Sharon K. Parker

A new model of work role performance: positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts

We propose that interdependence in a work context determines to what extent work roles are embedded within a broader social system and, further, that uncertainty determines whether work roles can be formalized or whether they emerge through adaptive and proactive behavior. Cross-classification of task, team member, and organization member behaviors with proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity produced nine subdimensions of work role performance. Ratings from 491 supervisors from 32 organizations and self-ratings from employees in two organizations (ns = 1,228 and 927) supported the proposed distinctions. Self-reports of proactivity were positively correlated with two external measures of proactivity.

Modeling the Antecedents of Proactive Behavior at Work

Using a sample of U.K. wire makers (N = 282), the authors tested a model in which personality and work environment antecedents affect proactive work behavior via cognitive-motivational mechanisms. Self-reported proactive work behaviors (proactive idea implementation and proactive problem solving) were validated against rater assessments for a subsample (n = 60) of wire makers. With the exception of supportive supervision, each antecedent was important, albeit through different processes. Proactive personality was significantly associated with proactive work behavior via role breadth self-efficacy and flexible role orientation, job autonomy was also linked to proactive behavior via these processes, as well as directly; and coworker trust was associated with proactive behavior via flexible role orientation. In further support of the model, the cognitive-motivational processes for proactive work behavior differed from those for the more passive outcome of generalized compliance.

7 Redesigning Work Design Theories: The Rise of Relational and Proactive Perspectives

Abstract Many scholars assume that the fundamental questions about work design have been answered. However, a global shift from manufacturing economies to service and knowledge economies has dramatically altered the nature of work in organizations. To keep pace with these important and rapid changes, work design theory and research is undergoing a transformation. We trace the highlights of two emerging viewpoints on work design: relational perspectives and proactive perspectives. Relational perspectives focus on how jobs, roles, and tasks are more socially embedded than ever before, based on increases in interdependence and interactions with coworkers and service recipients. Proactive perspectives capture the growing importance of employees taking initiative to anticipate and create changes in how work is performed, based on increases in uncertainty and dynamism. Together, these two perspectives challenge the widely held belief that new developments in work design theory and research are no longer needed....

Making Things Happen: A Model of Proactive Motivation

Being proactive is about making things happen, anticipating and preventing problems, and seizing opportunities. It involves self-initiated efforts to bring about change in the work environment and/or oneself to achieve a different future. The authors develop existing perspectives on this topic by identifying proactivity as a goal-driven process involving both the setting of a proactive goal (proactive goal generation) and striving to achieve that proactive goal (proactive goal striving). The authors identify a range of proactive goals that individuals can pursue in organizations. These vary on two dimensions: the future they aim to bring about (achieving a better personal fit within one’s work environment, improving the organization’s internal functioning, or enhancing the organization’s strategic fit with its environment) and whether the self or situation is being changed. The authors then identify “can do,” “reason to,” and “energized to” motivational states that prompt proactive goal generation and sustain goal striving. Can do motivation arises from perceptions of self-efficacy, control, and (low) cost. Reason to motivation relates to why someone is proactive, including reasons flowing from intrinsic, integrated, and identified motivation. Energized to motivation refers to activated positive affective states that prompt proactive goal processes. The authors suggest more distal antecedents, including individual differences (e.g., personality, values, knowledge and ability) as well as contextual variations in leadership, work design, and interpersonal climate, that influence the proactive motivational states and thereby boost or inhibit proactive goal processes. Finally, the authors summarize priorities for future research.

Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating Multiple Proactive Behaviors

The authors aimed to clarify the similarities, differences, and interrelationships among multiple types of proactive behavior. Factor analyses of managers’ self-ratings (N = 622) showed concepts were distinct from each other but related via a higher-order structure. Three higher-order proactive behavior categories were identified—proactive work behavior, proactive strategic behavior, and proactive person-environment fit behavior—each corresponding to behaviors aimed at bringing about change in the internal organization (e.g., voice), the fit between the organization and its environment (e.g., issue selling), and the fit between the individual and the organization (e.g., feedback seeking), respectively. Further analyses on a subsample (n = 319) showed similarities and differences in the antecedents of these behaviors.

Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design

Developments in work design theory have not kept pace with the changes occurring in the organizational landscape. We propose a theoretical framework that specifies five categories of work design variables that span individual, group and organizational levels of analysis. Specifically, we propose an elaborated model of work design that includes: systematic consideration of antecedents of work characteristics; expansion of the traditional range of work characteristics to include aspects salient to the modern context; extension of the range of outcome variables beyond the existing narrow focus on affective reactions; analysis of the mechanisms, or processes, that explain why work characteristics lead to particular outcomes; and consideration of contingencies that moderate the effects of work characteristics. We argue that the particular choice of work design variables should be guided by theory and an analysis of the organizational context.

Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and the mediating role of work characteristics.

The author discusses results from a 3 year quasi-experimental field study (N = 368), which suggest negative effects on employee outcomes after the implementation of 3 lean production practices: lean teams, assembly lines, and workflow formalization. Employees in all lean production groups were negatively affected, but those in assembly lines fared the worst, with reduced organizational commitment and role breadth self-efficacy and increased job depression. A nonequivalent control group had no negative changes in outcomes. Mediational analyses showed that the negative effects of lean production were at least partly attributable to declines in perceived work characteristics (job autonomy, skill utilization, and participation in decision making). The study also shows the longitudinal effects of these work characteristics on psychological outcomes. Implications for lean production, work design, and employee well-being are discussed.

Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: the role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality.

Using a sample of 268 production employees, this study extended research on R. Karaseks (1979) demands-control model of stress in 2 ways. First, results show that R. Karaseks proposed interaction between demands and control when predicting strain occurred only for more proactive employees. This 3-way interaction helps reconcile previous inconsistent findings about the interaction between demands and control when predicting strain. Second, the study extends research by investigating the demands-control interaction and the moderating influence of proactive personality in relation to learning-oriented outcomes (perceived mastery, role breadth self-efficacy, and production ownership). There were no 3-way interactions among the variables when predicting these learning-oriented outcomes, but all were important predictors. These results show (a) that demands and control can influence learning as proposed in the dynamic version of the demands-control model and (b) that proactive personality plays an important moderating role.

Designing a safer workplace: importance of job autonomy, communication quality, and supportive supervisors.

The direct and indirect effects of work characteristics on self-reported safe working were investigated in a longitudinal study of frontline manufacturing employees (N = 161). The work characteristics included job autonomy, role overload, role conflict, supportive supervision, training adequacy, job security, and communication quality. Job autonomy and communication quality were positively associated with safe working after prior levels of these variables were controlled for, and supportive supervision had a lagged positive effect on safe working 18 months later. Additional analyses showed that organizational commitment fully mediated the effect of job autonomy on safe working and partially mediated the effect of communication quality on safe working. The study suggests that work characteristics are important antecedents of safe working.

From Passive to Proactive Motivation: The Importance of Flexible Role Orientations and Role Breadth Self-efficacy

Despite the widely held belief that a proactive workforce is necessary for competitive advantage, research investigating how to assess and promote such change is limited. Two potentially important precursors to proactivity include flexible role orientation (FRO) and role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE). These concepts have been shown to have construct validity and to be distinct from related dispositional variables, but their discriminant validity in terms of outcome variables has not been demonstrated. In this article, I show that FRO and RBSE are factorially distinct from outcomes commonly used in organisational research (job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and job strain). I also show that, as expected, the proactive motivation and traditional outcome variables have different relationships with various predictor variables. I outline the study implications, and suggest a broader research agenda on proactive motivation.