SummaryAlthough new theoretical models that are suggestive of how work design might be used to foster proactive motivation and proactive performance have been proposed, these models need further elaboration and testing if they are to be useful tools for contemporary organizations. Accordingly, we examine the extent to which feelings of responsibility for constructive change is a proactive psychological mechanism that explains how work design characteristics influence constructive change-oriented behavior and proactive performance. Specifically, we examine job autonomy, position in the organizational hierarchy, access to resources, access to strategy-related information, and role ambiguity as antecedents to felt responsibility for constructive change (FRCC). We also examine the extent to which feelings of responsibility for constructive change are positively related to voice behavior (i.e., constructive, change-oriented communication) and continuous improvement (i.e., proactive role performance). Results indicate hierarchical position and access to resources are positively related to FRCC. Results also indicate proactive personality moderates the relationship between access to resources and FRCC and the relationship between access to strategy-related information and FRCC. Plots of the interactions reveal that these relationships are enhanced for individuals with proactive personalities. The results also indicate that FRCC is positively related to voice behavior and continuous improvement. Perhaps more importantly, the results suggest that FRCC explains the psychological process by which structural and socio-structural forces influence proactive behavior. The results are discussed as they pertain to updated work design theory and theories of high involvement work systems, job characteristics, and leadership prototypes.

The group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) suggests that identification with one's organization is based not only on the individual's evaluation of the status of the organization (i.e. perceived external prestige), but also the individual's evaluation of their own status within the organization (i.e. perceived internal respect). Using data drawn from three different sources (subordinates, supervisors, and company records), results from a sample of healthcare employees ( n = 205) provide support for the core relationships proposed in the group engagement model and extend the model by showing that prestige and respect have different antecedents. The perceived status of the organization's employees, the organization's perceived success in achieving its goals, the visibility of the organization, and the status level of the individual employee were all associated with perceived external prestige. The results also indicate that visibility within the organization, perceived opportunities for growth, and participation in decision-making were all related to perceived respect. Further, prestige and respect were directly related to organizational identification, but only indirectly related to organization-supportive behavior. These results extend the group engagement model in that we utilize a form of supportive behavior that focuses upon constructive change (i.e. voice behavior; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), rather than the helpful, but status quo maintaining behavior.

This study used meta-analysis to explore the relationship between charismatic leadership and satisfaction with the leader, perceived leader's effectiveness, and performance. To maintain construct consistency Bass' 1985 conceptualization of charisma was used. Results indicate potential moderating effects for two moderators of research design (objective/subjective performance and percept-percept/multisource study design) and for two theoretically predicted moderators (organizational level of focal leader and organizational context). The results are discussed in relation to implicit leadership theory and cognitive classification theory.

Summary The research questions posed in this study highlight the importance of valuing proactivity in both prompting an individual to engage in proactive behavior and encouraging the expression of that behavior. We integrate a variety of constructs from the proactivity literature to gain a deeper understanding of proactive behavior as it relates to proactive motivation and supervisory performance evaluations. First, we draw upon self‐determination theory, expectancy–value theory, and the recent integration of the proactive motivation literature to hypothesize that proactive behavior is predicted by the interaction of “can do” and “reason to” proactive motivational states. Second, on the basis of performance theory, we hypothesize that the relationship between proactive behavior and performance depends upon the extent to which the supervisor values proactivity. Specifically, we argue that supervisors with proactive personalities are more likely to value and reward subordinate proactive behavior than passive supervisors. Results provide support for both of our hypotheses. Interestingly, results show that proactive behavior did not result in negative consequences but rather that there was a cost (i.e., lower performance rating) for not taking charge for employees with proactive supervisors. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract