How and When Does Psychological Wellbeing Contribute to Proactive Performance? The Role of Social Resources and Job Characteristics

Abstract

Are psychologically healthy employees more proactive at work? Surprisingly, responses to this question are lacking as empirical research has overlooked the wellbeing–proactive performance relationship. Drawing insights from the conservation of resources theory and the motivational fit perspective, this study proposes that leader-member exchange and team-member exchange act as social resources that convey the benefits of psychological wellbeing to subsequent proactive performance. Moreover, job complexity and task interdependence—two job characteristics that enhance the motivational potential of social resources—are expected to amplify these positive indirect relationships. Data from a three-wave, time-lagged study conducted among employees (N = 318) from French-Canadian organizations were used to test our hypothesized model. The results indicated that leader-member exchange mediated a positive relationship between wellbeing and proactive performance and that the contribution of wellbeing to proactive performance via leader-member exchange was increased when job complexity was higher. We also found a negative indirect relationship between wellbeing and proactive performance via team-member exchange when team interdependence was lower. Theoretical and practical implications of this research are discussed.

My team makes me think I can (not) do it: team processes influence proactive motivational profiles over time

“…Interestingly, energised to did not emerge as a key defining feature of either profile. This relates to work that was previously described energised to as a more distal antecedent that influences motivational states only indirectly (Boudrias et al, 2021;Parker et al, 2010). Our results add to this, as a reason to and can do emerged as the characteristic profile features.…”

Self-Determination Theory and Accountant Employees’ Psychological Wellbeing: The Roles of Positive Affectivity and Psychological Safety

“…Furthermore, employees’ psychological wellbeing has become an important issue that receives a great attention of researchers and business managers in the past decades ( Kundi et al, 2020 ). In the workplace, improving employees’ psychological wellbeing not only benefits employees’ health conditions and work performance but also increases firms’ productivity and performance ( Boudrias et al, 2021 ). This study proposes and tests a unique model to explain the mediating and moderating mechanisms of positive affectivity and psychological safety in the link between self-determination motivations and psychological wellbeing.…”

“…It has been an important research topic in the fields of psychology and organizational management ( Karapinar et al, 2020 ). Prior studies have reported that psychological wellbeing is an important antecedent of job performance ( Wright and Cropanzano, 2000 ), health ( Cartwright and Cooper, 2008 ), positive job and work attitudes ( Robertson et al, 2012 ), organizational performance ( Loon et al, 2019 ), and employee performance ( Boudrias et al, 2021 ). As psychological wellbeing plays an important role in influencing employees’ motivations, emotions, and behaviors at work and in social life, researchers and business managers have focused on investigating the antecedents of psychological wellbeing with an effort to improve employees’ psychological wellbeing ( Karapinar et al, 2020 ; Kundi et al, 2020 ; Boudrias et al, 2021 ).…”

Are wellbeing dimensions differentially related to employee proactive behavior? The joint moderating effects of knowledge job demands and empowering leadership

“…PB is defined as employees' engagement in self-initiated behaviors oriented towards improving their work environment, their role in the organization and their own skills Campbell, 2000;Griffin et al, 2007). Sometimes referred to as proactive performance when a supervisor assesses this set of behaviors (e.g., Boudrias, Montani, & Vandenberghe, 2021), the term PB is appropriate when considered from the perspective of employees. PB can be distinguished from innovation as it does not include the same set of behaviors (Déprez, 2017) and the results of PB do not need to be an objective departure from organizational practices (Parker & Collins, 2010;Potočnik & Anderson, 2016).…”