the downside of leader proactive personality at ... - anzam
TRANSCRIPT
1
The downside of leader proactive personality at the team level:
the role of subordinate seeking resources behavior
Hai-jiang Wang
Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences
Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
e-Mail: [email protected]
Evangelia Demerouti
Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences
Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
Office: Pav J.05
TEL: (31) 402475669
e-Mail: [email protected]
Chang-qin Lu
Department of Psychology and Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and Mental Health
Peking University, Beijing, China
Office: Rm. 1216
TEL: (86)1062750065
FAX: (86)10-62761081
e-Mail: [email protected]
Oi-ling Siu
Department of Applied Psychology
Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong
Office: Rm. 201/1, Dorothy Y L Wong Building
TEL: (852) 2616 7170
FAX: (852) 2456 0737
e-Mail: [email protected]
2
Abstract
The present study aims to explore the effect of leader proactive personality on team outcomes and
the moderating role of subordinate seeking resources behavior. Using a sample of 53 work teams
from a Chinese pharmaceutical sales company, we found that when the level of subordinate seeking
resources is low, leader proactive personality increases team-level exhaustion, which in turn is
negatively related to team success (i.e., team performance and team-level job satisfaction); when the
levels of subordinate seeking resources is high, leader proactive personality does not influence
team-level exhaustion. These findings indicate the downside of leader proactive personality on team
outcomes and highlight the critical role of subordinates’ seeking resources in helping them adapt to
change in work situations.
Key words: leader proactive personality, follower seeking resources, team-level exhaustion, team
success
3
Introduction
Proactive personality refers to the dispositional tendency to initiate changes in various situations
(Bateman & Crant, 1993). Individuals high in proactive personality may create situations and
environments conducive to effective performance and persist with activities until their objectives are
achieved (Crant, 2000). Proactive personality has been found to predict creativity (Kim, Hon, &
Crant, 2009), task performance (Crant, 1995; Thompson, 2005), job satisfaction (Li, Liang, & Crant,
2010) and thus career success (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001).
However, the existing studies mainly focus on examining employees’ proactive personality and its
influence on individual-level work outcomes, paying less attention to the role of leader proactive
personality in work teams. As a result, how and when leader proactive personality is associated with
team outcomes is less understood.
The present study aims to explore the effect of leader proactive personality on team outcomes and
the moderating role of subordinate seeking resources behavior. While acknowledging that
subordinate seeking resources may be caused by leader characteristics (e.g., Griffin, Parker, &
Mason, 2010), we argue that they could also moderate the effect of leader characteristics.
Specifically, we propose that leader proactive personality and subordinate seeking resources will
jointly impact team-level exhaustion, which in turn will impact team success. Job satisfaction is
commonly conceptualized as an indicator of individual subjective success (e.g., Judge, Higgins,
Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). Accordingly, in this study job satisfaction is constructed at the team
4
level to represent a subjective indicator of team success, and team sales performance is an objective
indicator of team success.
Theory and Hypotheses
Proactive personality is defined as “the relatively stable tendency to effect environmental change”
(Bateman & Crant, 1993, p.103). People high in proactive personality tend to “identify opportunities
and act on them, show initiative, take action, and persevere until meaningful changes occur” (Crant,
2000, p. 439), whereas people low in proactive personality are more likely to passively react and
adapt to their environments.
Proactive personality is associated with individual career success (e.g., promotion; Seibert et al.,
1999; Seibert et al., 2001), which implies that employees high in proactive personality may be more
likely promoted to a higher position of leadership (Crossley, Cooper, & Wernsing, 2013). Different
from the old role, their new leadership role requires them to focus their effort to motivate their
subordinates and to achieve success as a whole team. On the other side, in today’s competitive and
uncertain business environment, leaders are also urged to implement proactive goals and bring
positive innovations and changes to their teams and organization, in order to ensure their survival
and success in future (Crant, 2000; Wu & Wang, 2011). Hence, it is crucial to understand the
association between leader proactive personality and team success.
Leaders high in proactive personality are inclined to take “self-initiated and future-focused
leading actions that are persistently sustained to bring changes toward the environment” (Wu &
5
Wang, 2011, p.305). Research has found that proactive leaders promote unit performance via setting
ambitious team goals and challenging the status quo (Crossley et al, 2013). Employees have to
invest extra resources to manage this proactive leadership. According to the Conservation of
Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2001), people strive to retain, protect and build resources. When
there is a loss of resources, or a threat of loss, individuals are likely to experience a general state of
stress (Hobfoll, 2001).
