingness to sell gender-equity issues nevertheless, Morrison and

Phelps (1999) state that openness of the top management and support of risky change-oriented

activities will encourage suggestions and initiative.

These conflicting theories and results may be caused by a missing comprehension in what the

right support for stimulating proactive behaviors might be (Parker et al., 2006). Some forms

of organizational support may contribute to proactive behavior, while others may hinder

proactive behavior. Forms of organizational support that help and encourage employees to be

self-directed and self-managing, as that of supervisors that ‘lead others to lead themselves’,

will boost proactivity (Manz and Sims, 1987; Parker et al., 2006). This kind of organizational

support is similar to transformational leadership, a type of leadership which according to

Strauss, Griffin and Rafferty (2009) might be a more appropriate leadership behavior for

promoting proactivity. Transformational leadership changes employee attitudes from being

only compliant to the supervisor towards going beyond standard tasks and expectations,

because the followers (employees) indicate themselves with the proactive leader (Strauss,

Grifin & Rafferty, 2009). From this follows that (perceived) organizational support may both

14

encourage and discourage proactive behavior, depending on the form of support. Therefore

we will not develop a hypothesis regarding the relationship between perceived organizational

support and proactive behavior.

15

Chapter 3 Affective organizational commitment

In this chapter the meaning of affective commitment will first be explained. Secondly, the

relationship between perceived organizational support and affective commitment will be

discussed. Finally, the relationship between affective commitment and proactive behavior will

be discussed.

3.1 Affective organizational commitment

Organizational commitment is a work-related attitude that is “defined in terms of the strength

of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Porter,

Steers & Mowday, 1974). Allen & Meyer (1990) developed the Three-Component Model of

organizational commitment. In this model three components of organizational commitment

are distinguished: affective, continuance and normative commitment. Affective commitment

is emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. It is also

defined by Buchanan (1974:533) as: “partisan, affective attachment to the goals and values,

and to the organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth”

Continuance commitment denotes the perceived costs associated with leaving the

organization. Normative commitment reflects a perceived obligation to remain in the

organization. Affective commitment is generally regarded as having the strongest positive

relationship with outcomes of commitment for the organization, as turnover intention and

employee well-being (Meyer et al., 2002).

3.2 Perceived organizational support and affective commitment

Lots of studies have found a strong positive relationship between perceived organizational

support and affective organizational commitment (Settoon, Bennet & Liden, 1996;

Eisenberger et al., 1986; Armeli et al, 1998). This is not surprising, since perceived

organizational support is based on the norm of reciprocity. Because employees feel the

organization is committed to them, they will feel an obligation to commit to the organization

(Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch & Rhoades, 2001). This commitment to the

organization is affective in nature, as Eisenberger et al. (1986:501) put forward: “To the

extent that the perceived support also met needs for praise and approval, the employee would

16

incorporate organizational membership into self-identity and thereby develop a positive

emotional bond (affective attachment) to the organization.” Affective commitment is

strengthened by the tendency of employee’s to assign humanlike characteristics to the

organization (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). By fulfilling the socioemotional needs of the

employee, the personified organization is able to increase affective commitment. Meyer et al.

(2002) reviewed the literature on affective commitment and found that of the work experience

variables perceived organizational support has the strongest positive relationship with

affective commitment. Because of the findings mentioned before a positive relationship

between perceived organizational support and affective commitment is suggested.

Hypothesis 1: Perceived organizational support is positively related to affective

organizational commitment.

3.3 Affective organizational commitment and proactive behavior

Recently, research has emerged in which the relationship between affective commitment and

proactive behavior is investigated. Researchers are not unanimous in the value that they

attribute to affective commitment. Some acclaim a quite large and unique portion of the

variance in proactive behavior can be explained by affective commitment (Den Hartog &

Belschak, 2007), while others propose affective commitment will rather lead to generalized

compliance than to proactive behavior (Parker et al., 2006).

The most important research to affective commitment has been done by Den Hartog and

Belschak (2007), who investigated the influence of commitment and affect on personal

initiative. They suggest affective commitment might be a mediating variable of personal

initiative. One argument that they put forward is that various antecedents of proactive

behavior, like job autonomy and job complexity, are also antecedents of affective

commitment. That is, it is probable that the relationship between these antecedents and

proative behavior is mediated by affective commitment. Furthermore, employees who are

affectively committed feel responsible to convert this commitment into specific targets and

goals. Personal initiative is a means to fulfill these targets and return goodness. The research

of Den Hartog and Belschak (2007) turned out that there is a positive relationship between

affective commitment and personal initiative.

