Managing the Risks of Proactivity: A Multilevel Study of Initiative and Performance in the Middle Management Context

Abstract

Academy of Management Journal AbstractDrawing on theories of behavioral decision making and situational strength, we developed and tested a multilevel model that explains how the performance outcomes of personal initiative tendency depend on the extent of alignment between organizational control mechanisms and proactive individuals' risk propensities. Results from a sample of 383 middle managers operating in 34 business units of a large multinational corporation indicated that risk propensity weakens the positive relationship between personal initiative tendency and job performance. This negative moderating effect was further amplified when middle managers receive high job autonomy but was attenuated in business units with a strong performance management context. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on proactivity, risk taking, and organizational control.

Rethinking ‘Top‐Down’ and ‘Bottom‐Up’ Roles of Top and Middle Managers in Organizational Change: Implications for Employee Support

“…MMs are often presented as impediments to change (Balogun, 2003;Rouleau and Balogun, 2011). However, there is evidence indicating that MMs can, and do, initiate change (e.g., Glaser et al, 2016;Huy, 2001;Mantere, 2008). In particular, MMs more directly confront technological and market developments (Fourn e et al, 2014;Taylor and Helfat, 2009).…”

“…Topdown perspectives view TMs as initiators of change (Carpenter et al, 2004), traditionally portraying MMs as reluctant executors (Balogun and Johnson, 2005;Guth and MacMillan, 1986). In turn, bottom-up perspectives (Wooldridge et al, 2008) emphasize the pivotal role of MMs in initiating change (Burgelman, 1983;Glaser et al, 2016;Huy, 2001), but assume that TMs are not always receptive to initiatives emanating from below (Day, 1994;Dutton et al, 1997;Friesl and Kwon, 2016;Rouleau, 2005). Although both top-down and bottom-up streams have been illustrative, they have largely developed in parallel and have each reinforced a restricted range of change roles that TMs and MMs can play-with little cross-fertilization.…”

Human resource flexibility and performance in the hotel industry

“…For instance, it allows organization members to think about ways to reduce costs and develop new innovations in service delivery (Youndt and Snell, 2004;Nieves and Quintana, 2016). Some empirical studies have provided evidence of the impact that such a flexible employee has on working performance (Crant, 1995;Glaser, Stam and Takeuchi, 2015), on job satisfaction (Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer, 1999;Glaser, Stam and Takeuchi, 2015), on productivity, on customer service, and on the degree of commitment to the organization (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999;Beltrán-Martín et al, 2008Camps et al, 2015), as well as on objective financial performance measures (Bhattacharya et al, 2005;Ngo and Loi, 2008) and on subjective financial performance measures (Ketkar andSett, 2009, 2010). This leads us to propose the following hypothesis:…”

The Role of Work Discretion in Activating Entrepreneurial Orientation among Employees

“…In executing such changes, the employees tend to act in advance in response to a future situation by taking control and subsequently causing a change (Parker & Collins, 2010), and ultimately contributing to organizational effectiveness (Tims et al, 2012). The activation of proactiveness as a result of job autonomy is more prevalent in the context of an organization which experiences weak performance management and the impact of proactiveness is usually reflected in the form of job performance (Glaser et al, 2016) and increased effectiveness (Rapp, Agnihotri, Baker, & Andzulis, 2015).…”