In addition, bringing about changes however may invoke resistance from employees and thus
result in individual negative affective reactions to work like emotional exhaustion (Oreg, Vakola, &
Armenakis, 2011). Further, emotional exhaustion is found to be contagious among employees within
the same work team and thus could be displayed at the team level (Bakker, van Emmerik, &
Euwema, 2006). The shared feeling of exhaustion among individuals in the same work team is
referred to team-level exhaustion (Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2003). Therefore we propose
that:
Hypothesis 1. Leader proactive personality is positively related to team-level exhaustion.
As we mentioned earlier, proactive leaders are intrinsically motivated to initiate future-focused
leading actions and are persistent until meaningful change occurred to their environment (Crant,
2000; Wu & Wang, 2011). We suggest that subordinate seeking resources behavior may play a
central role in moderating the effect of proactive leadership. According to Job Demands-Resources
(JD-R) theory (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014), job
6
characteristics can vary widely across occupations but can always be classified into two categories:
job demands and job resources. Job demands refer to “physical, psychological, social, or
organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and
emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or
psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312). Job resources refer to “physical,
psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or: (a) functional in
achieving work goals; (b) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological
costs; (c) stimulate personal growth, learning and development” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p.
312). Examples of job demands are work pressure, emotional demands, cognitive demands, and
physical demands. Examples of job resources are job autonomy, social support, performance
feedback, and skill variety. These job demands and resources are generic and can be found across
different types of jobs and industries, although they may vary in strength and relevance.
Employees are often not passive recipients. They may make changes in their level of job demands
or job resources. Seeking resources may include behaviors such as asking feedback and advice from
colleagues and supervisors, enhancing the amount of communication with people at work to get
more information, seeking opportunities to learn new technologies, or increasing skill variety to
improve work efficiency. Seeking resources therefore is seen as a form of proactive behavior
(Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). In new and uncertain situations, seeking resources behavior enables
employees to successfully cope with and adapt to challenge and change (Lyons, 2008). According to
7
COR theory, when people have resources available to address demands, they are unlikely to
experience high levels of stress (Hobfoll, 2001). Therefore in teams where employees have more
seeking resources behaviors, proactive leadership is not expected to increase exhaustion among team
members. In contrast, when teams with low levels of seeking resources behavior are confronted with
proactive leadership who requires them to invest their time, energy, and other resources, they are
more likely to experience proactive leadership as a demand and consequently would manifest strain
outcomes. Based on the above literature we suggest that the link of leader proactive personality and
team-level exhaustion may be weaker for teams of subordinates who have more seeking resources
behaviors.
Hypothesis 2. Subordinate seeking resources moderates the association between leader proactive
personality and team-level exhaustion. The positive relationship between leader proactive
personality and team-level exhaustion is stronger when subordinate seeking resources is low (vs.
high).
It is well demonstrated that individual level exhaustion is negatively related to job performance
(e.g., Wright & Cropanzano, 1998) and job satisfaction (e.g., Lee & Ashforth, 1996). We suggest
that this negative relation between exhaustion and career success would generalize from individual
level to team level, namely team-level exhaustion is negatively related to both team performance
and team-level job satisfaction, which is referred to “shared internal state that is expressed by
affectively and cognitively evaluating shared job experiences with some degree of favor or disfavor”
8
(Whitman, Van Rooy, & Viswesvaran, 2010, p. 46). Accordingly we propose that:
Hypothesis 3. Team-level exhaustion is negatively related to team success (i.e., team-level job
satisfaction and team performance)
Hypothesis 4. The conditional indirect effect of leader proactive personality on team success via
team-level exhaustion is stronger when subordinate seeking resources is low (vs. high).
-------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here.
------------------------------------
Method
Sample and Procedure
Data was obtained from a Chinese pharmaceutical sales company. Participants are sales
representatives and their leader in the sales territory (one leader per sales territory). Two research
assistants distributed the questionnaires to 56 sales territories for the targeted leaders and their
subordinates. Participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses and completed the
survey on a voluntary basis. We obtained complete data from 53 sales territories, making a response
rate of 94.6%. The respondents were 53 sales territory leaders and 370 subordinates. There are an
average of 7 subordinates in each sale territory (range = 3 to 29).
Of the 53 leaders, 30 are males. Leaders’ average tenure at the current position is 22 months (SD
= 25.0). For subordinates, there is 49.1% male (n = 231), and 57.1% female (n = 227), with 12
unidentified cases. The average age of the workers was 31 years (SD = 5.5), with 33 months (SD =
31.2) of tenure at their current working position.