17

These suggestions and findings are for a large part supported by studies from the field of

general work affect. Seo, Feldmann Barrett and Bartunek (2004) argue that positive affect is

especially useful in situations when proactive coping, creativity and flexibility is required. On

the other hand, positive affect may sometimes lead to overconfidence, illusive optimism, and

persistence in a specific way of acting. In a research of the effect of recovery on day-to-day

work engagement and proactive behavior Sonnentag (2003) found a significant relationship

between work engagement and proactive behavior. Work engagement is defined as a

“persistent, positive, affective motivational state of fulfillment” (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter,

2001: 417) and is very related to affective commitment (Sonnentag, 2003). Work engagement

and affective commitment are likely to affect proactive behavior, because acting proactive

requires additional effort.

Those who ascribe a smaller influence to affective commitment, claim affective commitment

is an important motivational state for different forms of work behavior, but not especially for

proactive behavior (Parker et al., 2006; Griffin, Neal and Parker, 2007). According to Parker

(2000) putting in extra effort as a result of affective commitment can be done in either a

proactive or a passive way. Positive affects do not necessary lead to proactive behavior. A lot

of times negative affects, like dissatisfaction, are incentives for acting proactively (Frese &

Fay, 2001). Therefore Parker et al. (2006) include affective commitment as an additional

mediating variable predicting generalized compliance and not proactive behavior. Griffin et

al. (2007) included in their research also both proactive and passive outcomes: proactivity and

proficiency. Proactivity involves self-starting goals and initiative, different from core tasks

and more passive behavior. Proficiency involves tasks that can be planned in advance, like

core tasks. They showed affective commitment is positively related to proactive behavior.

However, their research turned out that affective commitment has a greater influence on

proficiency.

Although these findings of Parker et al. (2006) and Griffin et al. (2007) contribute to a better

understanding of the relationship between affective commitment and proactive behavior, they

don’t alter the fact that there is a positive relationship between them. Even though it may be

true that affective commitment has a positive relationship with different organizational

behaviors, and not only proactive behavior, Den Hartog and Belschak (2007) proved that it is

unlikely that employees who are not affectively committed will show proactive behavior.

18

Therefore a positive relationship between affective commitment and proactive behavior is

suggested.

Hypothesis 2: Affective commitment is positively related to proactive behavior.

19

Chapter 4 Personality

In this fourth chapter the moderating influence of personality on the relationship between

affective organizational commitment and proactive behavior will be considered. The concept

of proactive personality will first be explained. Afterwards will be discussed why proactive

personality moderates the relationship between affective commitment and proactive behavior.

4.1 Proactive personality

In the field of psychology, all behaviors are regarded as caused by both personal and

situational factors (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Nevetheless, early research of proactive

behavior has largely focused on researching the relationship between personality and

proactive behavior. Bateman & Crant (1993) studied proactive behavior as being only a

personal disposition – the relative stable tendency to behave proactively. The reason that they

made this focus is likely to be caused by their opinion that literature on organizational

behavior has focused too much on situational antecedents, and too short on personal

dispositions. Proactive concepts supposes against this that people are not only a result of their

environment, but are able to change their current organizational circumstances (Frese et al.,

2007; Bateman & Crant, 1993). Current research supposes a more dynamic and reciprocal

relationship between work characteristics and personality (Frese et al., 2007). Employees are

not determined by work characteristics and employees do not determine work characteristics,

but they are mutually influencing each other.

So, proactive personality was first researched by Bateman & Crant (1993), who defined a

proactive person as: “one who is relatively unconstrained by situational forces, and who

effects environmental change” (Bateman & Crant; 1993:105). People who have these

characteristics identify opportunities, show initiative, take action and persevere until change is

realized. People who do not have these characteristics behave opposite: counteractive,

adaptive and passive (Crant, 2000). Of course, these descriptions of proactive and passive

personalities are the two extremes of the range. There is a great variety concerning the degree

of proactiveness between these two extreme examples of proactive and passive personalities.