9
Measurement
Leader proactive personality. Leaders rated their own proactive personality using a ten-item
Proactive Personality Scale (Seibert et al., 1999). A sample item is, “I am constantly on the lookout
for new ways to improve my life”. The measure used a six-point response scale, ranging from 1
“strongly disagree” to 6 “strongly agree”. In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .75.
Seeking resources. We measured subordinate seeking resources using four items from the Job
Crafting Scale developed by Tims et al. (2012). A sample item is, “I ask colleagues for advice”.
Employees answered using a five-point response scale ranging from 1 “never” to 5 “always”. The
Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .85.
Emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion was measured using the five-item subscale of the
Maslach Burnout Inventory- General Survey (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996). A sample item is,
“I feel emotionally drained from my work”. All items were rated on a six-point response scale from
1 “strongly disagree” to 6 “strongly agree” (5). The Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .89.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using a three-item Job Satisfaction Scale (Cammann,
Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1983). A sample item is, “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”. Each
item was scored on a six-point response scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 6 “strongly
agree”. The Cronbach’s coefficients were .83.
Team performance. Team performance was the percentage of sales quotas (i.e., team achieved total
sales divided by team expected sales target), which was obtained from company records.
10
Analysis Strategy
Given that our analyses were conducted at the team level, we checked the viability of the
constructs formed via aggregation: team-level seeking resources, exhaustion, and job satisfaction.
Specifically, we first assessed interrater agreement by calculating Rwg(j) (e.g., James, Demaree, &
Wolf, 1984). After this, we obtained mean values of .87 for seeking resources, .89 for exhaustion,
and .95 for job satisfaction. The results from one-way analyses of variance (AVONA) indicated that
there was significant between-groups variance for all the three constructs. We further computed the
following intraclass correlation (ICC1) and reliability of group mean (ICC2) values: seeking
resources, .17 and .90; exhaustion, .23 and .92; job satisfaction, .17 and .90. These values are
consistent with conventional standards for aggregating individual questionnaire responses into a
group level response (e.g., Bliese, 2000).
Results
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the variables. Leader
proactive personality is not significantly related to team-level exhaustion (r = .13, p > .05);
team-level exhaustion is negatively related to team-level job satisfaction (r = -.65, p < .001) and
team performance (r = -.25, p < .10). Therefore Hypothesis 1 is not supported and Hypothesis 3 is
supported. As shown in Table 2, the interactive term between leader proactive personality and
team-level seeking resources is statistically significant for team-level exhaustion (β = .36, p < .05).
We examined the simple slopes at ± 1 standard deviation of team-level seeking resources (see
11
Figure 2). Leader proactive personality is positively related to team-level exhaustion at LOW levels
of team-level seeking resources (b = .54, p < .05), but not at HIGH levels of team-level seeking
resources (b = -.01, p > .05). These results indicate that leader proactive personality seems to
increase the level of team-level exhaustion when team members are less proactive (i.e., team-level
seeking resources is low); yet it appears that leader proactive personality does not lead to increased
team-level exhaustion when team members are more proactive (i.e., team-level seeking resources is
high). Therefore Hypothesis 2 is supported.
-------------------------------------
Insert Table 1, Table 2 & Figure 2 about here.
------------------------------------
Tables 2 shows that team-level exhaustion is significantly related to team performance (β = -.30,
p < .05) and team-level job satisfaction (β = -.59, p < .001). Table 3 presents the estimates and
bias-corrected bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the conditional indirect effects of leader
proactive personality on team performance and team-level job satisfaction via team-level exhaustion.
As expected, the conditional indirect effects of leader proactive personality on team performance
and team-level job satisfaction are significantly negative when team-level seeking resources is low.
However, when team-level seeking resources is high, leader proactive personality does not have
significant indirect effects on team performance and team-level job satisfaction via team-level
exhaustion. It appears that when team members are less proactive (i.e., team-level seeking resources
is low), leader proactive personality negatively influences team success via team-level exhaustion;
when team members are more proactive (i.e., team-level seeking resources is high), team-level
12
exhaustion however does not play a mediating role between leader proactive personality and team
success. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported.
-------------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here.