20

The personality scale of personal initiative, as developed by Frese and Fay (2001), is very

similar to the proactive personality scale developed by Bateman and Crant (1993). A

correlation of 0.96 makes it assumable that the variables are largely the same. Bateman and

Crant (1993) found personal characteristics as conscientiousness, extraversion, need for

achievement and need for dominance significantly related to proactive behavior. Frese and

Fay (2001) suggest that need for achievement, action control, need for cognition, proactive

personality and psychological conservatism are personality characteristics causing personal

initiative.

4.2 Proactive personality as a moderator

In literature there has been discussion about which influence proactive personality has on

proactive behavior. Lots of studies have regarded individual differences between employees,

as being more or less proactive, as antecedents of proactive behavior (Crant, 2000; Frese &

Fay, 2001; Parker et al., 2006). Others suggest that proactive personality is moderating the

relationship between work characteristics and proactive behavior (Fuller et al., 2006; Grant &

Ashford, 2008). They suggest situational circumstances create opportunities for proactive

cognition and behavior instead of constraining it. However, employees don’t respond in the

same way to given opportunities, because one employee is more proactive than the other

(Fuller et al. 2006). Work characteristics may be designed in such a way that proactive

behavior is encouraged, which will make it easier for employees who are high on proactive

personality to realize change. Nevertheless, the opposite holds too. Even though work

characteristics are perfect for acting proactive, passive individuals will not (or to a lower

extent) show initiative because they stick to the status-quo (Fuller et al., 2006).

The same holds for the relationship between affective commitment and proactive behavior. As

argued in the previous chapter, when employees are affectively committed there is an

‘opportunity’ for proactive behvior. The extent to which employees will be proactive in the

end however, depends on the extent to which employees have (proactive) personality

characteristics as conscientiousness and extraversion. It is unlikely that employees who are

considerable affectively committed, but are passive, will show proactive behavior (Den

Hartog & Belschak, 2007). Therefore, affective commitment of proactive personalities is

more valuable than affective commitment of passive personalities, because passive

personalities will not show proactive behavior either.

21

The opinion that proactive personality moderates the relationship between situational

variables and proactive behavior is consistent with suggestions of Parker, Wall and Cordery

(2001), who discuss the more dynamic role of individual factors (as personality). In this

dynamic perspective employees shape their own work environment to fit with their

personalities, and therefore personality should be considered as moderating the relationship

between work characteristics and outcomes (Parker et al., 2001).

After all, proactive personality is supposed to have a positive moderating influence on the

relationship between affective commitment and proactive behavior. Although there may be

some discussion about whether proactive personality has a moderating relationship or a direct

relationship with proactive behavior, a moderating relationship is consistent with recent

literature and fits best when considered from the relationship between affective commitment

and proactive behavior.

Hypotheses 3: The relationship between affective commitment and proactive behavior will be

positively moderated by proactive personality.

4.3 Proactive personality characteristics

In their model of proactive behavior, called ‘the dynamics of proactive behavior’, Grant and

Ashford (2008) also include personal traits as moderators between situational antecedents and

proactive behavior. In contrast to other literature however, they don’t stick to the scale of

proactive personality as devoloped by Bateman and Crant (1993), but suggest that specific

personality traits will moderate specific relationships between situational antecedents and

proactive behavior. For example, Grant and Ashford (2008) concluded that consciousness and

self-monitoring are moderating personality characteristics in situations that require

accountability of employees. In situations of ambiguity personal traits as neuroticism and

openness to experience moderate the outcome – proactive behavior. Finally, in situations of

high autonomy on the work floor, the way employees evaluate themselves and the degree to

which employees prefer ideal outcomes above acceptable outcomes are fitting characteristic is

moderating the relationship between the work characteristic (autonomy) and outcome

(proactive behavior).

22

Although these distinctions between certain personality characteristics have not been tested

yet and it is vague which characteristics moderate certain situations, it is probable that the

relationship between affective commitment and proactive behavior will be more significant

moderated by some specific personality traits instead of the broader construct of proactive

personality. The approach of Grant and Ashford (2008) is therefore a step in the right

direction. Although it goes beyond the intention of this thesis to broadly research the

moderating influence of personality on the relationship between affective commitment and

proactive behavior, some general remarks about some specific personality characteristics will

be made.

As mentioned in chapter three, being affectively committed does not mean that one will return

this commitment in a proactive way. So, in a situation in which employees are affectively

committed it are especially the employees which go for the optimal outcomes instead of the

acceptable outcomes (i.e. are maximizers instead of satisficers), which behave proactive.