------------------------------------
Discussion
Our study explored the effect of leader proactive personality on team outcomes and the
moderating role of subordinate seeking resources. The results from moderated regression and
bootstrapping estimate indicated that when subordinate perform more seeking resources behavior,
leader proactive personality is not related to team-level exhaustion; by contrast, when subordinate
perform less seeking resources behavior, leader proactive personality is positively related to
team-level exhaustion, which in turn is negatively related to team success. These results suggest that
leader proactive personality might have its ‘dark side’ in influencing team-level outcomes. Past
researchers also suggest that the effectiveness of leader characteristics and behaviors is not universal
and often depends on contextual variables including subordinates characteristics (Judge, Piccolo, &
Kosalka, 2009; Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman, & Xie, 2013; Perry, Witt, Penney, & Atwater, 2010). When
subordinates’ characteristics are congruent with leadership behaviors, the two parties may develop
high quality of relationships (Zhang, Wang, & Shi, 2012). When there is a mismatch between leader
and followers characteristics, leadership could hinder team performance (Grant, Gino, & Hofmann,
2011) and cause subordinate emotional exhaustion (Perry et al., 2010) even for the ‘bright’
leadership. In Perry’s et al. (2001) study, it was found that goal-focused leadership was associated
13
with heightened exhaustion among individuals who were low in both emotional stability and
conscientiousness. Perry et al. (2001) argued that low-conscientiousness and low emotional-stability
individuals are not predisposed to direct resources toward goal achievement and are more likely to
experience goal-focused leadership as demands. Our study corroborates the study by Perry et al.
(2001) by showing that leader proactivity, which is also goal-focused, was positively related to
team-level exhaustion for teams with low levels of seeking resources behaviors.
Theoretical Contribution
The present study contributes to the literature in the following ways. First, studies adopting leader
trait perspective often understand the effect of leader characteristics in the framework of the big
five-factor model of personality (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002).
Yet some researchers criticize that big five personality is too broad and thus narrow yet powerful
personality is suggested to provide more implication for leadership behaviors (see review, Judge et
al., 2009). Therefore we add knowledge to the leadership literature by studying leader proactive
personality.
Second, it is well demonstrated that proactive personality is linked to individual career success
(Seibert et al., 1999; Seibert et al., 2001). In the modern economy, teamwork has been emphasized
and successful work group is the key to organizational success. Yet the association between
proactive personality and team success is hardly investigated. Our study suggests that leader
proactive personality may not lead to team success as one may expect. In fact, leader proactive
14
personality might be harmful to subordinate well being and thus hinder team success when
subordinates are passive (e.g., seeking resources is low). This study provides a fuller understanding
of proactive personality by demonstrating its negative impact on team outcomes.
Third, this study also contributes to the literature on proactive behavior by examining subordinate
seeking resources as a moderator of the effect of leader proactive personality. We suggest that
seeking resources is not only caused by leader characteristics (e.g., Griffin et al., 2010), but also can
help subordinate adapt to proactive leadership. Leaders high in proactive personality initiate
future-oriented goals and leading behaviors to improve the status quo (Wu & Wang, 2011). Seeking
job resources is suggested to facilitate employees adapt to the demands of a changing situation
(Grant & Parker, 2009; Kira, van Eijnatten, & Balkin, 2010). This study provides evidence that
subordinate seeking job resources is an important contingency for the effect of leader proactive
personality on team outcomes.
Limitation and Future direction
There are several limitations in this study. First, our study found that when the level of
subordinate seeking resources is high, leader proactive personality did not influence team success
through team-level exhaustion. These results imply that future studies can explore other mediating
processes underlying the joint effect of leader proactive personality and subordinate seeking
resources on team success. For instance, as proactive leader is engaged to bring change to working
unit, employee readiness to change may play a role mediating the effect of leader proactive
15
personality (Lyons, 2008). Second, our study is also limited in the cross-sectional data. We
encourage future studies employing longitudinal design to replicate our findings. Third, Chinese
culture is characterized by high levels of power distance (Hofstede, 1991). Because high power
distance values likely enhance the legitimacy of a leader’s authority, employees in high power
distance societies may be more responsive to a leader’s behaviors. We recommend future work
explore the generalization of the current findings in other cultures with low power distance.
Practical Implication
As the world of work becomes increasingly uncertain, it is not enough for team leaders to just
fulfill the defined responsibilities and complete the assigned missions. Proactive team leaders, who
go beyond their required leadership roles and challenge work goals, can bring about positive
changes to their team and organization (Crant, 2000; Cross et al., 2013; Wu & Wang, 2011). Our
study, however, found the ‘dark side’ of proactive leadership namely leader proactive personality
causing team-level exhaustion and thus hindering team success particularly for passive teams.
Subordinate seeking resources plays a critical role in buffering the negative effect of leader
proactive personality. Our study suggest that managers could consider facilitating this proactive
behavior specifically when organizations or work teams undergo some change, for instance, by
providing employees more autonomy on the job and creating a more relaxing work environment.
16
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job
demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170-180.
Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The
role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations,65, 1359-1378.
Bakker, A. B., van Emmerik, H., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and engagement
in work teams. Work and Occupations, 33, 464-489.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A
measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data
aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research,
and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Michigan Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.),
17
Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71–138). New
York: Wiley-Interscience
Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job performance among real estate
agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532-537.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 26, 435-462.
Crossley, C. D., Cooper, C. D., & Wernsing, T. S. (2013). Making things happen through challenging
goals: Leader proactivity, trust, and business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
98, 540-549.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A
general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1-22.
Fuller Jr, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive
personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329-345.
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage:
The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 528-550.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and
proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317–375
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive
behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
327-347.
18
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive
and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 174-182
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress
process: advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 50, 337–370. DOI: 10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with
and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative
and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits,
general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52,
621-652.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review
and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 855-875.
Kim, T. Y., Hon, A. H., & Crant, J. M. (2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity, and
19
newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 93-103.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three
dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123-133.
Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., Kirkman, B. L. and Xie, Z. (2013), Spotlight on the Followers: An
Examination of Moderators of Relationships Between Transformational Leadership and
Subordinates’ Citizenship and Taking Charge. Personnel Psychology, 66, 225–260.
Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and
organizational citizenship behavior: a relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,
395-404.
Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business and Psychology,
23, 25–36.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Manual (3rd ed.). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change
A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 461-524.
Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Atwater, L. (2010). The downside of goal-focused
leadership: The role of personality in subordinate exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,
1145-1153.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career
20
success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416-427.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal
model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–974.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: a social capital perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011-1017.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186.
Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Personal resources
and work engagement in the face of change. In J. Houdmont & S. Leka (Eds.), Contemporary
occupational health psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 124 – 150). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and
performance in work units: A meta‐analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel
Psychology, 63, 41-81.
Wolpin, J., Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1991). Is job satisfaction an antecedent or a
consequence of psychological burnout? Human Relations, 44, 193-209.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and
voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486-493.
Wu, C.-H., & Wang, Y. (2011). Understanding proactive leadership. In W. H. Mobley, M. Li & Y.
Wang (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership (Vol. 6, pp. 299-314). Bingley, UK: Emerald
21
Group Publishing
Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work
outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55,
111-130.
22
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables.
Note. N = 53; + p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Leader proactive
personality
4.91 .60 1
2. Team-level seeking
resources
3.53 .31 -.074 1
3. Team-level exhaustion 1.92 .44 .132 -.134 1
4. Team-level job
satisfaction
5.47 .25 .121 .183 -.647** 1
5. Team performance 112.62 23.26 .069 -.197 -.250+ .148 1
6. Team size 9.57 4.96 .166 -.049 -.100 .056 .252 1
7. Leader gender 1.43 .50 -.093 -.129 .015 .042 -.184 -.023 1
8. Leader tenure 22.43 25.04 .060 -.033 .120 -.004 -.030 -.020 .272* 1
23
Table 2
Regression equations for testing Hypothesis 2-3
Predictor Team-level
exhaustion
Team-level job
satisfaction
Team
performance
Control variablesa
Leader proactive personality
.377* -.100 .041 -.007 .064
Team-level seeking resources -.066
Leader proactive personality ×
Team-level seeking resources
-.362*
Team-level exhaustion
-.593*** -.299*
R2
.229 .670*** .385*
Note. a: Team size and nine dummy variables for district were controlled in every regression equation.
Values are standardized beta coefficients. * p < .05, *** p < .001.
24
Table 3
Estimates and Bias-corrected Bootstrapped 95% Confidence Interval for the Conditional Indirect
effects of Leader Proactive Personality on Team-level Job satisfaction and Team Performance at
Different Levels of Team-level Seeking Resources
Note. Bootstrapped estimates for the standard error (SE) are presented. N=53
Team-level job satisfaction Team-level performance
Team-level
seeking resources
Level of
moderator
Estimates
(SE)
Confidence
interval
Estimates
(SE)
Confidence
interval
- SD -.18 (.10) [-.42, -.05] -8.61(5.40) [-24.38, -.78]
Mean -.09 (.06) [-.24, -.01] -.00 (.01) [-13.22, .22]
+ SD .00 (.05) [-.09, .11] -.03 (.01) [-4.44, 6.48]
25
Figure 1. The proposed research model
Leader proactive
personality
Team-level
exhaustion
Team
performance
Team-level
job satisfaction
Team-level
seeking resources
26
Figure 2
Moderating effect of team-level seeking resources on the relationship between leader proactive
personality and team-level exhaustion