(Grant & Ashford, 2008). Other personal traits as conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to

experience, need for achievement, action control, self-monitoring may to a greater or lesser

degree moderate the relationship between affective commitment and proactive behavior

(Bateman & Crant, 1993). A characteristic as neuroticism will not be helpful in a situation in

which employees are affective committed, but it will be useful in more ambiguous situations

(Grant & Ashford, 2008). Up to know however, the moderating influence of personality

characteristics on proactive behavior, being under the assumption that employees are

affectively committed, has never been investigated yet (Den Hertog & Belschak, 2007).

23

Chapter 5 Conclusion and discussion

In this final chapter the main question of this thesis will be answered and conclusions will be

drawn based on the research questions discussed in the last three chapters. Besides that, some

points of discussion which have risen due to this study will be described and both academic

and managerial recommendations will be given.

5.1 Conclusions

The aim of this thesis was to explain the relationship between perceived organizational

support and proactive behavior. The construct affective commitment was expected to mediate

the relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behavior, due to

reciprocity between employee and organization. From literature review it turned out that this

reciprocal relationship strongly exists between perceived organizational support and affective

commitment, even so strong Meyer et al. (2002) suggest that of all work experience variables

perceived organizational support has the greatest positive impact on affective commitment.

Also between affective commitment and proactive behavior a positive relationship exist,

although this relationship isn’t as strong as the relationship between perceived organizational

support and affective commitment. Employees who perceive their organization supports them

well, will develop an affective tie with the organization and intend to return the goodness

given to them with acting well in relation to the organization.

One of the means to show this intrinsic motivation is proactive behavior, but it isn’t

necessarily a response to affective commitment. The reason of this is that the relationship

between affective commitment and proactive behavior is moderated by the personality of the

employee. Employees who are passive are unlikely to turn the motivation they have towards

the organization into proactive behavior, because they are predisposed to the status quo and

they don’t feel enthusiastic to engage in change-oriented behavior. In comparison, employees

with proactive personality characteristics are likely to act proactively. However, they are even

more likely to engage in proactive behavior when they are affectively committed to the

organization.

24

It remains largely unclear how the direct relationship between perceived organizational

support and proactive behavior looks like. Organizational support might stimulate proactive

behavior. If organizations (represented by their managers) show their believe in their

employees, this will motivate employees to persevere. However, organizational support can

also discourage proactive behavior when it is doesn’t allow employees to go on their own

way. Because the relationship between different forms of organizational support and proactive

behavior haven’t been researched yet, we can only agree with Parker et al. (2006) that there is

a lack of understanding of what is the right organizational support to enhance proactive

behavior.

Figure two contains a graphical reproduction of the conceptual framework including the

hypotheses developed in the previous chapters. It gives a summary of the conclusions

described above.

Situational Psychological Dispositional Behavioral

antecedent mechanism moderator outcome

Fig. 2: Conceptual framework with hypotheses

5.2 Discussion

By reviewing the literature, this thesis has provided a better understanding of the relationship

between organizational support proactive behavior. By focussing on a direct relationship and

an indirect relationship which is mediated by affective commitment it has become clear how

organizational support influences proactive behavior, and via which variables. It is however

debatable how this model should be fitted in a more extensive framework, in which more

various antecedents of proactive behavior are included. If variables about work structure and

work culture would be added, the mediating variable affective commitment might also have a

++

?

+ _

++

Proactive behavior Perceived

organizational

support

Affective

organizational

commitment Proactive

personality

25

moderating influence on the relationship between work structures and proactive behavior. For

example, it is showed that in ambiguous and unclear situations employees are stimulated to be

proactive (Grant & Ashford, 2008). It could however be argued that in these ambiguous

situations only employees who are at least a little commited to the organization will feel the

incentives to give a proactive respons. Therefore, it is likely that in a more extensive model

the variable affective commitment will have more different relationships with other variables

than only the mediating relationship proposed in this thesis.

Another point of dicussion remains the role of proactive personality. In chapter four is

proposed proactive personality moderates the relationship between affective commitment and

proactive behavior, but a direct relationship between proactive personality and proactive

behavior isn’t also unthinkable. The choice for a direct relationship is plausible, if proactive

personality is considered as an entity (Crant, 2000; Parker et al., 2006). This is consistent with

the definition of proactive personality, i.e.“one who is relatively unconstrained by situational

forces, and who effects environmental change” (Bateman & Crant; 1993:105). However, this

way of thinking passes the fact that personality is also divisible in different personality

characteristics. If proactive personality is considered as a list of personality characteristics a

moderating relationship is more assumable, because these characteristics have influence on

whether employees who are affectively committed will show proactive behavior or not (Grant

& Ashford, 2008; Fuller et al., 2006).

Finally, in relation to proactive behavior, the construct perceived organizational support has

been limited to what better could be called ‘perceived supportive supervision’. This doesn’t

reduce the completeness of this research however. The relationship between perceived

organizational support and proactive behavior hasn’t not been investigated a lot yet. Existing

literature about proactive behavior only pays attention to the supportive supervision part of

organizational support. The other two antecedents of perceived organizational support,

fairness and organizational rewards and job conditions, are ignored. This isn’t surprising

anyway, because it is likely that supportive supervision will have more impact on proactive

behavior than fairness and organizational rewards and job conditions. These two variables

may have a general influence on the motivation and commitment of the employee, but do not

have a direct relation with proactivity. In the relationship with affective commitment,

perceived organizational support is approached as broad as possible. This has been done

26

particularly because a lot is known about the relationship between perceived organizational

support and affective commitment.

5.3 Recommendations

Future research of the relationship between organizational support and proactive behavior

should focus on the question what type of organizational support fits best to stimulate

proactive behavior. Is it only a matter of finding the balance between the negative impact of

interfering and the positive impact of encouraging or are more aspects of organizational

support relevant? Future research could also pay more attention to the role of personality in

different situations. Until now literature has largely ignored the fact that in different situations

different personality characteristics might influence the proactivity of the employee. To a

great extent literature has only included the construct proactive personality to their models.

More extensive models should consider this two recommendations about organizational

support and personality, because including a already existing construct for these variables

would be an underestimation of the influence of organizational support and personality.

For managers, the most important practical question based on this thesis will be to which

extent personality and organizational support relate to proactive behavior. In order to

stimulate proactivity managers have to know if proactivity must be achieved by taking on

employees with a proactive personality or if organizational support can also contribute

considerable to proactive behavior. Firstly, at recruitment and selection employees can be

judged on their proactivity. Especially in more dynamic and complex work environments

proactivity will be, assigned or unassigned, be an important condition. Therefore,

organizations for recruitment and selection can be asked to pay a lot of attention to proactivity

to their assessments. Secondly, organizations can design their work structure and form their

work culture so proactive behavior is promoted. Managers should realize that they, as

representatives of the organization, to a great extent determine how employees perceive the

organization supports them and so how commited the employees will be to the organization.

Managers should therefore care about their employees, but should also realize that supporting

an employee ‘too much’ will realize in descending proactivity. With this ‘organizational

support paradox’ in mind, organizations and managers should find the appropriate way for

each individual to engage in proactive behavior.

27

References Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,

continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational

Psychology, 63, 1–18.

Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational support

and police performance: The moderating influence of socioemotional needs. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83, 288-297.

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role

of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 43(1), 23-57.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time: Self regulation and proactive

coping. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 417-436.

Bateman, T.S. & Crant, J.M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A

measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of Managers

in Work Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of

Management Executive, 14 (3), 52-66.

Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–

462.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. 2007. Commitment, affect and initiative at work.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 601-622.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L.(2001). Reciprocation

of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. & Sowa, R. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psycholoy, 71(3), 500-507.

Frese, M. & Fay, D. (2001). Personal Initiative: An active performance concept for work in

the 21st century. Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.

Frese, M., Teng, E. and Wijnen, C. J. D. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems:

predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

20(7),1139-1156.

28

Fuller, J.B., Marler, L.E., Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsible for constructive

change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1089-1120.

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(2), 327–347.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external

leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106–128.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52, 397-422.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance

and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates

and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate

workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419

Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role

orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

49(3), 447–469.

Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (in press). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating

multiple forms of proactive behavior. Journal of Management.

doi:10.1177/0149206308321554

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice:

Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 74, 413–440.

Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive

behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M. & Mowday, R.T. (1974). Organizational commitment, job

satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology,

59(5), 603-609.

Rhoades, L. & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of the

Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.

29

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations:

Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219–227.

Seo, M. -G., Feldmann Barrett, L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). The role of affective experience

in work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 423–439.

Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and

organization: The role of leadership, commitment, and role-breadth self-efficacy. British

Journal of Management, 20, 279-291.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of

construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.